RFF study on permitting and litigation of solar and wind
In Delays to Wind and Solar Energy Projects: Permitting and Litigation Are Not the Only Obstacles, Resources for the Future researchers created timelines showing how long different parts of an Environmental Impact Statement takes and how long after one is complete, that a solar or wind installation is operational.
First, something that I should have known but didn't:
“Established in 1970 through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), environmental review is required for major projects located on federal lands or seeking federal financial support.” and “Note that the solar and wind projects reviewed under NEPA account for only a small fraction of the increase in installed renewable capacity during the 2010–2023 period.”
But all projects need permitting, yes? Just not all are subject to NEPA? Of course, NEPA is still very important in the West where there is so much federal land.
Here are their timelines:
Figure 1. Timelines for Solar and Wind Energy Projects
(A) Concentrated Solar Projects

(B) Photovoltaic Solar Projects

(C) Onshore Wind Projects

Notes: NOI = notice of intent, FEIS = final environmental impact statement, ROD = record of decision.
“In our sample, about 60 percent of wind and solar projects completed the formal NEPA EIS process within two years (Figure 1). However, one-third of the solar projects and half of the wind projects exceeded the two-year deadline specified in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. These types of projects likely account for a disproportionate share of the policy conversation about problematic NEPA-related delays in clean energy development.”
… “For the post-NEPA review period, 11 of 24 solar projects and 6 of 14 wind projects required more than four years to complete construction and begin operation from the date that a record of decision had been issued. This delay in completing construction and beginning operation suggests that these projects encountered additional obstacles after the formal NEPA review process.”
Would part of that also include other aspects of permitting besides just NEPA?
…"While most projects completed review with a finding of no significant impact within two years, 13 of 19 solar projects required more than one year from their initial action date, the review period established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023."
So time limits aren't very useful? Or would it have been even longer than two years if the one-year limit hadn't been there?
Hi @Nancy Jacobson. Most solar and wind project developers try to build on private land so as to avoid NEPA as much as possible. It's a waste because we have a lot of federally-owned land that would be very suitable for solar and wind projects if NEPA weren't such an obstacle. But it's an even bigger problem for transmission lines, because those cross so much land that they have a lot of permitting obstacles.
I believe the RFF paper is looking at projects completed prior to the new time limit requirements on federal NEPA reviews.
@Dana Nuccitelli the huge Esmeralda 7 solar project in Nevada was just apparently canceled by the BLM, a decision celebrated by generally conservative rural residents and generally liberal conservation/wildlife/habitat advocates. A “side effect” from the buildout of large transmission lines is that solar developers plan massive scale solar developments along those lines to maximize power development. Thus the overall footprint of the transmission corridor is huge. It is much more cost-efficient to build giant developments that might impinge on fragile habitat and culturally important lands than to select the areas that are most suitable for solar development. For us locally, this is a large and growing barrier to permitting reform. I hope CCL will be careful to really examine the community involvement piece of any proposed legislation.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency