You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
New research published today in Nature shocked even the study’s own authors.

Hurricane Helene is, by conventional measures, the deadliest hurricane to strike the continental United States since Katrina. At least 182 people have been confirmed killed by the storm, with hundreds of people still unaccounted for. Although all hurricanes are deadly, only a handful of storms have killed more than 100 people since 1950. Or at least that is what we have long thought. New research suggests that these conventional tallies may be a vast undercount.
Several years ago, two economists and public policy researchers — Rachel Young and Solomon Hsiang, now of Princeton and Stanford — began to study a seemingly simple question: How many Americans do hurricanes kill each year? According to the federal government, the average hurricane kills 24 people after making landfall. That seemed likely to be a modest underestimate. Economists know that natural disasters can have a long tail of suffering; Hsiang expected the real number to be a “single digit multiple” of that figure — perhaps 50 or 100 people per storm.
Yet when they ran the numbers and looked at mortality in places affected by storms, they were initially perplexed by the results, Hsiang told me earlier this week. The numbers they came up with didn’t even make sense at first.
“It was months of us trying to understand what we were looking at,” Hsiang said. “And then once we realized what we were seeing, it was years of us checking our work to find what we missed.” Only when it was clear that their work resembled other American public health statistics — specifically, that the white-Black mortality mirrored what has been found in other studies — that the horrifying truth sunk in.
The finding: Hurricanes are hundreds of times deadlier than anyone has realized.
Their study, which was published on Wednesday in Nature, finds that the average hurricane kills 7,000 to 11,000 people after making landfall in the United States. These previously uncounted deaths happened not during a storm or in its immediate aftermath, but as a long, slow trickle of mortality that plagues a region long after the clouds have cleared and floods have abated.
In any one year, the number of storm-related deaths is not very high. And yet a wave of excess deaths is visible in population data for at least 15 years after a storm hits an area, they found.
“It lasts for so many years, and because there’s so many storms hitting so many states, once you add up, it becomes this enormous number,” Hsiang told me. When added together, hurricanes’ long-term death toll exceeds American combat deaths in all wars, combined. The number so dwarfs previous estimates that it suggests tropical cyclones alone are a major determinant of public health across the United States.
Kerry Emanuel, an MIT meteorology professor who studies climate change and hurricanes, told me that the results were “truly astounding” and “persuasive,” although he noted that he is not an expert in the statistical approach used in the paper.
“Summed over all hurricanes, this amounts to three to five percent of all deaths near the Atlantic coast,” he said. “I expect this result will prove controversial and will be followed up by many other studies of long-term mortality from natural disasters.”
The paper fits into a growing body of research on what others have called the hidden or invisible public health threat of environmental threats. For years, researchers have known that air pollution and heat waves, seemingly silent hazards, can in fact kill tens of thousands of people. Lately they have begun to apply the same techniques to other hazards, with outsized results.
Officially, Hurricane Maria killed 64 people when it struck Puerto Rico in 2017. But when researchers surveyed households across the island months after the storm, they found the death toll was closer to 4,600. (The territory’s government later revised the official figure to 2,975.) These deaths were caused not by the cyclone’s high winds or torrential floods, but rather by secondary effects of the storm’s destruction. Maria took out the island’s power grid and road networks, for instance, and preventing people with heart attacks and strokes from reaching the hospital in time.
That paper was written six months after Maria struck the island; this new hurricane paper considers a wider time horizon, finding that more than 80,000 Americans die each year as a result of a hurricane, whenever it occurred. Black people were disproportionately killed by the aftermath of hurricanes, at least partly because a larger share of the country’s Black population lives in storm-afflicted areas. About 37,000 white deaths each year are due to a prior tropical cyclone.
How could such storms cause such a long tail of deaths, affecting areas 10 or 15 years after they come ashore? The paper cannot answer those questions today. But Hsiang and Young hypothesize that hurricanes cause extreme economic distress, which can resonate for years or decades afterward. “If someone suffers a loss and can’t invest in their business, then it will have ramifications for their income long into the future,” Hsiang told me. “If someone is on a fixed income and their garage is destroyed, and they pull from their retirement funds to fix the garage, then eight years later when they face a big medical decision, they might choose” a cheaper or less effective form of treatment.
“When you talk to people, you hear stories like this,” Hsiang added. The time and money invested in dealing with the storm is often a “pure loss,” even if some of the damage ultimately gets reimbursed. “Even if you have insurance, that just means you already paid for it in some way,” he said.
Storms cause disruption in other ways. They can break up communities and social networks. (If children move away, for instance, their parent can face higher medical bills.) Hurricanes can also impose high costs on states, towns, and cities, which may then have to reduce or restrict other services as a result.
“When you think about how communities rebuild — local municipalities and states — they also play a lot of games with their budget” in the aftermath of a storm, Hsiang said. “If they spend a lot of money to rebuild a bridge or boardwalk somewhere, does that come out of some social program 10 years later? Or building a new NICU hospital?” That could explain why an infant — even one born 15 years after a storm struck a given area — could face a higher chance of death.
Young and Hsiang think that these economic drivers are most likely to be the big reason for the excess deaths — the effect is just too big and drawn out to make any other cause likely — but other possibilities exist, they recognize. Hurricanes could be deadly simply because they are highly stressful events. “We see an effect on cancer rates and also cardiovascular illness. Stress matters a lot to those,” Hsiang said. It’s also possible that hurricanes unleash contamination into the environment that then makes people sick. A flooded basement can become a breeding ground for mold. “There’s gas stations in every town. What chemicals come out when there’s flooding?” Hsiang wondered.
The paper may also help resolve a riddle in American public health. On average, Americans die earlier in the eastern half of the continental United States than in the western half. This effect is worst in the Gulf Coast and Southeast but persists to some degree in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
The paper suggests that hurricanes may have something to do with this geographic phenomenon. For infants, people below the age of 44, and Black people of all ages, hurricanes may explain a large share but not all of the mortality gap.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top fights around development.
1. Richland Parish, Louisiana – Gird your loins for the coming fight over the Meta Hyperion data center’s gas pipeline.
2. Spartanburg County, South Carolina – I have one last data center race to tell you to watch on Tuesday: South Carolina’s 4th, on the northern rim of the state.
3. Goodhue County, Minnesota – Google reached a settlement with an environmental group suing to stop its data center in the small southern Minnesota town of Pine Island, resulting in what local press are saying will be the Land of 10,000 Lakes first state-level environmental review of a data center project.
4. Trumbull County, Ohio – Ohio looks like it just got a tad friendlier for data center opponents.
Talking with Kevin Gundersen, the head of public affairs for Digital Realty.
This week’s conversation is with Kevin Gundersen, head of public affairs for data center developer Digital Realty. On Wednesday, Digital Realty released a fascinating poll as part of Infrastructure for America, a pro-data center organization that also includes Compass, Vantage Data Centers, and QTS. The poll pushed back on the idea that we’re currently in the middle of a “data center election”; instead, it found most voters are not expected to choose their national elected officials based on a politician’s stance on data centers.
I reached out to folks involved in the poll's release, and they put me in touch with Gundersen, whom I’ve met before and consider to be a straight shooter. He accepted my invitation to do a candid hot-seat chat about the findings, his thoughts on all the data center attack ads, and whether his industry’s actually recovering any ground with the American people.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So first off: Is this the “data center election”?
No. I think there are communities across this country that are learning about data centers and whose opinions are being formed by all sorts of things. I’ve also sat in communities that want data centers, that understand the benefits they provide, and I think there are loud voices on all ends of the spectrum saying things about data centers that frankly aren’t true. That’s unfortunate.
Now, that doesn’t dismiss people’s real concerns about data centers in communities that have never had them before or states that haven’t had them before. So it’s the industry’s job to have those conversations honestly and openly.
This is a new thing for the industry. If you look at the history of the data center industry, it was really confined to Northern Virginia, Santa Clara [California], and urban areas like New York City or Chicago where there are large customer bases and data needs. For the most part, people didn’t really pay attention to data centers.
This is now a historic build-out, so there’s an education going on. Data centers have become a physical manifestation of people’s fears about AI, and that’s something we need to manage as an industry. How we do that is to create organizations like IFA. Our company has been doing this for 25 years. We have 300 data centers around the world. For us, this is how we’ve always been doing this, but there’s no question our industry needs to be doing a better job as to why data centers benefit communities.
I think there’s a disconnect between what I see on the ground locally and the national narrative around the election. Every issue in America is nationalized. But if you look at some polls, this isn’t in the top five issues people are thinking about day to day.
It makes sense a data center developer would make this case. It’s your right to do so. But can you help me better understand the evidence, when we’re seeing so much television advertising attacking candidates for previous data center support?
The basis for me saying it is, I’ve sat in communities where people want data centers and been in parts of America that haven’t had revenue sources for decades. Now they have an opportunity for a data center in their city, county, state, and I think sometimes where there’s a disconnect is the national narrative around AI.
It’s hard to stop ChatGPT. But someone can use the data center as their target, so to speak. It’s the physical manifestation of their opposition to AI.
The biggest evidence is, there are a lot of communities that [have] welcomed data centers in the last 30 years. Not just the last couple of years. Santa Clara, California, is one of the nicest places in the country, and they have so many data centers. The history of people supporting data centers has been the norm, and the opposition is a relatively new thing in and of itself.
What about the electoral impacts? Have you personally not seen any? Either against your industry or for them?
We haven’t seen any of our developments’ electoral impacts on the local level yet. We could have this conversation next week after the election, but not yet. I honestly think I could answer that question better then.
But do I think data centers in most of America are the number one thing on people’s minds? No. Not when you talk to them outside the chatroom on Facebook when you can present dialogue and facts. There are communities that will decide they don’t want data centers. That’s fine. Some communities have made that decision. There are others who want them.
I’m not looking at next week. These developments are going to go on regardless of the election because there’s a huge demand for digital infrastructure, and a lot of communities do want these developments.
What do you see as the role of your polling when it comes to convincing the American public or the news media that this isn’t an election being decided by data centers?
IFA was created to tell stories about data centers and the benefits we provide to communities. These are real stories from real people and real companies. They’re mom-and-pop food trucks, electricians, real people all around the country. IFA is geared toward telling the story, a very positive story that is getting lost in the national debate.
When I think about the ads I see every day, the negative ads about data centers, these are real jobs. People making money wearing hard hats. I actually think it's unfortunate because I see people’s lives being lifted by data center development, and then they turn on their TV to see attacks on their industry.
The biggest companies in the world right now are taking their money and investing in the United States, creating a blue-collar jobs boom, and for some reason our politics make it something people want to oppose.
I think after the election there’ll be some kind of level set on both sides of the aisle because I think people were caught by surprise about some of the early polls on the AI issue that came out earlier this year. The industry wasn’t quick enough to talk about the benefits. But I think there are a lot of governors who’ve been balanced since they came into office about data center development, where they haven’t pushed moratoriums because they realize there are benefits from data centers.
The AI issue is great on the campaign trail, but separating AI from data centers and the investments they bring to a community is important. Data centers provide digital infrastructure. The demand for that is only going up.
Why should a skeptic of this industry believe this information from a developer?
I mean, have they talked to the IBEW? Have they talked to the unions? There are a lot of constituencies out there that see the benefits of data centers. Don’t take my word for it. Go to a community and talk to people.
There’s going to be people who don’t want a data center in their community, but if we do it openly, transparently, and tell the story of who we are — we’ve been around for 25 years! There’s all sorts of information out there about our company. And we’re going to keep talking to communities.
Why should they believe us? We don’t have anything to hide, and we’ll bring benefits to their community. That might sound like a cliché answer, but it’s the case.
What do you think the outcome will be from so many attack ads about data centers?
I think it's unfortunate, and I think it's bad for the country because elected officials right now are spending tens of millions of dollars in political ads telling people data centers are bad when in fact they bring huge benefits to communities.
We’re going to have to spend lots of time and energy and resources to make up for that. Perhaps we should’ve been doing this sooner. I’m sure we’d all in this industry loved to have gotten our story out before the campaign cycle took hold. We can’t go back and change the past.
I always say, we have the truth and physics on our side. What I mean by that is, we’ve got a great story, these developments have tons of benefits, and the demand is only going up. People have two phones. They have connected devices in their homes. Flat-screen TVs and Oura rings and Ring cameras. When you think about the digital products and services you use every day, it’s massive.
We’re going to have to tell our story. I do think a lot of elected officials at all levels of government want us to go do that. When I sit behind closed doors with folks, they know the benefits. People of both parties.
Can a key section of BAAJA be saved from unintended consequences?
Any bipartisan bill to update the nation’s permitting laws was always going to be a compromise, with advantages for the oil and gas industry as well as clean energy. Proponents of the Senate’s latest attempt at permitting reform have painted it as a delicate balance, a hard-won opportunity, and an all-or-nothing deal.
What, then, to make of drafting errors, or unintended consequences?
In the weeks since senators released the text of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, lawyers have been doing what lawyers often do, which is scour the bill for loopholes and ambiguous language. Many have raised concerns about the risks of one section in particular titled “Project Certainty” that’s designed to prevent presidents from discriminating against projects they dislike, such as by throttling projects that are already under construction, or outright refusing to permit certain types of energy — both of which Trump has tried to do to wind farms.
The red flags range from what were clearly accidental oversights, like that the bill would exempt projects that have obtained all their permits from complying with future regulations, to much more nitpicky, hypothetical issues, like that it might enable a company to orchestrate a permitting delay in order to win a big payout in court.
The question now in front of Senate negotiators before they put the whole package to a vote on November 9 is which of these issues are possible, or even desirable, to address in an amendment without destabilizing the whole package.
“I think there are legitimate legal readings of the bill that are not what was intended, and I think those are where you can make technical fixes,” Nat Keohane, the president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, which supports the bill, told me. “I think there’s some of it that was worked out as part of the broader package that was negotiated over months. And so, which things fall into which bin? That’s up to the authors.”
It’s no secret that getting politics out of permitting was table stakes for the bill’s Democratic authors, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico. Neither responded to questions about whether they were aware of critics’ concerns about these provisions or open to revising the language, although many sources I spoke to for this story told me they were aware of efforts underway on the Hill to make corrections to this section.
Heinrich’s office instead forwarded my inquiry to the American Council on Renewable Energy. In an interview, ACORE’s CEO Ray Long argued that some of the concerns lawyers have raised are valid, and tweaks and technical corrections are “fine” — but only if they don’t hold back the bill from a vote this year. He stressed that between the bipartisan permitting bill debated by the previous Congress and BAAJA, the Hill has been working on this issue for four years. “I think we should stop trying to make this bill perfect,” he said. “Consider it for what it is, which is a well-intentioned bill on both sides to get to a compromise that addresses a whole range of things and move forward with that.”
The “Project Certainty” section of the bill has two key components that critics are concerned about. The first is a set of provisions meant to prevent an administration from yanking permits or otherwise messing with projects that have all of their approvals, such as when the Trump administration revoked the Lava Ridge wind farm’s right-of-way, or when it issued stop-work orders on five offshore wind farms that were under construction.
The main issue here is that the text is written very broadly. It doesn’t just say that agencies can’t revoke permits; it says they can’t take any action “to interfere with or prevent the construction or operation at full capacity of a project” that has secured all of its federal approvals.
“That ‘operation at full capacity’ language seems to prevent any future action that could require existing facilities to modernize their technology or take steps to reduce their pollution,” Liz Zeleda, the federal regulatory director at the Southern Environmental Law Center, told me.
Of all the issues critics of the bill have raised, this one seems to have pretty unanimous support for a correction. “Nobody, I think, wanted to negotiate some kind of regulatory freeze here, and it’s a pretty clear technical fix,” Jane Flegal, a senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute, told me. “I have confidence that the negotiators will fix it.”
Then there are concerns that the bill would render any permits or authorizations issued by the Trump administration irrevocable, even if they were issued illegally. John Podesta, Biden’s former senior climate advisor, recently raised that possibility during a fireside chat at the University of Colorado Boulder. “They’re going to have a permit gorge like you’ve never seen, not really caring about whether they’re going through the legal steps to do it, and under this bill that’s not going to be reversed,” he said. His comments quickly ignited a fierce debate on social media over whether this was an accurate reading of the text.
The bill does list several exceptions that would allow agencies to revoke permits or authorizations, such as under a court order, or when the developer has violated the terms of the permit or another applicable law, or if the developer obtained the permit under false pretenses, or if revoking the permit is necessary to prevent imminent harms that were not identified in the original review process. Notably, “when the government’s authorization violates the law” is not on the list.
Nonetheless, a harmed party would still be able to make the case that Trump violated the Administrative Procedure Act in issuing a permit and get a court to vacate it, Ben Schifman, a senior technology fellow at the Institute for Progress and former Department of Justice lawyer, told me. The only edge case where that would not be true, as far as he can tell, is if the sole legal infraction in the permitting process was a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act or the National Historic Preservation Act, and no other applicable law. In that situation, the bill would, in fact, restrict the court from vacating the permit. However, a case like that is unusual, he said. “I will tell you, in all of my 10 years of practicing this kind of law at DOJ, it was very rare, and I’m struggling to think if there was even a single case that literally only brought one claim that was a NEPA claim.”
On the other hand, Sambhav Sankar, the senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice, argues that this interpretation assumes groups like his have the means to challenge all of the potentially illegal permitting decisions Trump makes. “We don’t have anywhere near the resources required,” he wrote in a blog post about Podesta’s comments, “and this legislation is explicitly aimed at making our challenges much harder to bring.” It’s not like the next administration will be able to sue itself to get a court order to vacate permits, he noted.
When I asked Schifman about this, he suggested the agency might be able to sue the permit holder, but admitted this was an ambiguity in the bill and “a good candidate for a few-word technical amendment.”
The second component of the “Project Certainty” title that’s raising alarm is a series of provisions meant to prevent unfair delays or denials for projects trying to obtain permits. The Trump administration, for example, has subjected wind and solar projects applying for permits to heightened reviews at the Interior Department, and simply stopped providing Department of Defense clearances to wind farms altogether.
The bill sets up a new legal pathway for project developers to sue the government for delaying or denying permits if they can demonstrate they are being targeted as part of a larger “pattern of disparate treatment.” To bring such a case, the developer would have to show its specific project type — a wind farm, for example — has seen a “substantial increase” in delays or denials compared to the previous five years. It may, but doesn’t have to, also produce supporting evidence, such as statements made by federal officials demonstrating a bias.
The choice of five years is the first thing that caught lawyers’ attention. Shortly after the bill came out, Matthew Littleton, a former deputy assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, argued on LinkedIn that this baseline would be unlikely to help clean energy projects in the near term, since once the law goes into effect, the preceding five years will be dominated by Trump administration obstruction.
If you’re optimistic that the next administration will be less hostile to renewable energy, that’s only a short-term problem. But by that same token, imagine a Democrat takes the White House in 2029, and for entirely legal reasons, their administration rejects more natural gas plant permits than Trump did. Perhaps the previous Environmental Protection Agency didn’t account for some newly significant risk. Under BAAJA, developers would have grounds to sue the government for exhibiting a “pattern of disparate treatment.”
While the choice of five years has been debated, a lot of the risks with this provision actually stem from the bill’s limits on what the government can do to defend its actions. While the text gestures at “improper” denials, “unreasonable” delays, and a show of government intent, it doesn’t actually require the plaintiff to prove any of those things to win a case. It specifically limits the court’s review to three things: the evidence produced by the project sponsor; the administrative record for the particular project in question (i.e. the permit application and agency response); and raw, statistical data from the government showing the number of projects of the same type that received approvals over the past year compared to the previous five, as well as the number that received denials or got delayed.
Per Littleton’s interpretation, the developer need not prove the agency acted in bad faith, and the court can’t even take into account a potentially well-reasoned explanation by the government for why the data display a certain pattern. Schifman mostly agreed with this, but noted that it’s possible the administrative record would contain evidence about why the disparity occurred.
It’s possible that technical fixes to this section requiring “credible evidence of intentional targeting” for claims and that courts review the entire evidentiary record, as the Natural Resources Defense Council has suggested, could go a long way toward addressing this issue. Scholars at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy have recommended limiting these claims to delays, which are tied to clear timing benchmarks, and removing the provision for denials. “Courts can already overturn unlawful denials, so the denial provision adds little protection while creating most of the risk,” they wrote.
But there are other complications.
The bill specifies that if a developer wins a “disparate treatment” case, the government has to fork over 50% to 100% of the project’s total costs, in addition to any attorney fees and monetary damages resulting from the permitting delay or denial.
Justin Pidot, a law professor at the University of Arizona who served as General Counsel to Biden’s Council on Environmental Quality, told me that this could have the effect of “putting handcuffs on the government,” in that agencies will be under pressure to make decisions that avoid a legal challenge. That is, of course, the point of the provision, but to Pidot, it impinges too much on agency discretion. The Columbia scholars raised this concern as well, writing, “Facing that risk, agencies may approve projects they would otherwise reject, potentially including projects they consider unsafe.”
At the same time, the prospect of such a big payout may tempt developers to test agencies’ limits. “It just creates all sorts of perverse incentives,” Pidot said. “In that world, a project sponsor would be wise to try to figure out how to get the government to delay approving their projects so that they could bring this lawsuit.”
What’s more, the project sponsor is only allowed to keep its winnings if it actually completes the project, but nothing in BAAJA requires the government to approve a permit in these cases. A court might order an agency to make a decision on a delayed permit or reconsider an application it rejected, but the administration could just go on delaying or denying the project until the developer runs out of financing and can’t hold on any longer.
“As far as I can tell, if you have to abandon the project before you can build it, you don't get anything,” Littleton said. “I'm just sort of flummoxed by the way this is set up.”
While everyone I spoke to seemed to agree that the project certainty title in the bill could use some redlining, there was a split between those who believed small “technical fixes” would do the trick and those who were skeptical the provisions would be successful without an overhaul.
The Environmental Protection Network, a group of former EPA staffers, recently published a number of suggested technical changes to improve the section on revoking existing permits. They called for adding several more exceptions for when an agency can revoke or amend a permit, such as when the action is “authorized by Federal law and brought by the Federal department or agency alleging a violation of Federal law.” The challenge with adding more exceptions is that it will give the government more wiggle room to justify revoking permits — a slippery slope.
EPN also suggested adding a clause specifying that “nothing in this title affects the applicability of any requirement under” the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the like, and protecting taxpayers “from potentially hundreds of billions of dollars” in fines paid out to litigants by limiting the financial remedies to “actual damages and court costs.”
The NRDC suggested changing the five-year baseline in the disparate treatment section, and eliminating the “disproportionate” stipulated financial awards, although it did not specify how. The Columbia scholars urged Congress to consider tying the financial awards “more closely to a developer’s actual losses while keeping enough of a penalty to deter deliberate abuse.”
While these kinds of changes may “curb some of the worst excesses” of the project certainty provisions, Littleton told me, that’s not his preferred outcome. “Ultimately, I think they need to be rethought in order to accomplish their purpose.”
Long, of ACORE, held that concerns about project certainty “aren’t a reason to hold up all the work that’s been done so far,” and suggested that Congress could pass a corrections bill down the line should they turn out to be real problems.
One funny thing about this “project certainty” part of the permitting bill is that critics and proponents both seem to accept that there is no foolproof way to stop a president who is truly hell-bent on messing with an industry from doing so. The question is, is it worth trying?