This week’s conversation is about the big energy policy story of the week – month? year? – which is the new bipartisan permitting deal in the U.S. Senate. As my colleagues and I were feverishly working on our mega-explainer about the bill, I rang up Josh Freed, founder of Third Way’s energy and climate program, who graciously picked up the phone despite traveling in London. Freed, a fellow energy wonk-slash-musician, was gracious to jam out with me on all the things I felt you needed to know about this bill – including whether there really is only one shot to get what he believes would be landmark legislation into law.
The following chat was lightly abridged for clarity. Let’s dive in.
Let’s start with descriptions. Thomas Hochman, a friend of Heatmap News, published a lengthy blog about the new bipartisan Senate permitting bill in which he describes it as a “grand bargain.”
Do you agree with that description?
No. See, it’s so funny, I saw that description as well and I think over the years I’ve soured on the concept of ‘grand bargains.’ But it’s hugely significant.
Okay. If it’s not a ‘grand bargain,’ how would you describe it?
Well the problem with a ‘grand bargain’ is it assumes there’s all these trade-offs and everyone gets a little bit of something. But the reason I think it’s just significant, and not that, is it took the transmission architecture that Manchin-Barrasso had that was close to passing and built it out for current load growth. That’s a big deal given how much the transmission side has been a blockage in the system. And how much they dealt with the permitting of infrastructure, generally.
When we did our survey of over 200 project developers a little over a year ago, we were surprised at how much that was what they were concerned about – transmission and permitting of utility-scale solar. They’ve added those two things into the bill. So we’ve got consequential transmission permitting provisions and steps to add a lot of certainty, while shortening the window where objections based on those laws can pop up. This means a lot more is likely to be built and it’s very likely that’ll be clean.
There’s infrastructure with fossil fuels that’ll be built. We get that. But when costs are so high, that’s also sort of inevitable. The overall proposal is more of a win to build than a bargain.
Does the language in this bill adequately address Trump’s freeze on federal permits for renewable energy projects?
I think it is a really important step in the right direction with permitting certainty for solar and wind but this question with national security, and making sure this gives the certainty that these projects will ultimately be delivered… I just genuinely don’t know. But we need to make sure it's sufficiently airtight. Is this the best, most reasonable attempt to do this? That’s the question that needs to be answered.
The combination of permitting certainty and anti-discrimination language barring the executive branch from category wide attacks on offshore wind or solar are steps that need to be taken. At some point we’re all going to have to take the step off the cliff together and see what happens next because we’re getting as good as we’re going to get, presuming the administration will follow the law. If they don’t follow the law, there’ll be actions to be taken to get them back on track.
But this is what you have to do, because otherwise, everything’s still broken. At least it gives us additional mechanisms to keep them in line.
Do you think this has to happen before the next Congress convenes?
The most likely time for action is the lame duck period in Congress. I think there’s a slim chance you could see something happen next year but it’s impossible to predict how likely that chance is or what it would look like until we see the election results. I wouldn’t want to gamble on everything lining up to get another bite at the apple next year. And lame duck’s always been the most likely time for this to happen.
Okay. So let’s say this bill becomes law. What do folks like you do next on energy in D.C.?
I think we get this done and then we’ve got to make sure the law works. Assuming this passes, we’ve got to make sure the obstacles we thought were obstacles really were the obstacles, and this still doesn’t address additional issues data centers have raised. We need an enforceable framework so as data centers come onto the system, the additional generation and transmission is built in a way that’s in the best interest of communities and paid for by the data centers.
There are questions of whether the market structures created more than a hundred years ago are still the correct structures for 2026. If they’re not, then what’s the path to getting stuff built and maintained effectively? That alone is enough. And I think the next biggest thing: what parts of the supply chain should be developed and where? Transformers, batteries, the future of the auto industry… all those fun things are up in the air.
