How big of a problem generally is lack of funding for agencies when it comes to permitting? One of the key bottlenecks is staff capacity at agencies just generally. They are not adequately staffed and it’s hard to find experienced staff who have the knowledge and awareness of how the processes go. With an infusion of trillions of dollars from [the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Inflation Reduction Act and CHIPS and Science Act], we are going to have a significant increase in the permit volume applications to resource agencies that are historically understaffed anyway. That is going to present challenges. The IRA recognized that and provided hundreds of millions of dollars to support their staffing and equip them with the tools they need. But everybody faces the same labor market. It’s not easy to bring people on quickly, and it’s not easy to get them trained up in time for all of this. So there is going to be some additional need for support. What do you see as the challenges and opportunities around transmission permitting? Transmission projects are inherently complex because of the length and the multiple jurisdictions they cross, and they may cross states that may not have a direct benefit from the project. One of the areas I would like for the Permitting Council to focus [on] is building some sort of structure that would be a template for interstate projects to follow that would enable them to get through the process sooner. I don’t have an answer to that but I think there’s opportunity there. We’ve done it elsewhere in the past. So what can we learn from how those interstate projects were delivered that could inform a template or model for others to follow in the future? How much is NEPA a roadblock for transmission? I will rarely put NEPA as the fall guy for these things because it’s a process. If the process is navigated appropriately, it will work out fine. But if you make missteps or don’t coordinate or communicate effectively, then it can create roadblocks. If applied appropriately, NEPA is an information-gathering and sharing exercise. It does not necessarily mandate an outcome. If done appropriately, it can be a very beneficial tool to inform everyone what the potential impacts are but also what the benefits are. Do you view the litigation issue as a challenge? Yes. You are never going to be able to ward off all litigation. There is always going to be potential for a challenge. But one way to minimize that risk is effective outreach upfront to identify what the issues are and try to address them so you don’t get to the point where you have a constituency that wants to use the courts as a means to stop a project because you have already answered their problems and you brought them on — if not made them a supporter, at least reduce their opposition. We can’t shortchange the opportunity, particularly for disadvantaged and lower-income communities, to be able to voice their concerns and ensure those voices are heard. But we also don’t want these things to be open-ended questions. That’s a balance we’ll have to strike. Overall, though, do you think there is a need for Congress to step in and do more with legislation, whether on litigation reform or transmission? We all recognize the processes that were created 40, 50, 60 years ago are not working to their fullest potential now. Things have changed, needs have changed. There is still value in revisiting how we do some of this and refining it to help it move better to make it more efficient. But at the same time, it’s those tradeoffs. What are we giving up in the process in order to make it move more efficiently that doesn’t reduce the opportunity for input, coordination, all of that sort of stuff? We expect there will be additional permitting reform in this Congress, and I am eager to work with the Hill on what that looks like and provide whatever support the Permitting Council can provide.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment