Thomas, great article. What do you make of efforts like a TNC/BLM collaboration to identify where renewables can be deployed quickly while avoiding important conservation areas? Could this kind of data be part of a grand bargain where permitting remains robust in critical habitats while everywhere else is massively accelerated?
Thanks for mentioning NHPA. It gets overlooked a lot in these discussions, but it’s a key component of the procedural problem. Even if you have a CE for NEPA, you still have to do 106. Some helpful reforms would be to make any action with a CE from NEPA not be considered an undertaking under 106. Another would be to change the 50 year rule in NHPA to something else, like “50 years from the original passage of this act.” Precautionary principle has gone too far with this act in practice, and something needs to rein it in.
On judicial review #2, there's an already-existing model in APA litigation: the requirement to take "due account" of "of the rule of prejudicial error" and more direction to remand without vacatur for procedural statute violations.
Transmission reform won’t be enough after reconciliation. Support for EPRA was predicted on IRA programs being in place. That’s all blown up now.
Thomas, great article. What do you make of efforts like a TNC/BLM collaboration to identify where renewables can be deployed quickly while avoiding important conservation areas? Could this kind of data be part of a grand bargain where permitting remains robust in critical habitats while everywhere else is massively accelerated?
https://www.nature.org/en-us/newsroom/blm-announces-western-solar-plan/BLM Announces Public Land Ideal for Solar Energy Development
Thanks for mentioning NHPA. It gets overlooked a lot in these discussions, but it’s a key component of the procedural problem. Even if you have a CE for NEPA, you still have to do 106. Some helpful reforms would be to make any action with a CE from NEPA not be considered an undertaking under 106. Another would be to change the 50 year rule in NHPA to something else, like “50 years from the original passage of this act.” Precautionary principle has gone too far with this act in practice, and something needs to rein it in.
We can only hope that some level of bipartisanship remains in Washington.
On judicial review #2, there's an already-existing model in APA litigation: the requirement to take "due account" of "of the rule of prejudicial error" and more direction to remand without vacatur for procedural statute violations.