Problem Solvers Caucus: Organizations for/against framework

I'm not aware of much, @Mike Holler. The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) and Grid Action like it.

@Dana Nuccitelli thank you, I had figured as much. Good to have the list of two that are pro-! I will provide those statements to the MoC's staff.

@Mike Holler when you say framework, I assume you mean regarding their September 2025 PSC “Permitting Reform Framework”. Correct?
Assuming that is the case here is what I found in a quick (non-exhaustive) seaarch:

Organizations that Support the framework, or appear to:
Clean-energy & grid advocates:
ACORE (American Council on Renewable Energy); Grid Action / Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACEG)
Business / real-estate / infrastructure voices
The Real Estate Roundtable (RER); Various business & industry coalitions advocating permitting reform in general (Ex. US Chamber of Commerce 2023 U.S. Chamber–led letter supporting streamlining environmental permitting signed by 90+ national and state business groups and some labor unions)
Center-right “climate conservative” sphere
ACC Action (American Conservation Coalition’s policy arm); NEPPA (New England Public Power Association)

Organizations that are skeptical
Environmental / EJ advocates (general)

Law360; RTO Insider; San Diego Community Power, Arizona environmental planners; Sierra Club California and others [Concerns are that NEPA-weakening proposals (PSC framework, SPEED Act, etc.) are facing pushback from environmental justice and local-control advocates, with concerns about shortened timelines, narrowed standing, and reduced community input in litigation.]

General Opposition to PSC & No Labels
Mark Pocan and elements of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; Left-leaning commentators & organizations (e.g., MR Online).

@Nathaniel Short thanks for this. Do you have sources for each of these?

@Mike Holler
Here is a more complete list, showing position and a links to the source. Note that since this framework is so recent, we can expect more pros and cons to roll in:

A. Organizations broadly supportive / aligned with the PSC permitting framework (or very similar reforms)

ACORE (American Council on Renewable Energy)
Position: Supportive of the PSC permitting framework as a bipartisan step to modernize siting/permitting for clean energy and transmission.
Source:

• https://acore.org/news/acore-statement-on-new-framework-introduced-for-permitting-reform-by-the-house-problem-solvers-caucus/

Grid Action / Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACEG)
Position: Supportive; praises the PSC framework as an important step for transmission-focused permitting reform.
Source:

• https://gridaction.org/problem-solvers-caucus-releases-bipartisan-permitting-reform-framework/

The Real Estate Roundtable (RER)
Position: Supportive of permitting reform generally; references PSC-style federal reforms as essential to enabling energy and grid investment.
Source (tag page that collects their grid / permitting content):

• https://www.rer.org/tag/electric-grid/

U.S. Chamber of Commerce & coalition (90+ business & trade groups)
Position: Supportive of broad permitting reform, including NEPA streamlining and tighter timelines, aligned with the direction of PSC-style reforms.
Source (coalition letter on permitting reform):

• https://www.uschamber.com/energy/coalition-letter-on-permitting-reform/

ACC Action (American Conservation Coalition Action)
Position: Supportive of bipartisan permitting/NEPA reform; promotes its own permitting framework and applauds similar bipartisan bills.
Sources:

• ACC Action permitting framework/recommendations:
  https://accaction.eco/pr-permitting-framework/
• ACC Action release applauding bipartisan NEPA reform (SPEED Act):
  https://accaction.eco/bipartisan-nepa-pr/

ACC (American Conservation Coalition – nonprofit arm)
Position: Supportive of “modernizing NEPA” and streamlining permitting for energy projects, especially in the context of AI-driven energy demand.
Source:

• https://acc.eco/blog/2025/05/09/ai-demand-recs/

NEPPA – New England Public Power Association
Position: Appears broadly favorable / engaged: legislative updates highlight the PSC permitting framework as a notable bipartisan development on permitting, without opposing it.
Source (legislative updates page):

• https://neppa.org/legislative-updates/

Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Position: Supportive of congressional permitting reform efforts; cited as backing the PSC permitting framework and similar reforms.
Source (news article describing the PSC framework and support from EEI and others):

• https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bipartisan-house-permitting-reform-bill/760477/

B. Groups / communities skeptical or critical of NEPA-weakening permitting reforms (including PSC-type ideas)

Sierra Club California (example of EJ / environmental concern)
Position: Opposed to permitting/CEQA streamlining that shortens review windows and limits legal challenges; warns about consequences for EJ communities and ecosystems. These critiques map directly onto concerns about shortened timelines and narrowed standing in federal NEPA reform (PSC/SPEED).
Sources:

• The Well News article quoting Jakob Evans, Sierra Club California:
  https://www.thewellnews.com/in-the-states/california/california-rolls-back-environmental-protection-to-aid-housing-development/
• Example advocacy statement (via Friends of the Inyo post that includes a Sierra Club CA quote):
  https://www.facebook.com/friendsoftheinyo/posts/1053125833652555/

Environmental & EJ groups generally (re: “energy emergency” and NEPA weakening)
Position: Opposed to aggressive federal NEPA weakening and emergency permitting shortcuts that reduce public input and environmental review; argue reforms disproportionately benefit fossil fuel projects.
(Representative example of the kind of coverage used by EJ advocates — you can reference this as context:)

• Supreme Court / NEPA fights overview (E&E News, often cited by environmental groups):
  https://www.eenews.net/articles/supreme-courts-nepa-ruling-will-reshape-ferc-climate-fights/

Arizona environmental planners / NEPA professionals
Position: Professionally critical/concerned; share Law360 articles on congressional NEPA reforms and court trends that may constrain environmental review and litigation (including PSC/SPEED).
Source (NEPA updates page linking Law360 NEPA articles):

• https://www.azenvironmental.org/nepa-updates

Key Law360 articles they flag (good to have explicit URLs):

• “Court Limits In Congress’ NEPA Reform Push Spark Debate”:
  https://www.law360.com/articles/2395260/court-limits-in-congress-nepa-reform-push-spark-debate
• “FERC Finding Friendlier Courts In Gas Project Approval Fights”:
  https://www.law360.com/articles/2395111/ferc-finding-friendlier-courts-in-gas-project-approval-fights

San Diego Community Power (SDCP) – Board / CAC materials
Position: Monitoring and raising issues; staff summaries describe the PSC “energy permitting reform proposal,” highlighting NEPA changes (shortened statutes of limitations, focus on eliminating duplicative reviews) for board and advisory committee consideration.
Source (board packet that includes PSC permitting framework summary):

• https://sdcommunitypower.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BOD-packet-10232025-2.pdf

Law360 (trade press widely cited in the debate)
Position: Not advocacy, but provides detailed coverage of congressional NEPA reforms (PSC framework, SPEED Act, etc.), emphasizing their implications for litigation and environmental review.
Main article on NEPA reform and courts:

• https://www.law360.com/articles/2395260/court-limits-in-congress-nepa-reform-push-spark-debate

RTO Insider (industry/market press)
Position: Again, not advocacy; covers grid/market stakeholders reacting to the PSC permitting framework and related reforms, often quoting both supporters and critics.
Representative news reprint / summary of the PSC framework:

• https://www.energycentral.com/energy-management/post/news-bipartisan-house-group-releases-permitting-reform-framework-woVRMclN6Vm0OM7
  (Original Utility Dive article it points to, which RTO-type audiences read and discuss):
• https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bipartisan-house-permitting-reform-bill/760477/

C. General opposition to No Labels / Problem Solvers Caucus from the left

Rep. Mark Pocan & elements of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
Position: Strongly critical of No Labels and the PSC; Pocan says he was “duped” and now views them as a “fast track for special interests and lobbyists,” not genuine gridlock-breakers.
Sources:

• Problem Solvers Caucus page (quoting Pocan’s critique):
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_Solvers_Caucus
• Discussion referencing his HuffPost article “’No Labels’ Needs A Warning Label”:
  (HuffPost itself is sometimes paywalled/harder to permalink directly, but this thread quotes key passages and title.)
  https://iidb.org/threads/end-the-filibuster.22088/page-5

MR Online / Inequality.org / Take On Wall Street – “Wolves of Wall Street” essay
Position: Opposed; argues that No Labels and the PSC are vehicles for Wall Street and corporate interests under a centrist, bipartisan brand.
Primary article (on Inequality.org):

• https://inequality.org/article/no-labels-problem-solvers-wall-street/

Syndicated/reposted versions:

• Common Dreams:
  https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/14/no-labels-and-problem-solvers-are-wolves-wall-street-sheeps-clothing
• Take On Wall Street (blog repost):
  https://takeonwallst.com/2019/01/welcome-to-new-take-on-wall-street-site/