The Fight

Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Q&A

Permitting on Federal Land Has Long Been a Headache

A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.

Elizabeth McCarthy.
Heatmap Illustration/The Breakthrough Institute

This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.

The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.

So why are you so fixated on NEPA?

Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.

What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?

Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.

In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?

Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.

What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?

This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.

Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.

Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.

What’s the remedy?

We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.

We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.

Yellow

This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.

Go deeper inside the politics, projects, and personalities
shaping the energy transition.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Spotlight

The Trump Administration Is Now Delaying Renewable Projects It Thinks Are Ugly

The Army Corps of Engineers is out to protect “the beauty of the Nation’s natural landscape.”

Donald Trump, wetlands, and renewable energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A new Trump administration policy is indefinitely delaying necessary water permits for solar and wind projects across the country, including those located entirely on private land.

The Army Corps of Engineers published a brief notice to its website in September stating that Adam Telle, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, had directed the agency to consider whether it should weigh a project’s “energy density” – as in the ratio of acres used for a project compared to its power generation capacity – when issuing permits and approvals. The notice ended on a vague note, stating that the Corps would also consider whether the projects “denigrate the aesthetics of America’s natural landscape.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

A Data Center Dies in Wisconsin

Plus more of the week’s biggest renewable energy fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Dane County, Wisconsin – The QTS data center project we’ve been tracking closely is now dead, after town staff in the host community of DeForest declared its plans “unfeasible.”

  • As I previously explained to Fight readers, this QTS project was a quintessential data center conflict. Not only was it situated in a blue county inside of a purple state, but a recent imbroglio over emails between the village mayor and QTS have made it a key example of how private conversations between tech companies and local governments can tarnish the odds of getting a data center permitted.
  • Late Tuesday, DeForest town staff issued a public statement disclosing they would recommend rejecting QTS’ petition to annex land for construction, without which the developer can’t build. A vote on whether to formally deny the petition was scheduled for February 3.
  • If the town rejects the project, the statement reads, DeForest staff expect QTS to “formally withdraw” its request for changes to land zoning plans and the annexation application. The town also cited vociferous opposition to the project, declaring: “The Village of DeForest appreciates the dedicated engagement of our community. Engagement is at the core of democracy. Reviewing public information, participating in public meetings, and discussing potential opportunities and impacts are all important civic activities.”
  • I was prepared to wait and see what happened at the public meeting before declaring this project dead in the water, but QTS itself has gone and done it : “Through our engagement, it has become clear that now is not the right time for our proposed project to move forward in DeForest.”

Marathon County, Wisconsin – Elsewhere in Wisconsin, this county just voted to lobby the state’s association of counties to fight for more local control over renewable energy development.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

How Data Centers Became an Election Issue in Georgia

A conversation with Georgia Conservation Voters’ Connie Di Cicco.

The Q&A subject.
Heatmap Illustration

This week’s conversation is with Connie Di Cicco, legislative director for Georgia Conservation Voters. I reached out to Connie because I wanted to best understand last November’s Public Service Commission elections which, as I explained at the time, focused almost exclusively on data center development. I’ve been hearing from some of you that you want to hear more about how and why opposition to these projects has become so entrenched so quickly. Connie argues it’s because data centers are a multi-hit combo of issues at the top of voters’ minds right now.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow