This is a work of comedy. Please stop using terms like clean energy to describe installations that have vast carbon footprints due to rare earth metal and mineral extraction and purification, associated dangerous waste ponds which will leach chemicals and other waste byproducts into the air for centuries while remaining dangerous to acquifers and ground water, coal fired manufacturing of panels and turbines parts, diesel powered transport, and on an on. Ignoring the filth and absurd land use for diffuse, intermittent power sources is journalistic and scientific mayhem of the first order.
A recent op-ed by Debra Strusacker and Sarah Montalbano on NEPA also spoke to the need for NEPA reform, like them, you offer several examples of particularly badly managed permitting processes. Like them, you speak to the need for reform. And like them, you offer no plausible suggestions as to how those reforms should be structured. That’s like telling me today’s special is homemade peach pie, then telling me you’re out of it.
As a NEPA practitioner for over 40 years, I disagree with you, Ms. Montalbano, and others who cry out for “NEPA reforms.” We have tens of thousands of pages of regulations to implement NEPA and its various daughter products (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resources Recovery and Conservation Act), NEPA does not need reforming; how it is implemented and practiced does.
The original intent of NEPA and its enabling regs was to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the environment. Today's interpretation of that is absolute assurance of perfect protection, a subjective standard that is impossible to meet. Look no further than the EPA’s standard for disposal of radioactive waste, where the proposed standards set a maximum dose level for the first 10,000 years, more than twice as long as recorded human history. Further, the standards REQUIRE the facility to withstand the effects of earthquakes, volcanos, and significantly increased rainfall to contain the waste during a 1-MILLION YEAR PERIOD. Do those terms sound “reasonable,” or are they more towards “perfect protection?”
Legal shenanigans are blamed for NEPA’s failure. I believe this is scapegoating. The fact is that over the years, Congress has shirked its responsibilities to legislate and make difficult decisions; thus, Congress has literally abdicated that role to the agencies. The many new standards we deal with today are little more than legislation written by unelected officials. This age of buck-passing has resulted in the politization of agency’s upper- and mid-level managers, allowing them to enable a desired agenda and pursue it aggressively without the need to compromise with political opponents. The four-year political cycle has brought with it the chance for sudden change in policy direction and domain, leading to uncertainty in the process. Lately, new presidents have begun their terms by undoing their predecessor’s key actions.
Three fundamental changes are needed. These changes must come from Congress, not the Council on Environmental Quality. The latter office is subject to undue influence from its boss, the President. Congress created NEPA; it should be responsible for restoring its original purpose.
First, agency reviews should be conducted with good faith. While that seems obvious, it is not always the case. For example, it is fair for one agency to reject a project that threatens endangered species and/or their habitat, and for another agency to issue a “take permit” to allow the killing of that species (a common practice in wind projects)? “Take permits” bring to mind the phrase, “a little bit pregnant.” If a major dam can be stopped because of one small snail, a wind turbine should also be stopped because of one bald eagle. You make a good case for the Tule Wind project, but did the government negotiated in good faith with TransCanada’s Keystone XL project, Alaska’s Ambler Road project, or Arizona’s Resolution Mine, or the Twin Metals mine in Minnesota? If so, why were those projects permitted by one president, then canceled by their successor?
Second, realistic and reasonable time and page limits should be established for agency reviews, including the preparation of environmental documents (CEs, EAs, and EISs). In no case should such limit exceed 18 months, regardless of its controversy. Such limits might give rise to the cry of "inadequate review," but again, my purpose in this suggestion is to establish reasonable assurance of adequate protection."
Lawfare is far and away the biggest impediment to progress. Breakthrough’s recent paper, which you co-authored, was a brilliant example of this. But that problem rises from the judicial system and its practices and procedures, not the regulations being litigated. Thus, as a final suggested reform, I believe the judicial process should be amended to require NGOs to file notice of lawsuit within twelve (12) months of the initial filing (or within the first two-thirds of the document’s time limit). This will allow the agency and the proponent to examine the issues raised and determine appropriate steps to minimize or mitigate. Further, in cases where an NGO challenges an agency decision, and that decision is upheld, the NGO should be liable for all costs borne by the defendant (project proponent).
As an aside, I would also suggest agencies revisit their emphasis on “community consent.” Public participation is vital to the proponent’s action and the agency’s review, but it should never be a priority in the decision process. As an example, the federal program for siting a spent fuel repository rests in finding a “host community”. It is absurd that disposal location of mankind's most toxic waste be decided by a “yes-no” election. Such decisions should be made on technical merits, environmental effects (over a reasonable period, not 1,000,000 years as the EPA would have it), and finally a community willing to accept the proponent's offerings to assuage community concerns.
You speak of the problems permitting energy projects, to which I agree. But that process could be greatly simplified with a government energy policy that is rooted in the physics of energy production and not in the politician’s desire to pick winners or losers. The global economy is a derivative of energy and energy production. Policies that subsidize diffuse and intermittent energy sources are not, in the long run, sustainable. A policy directive, one that is NOT dependent on the four-year political cycle, would provide all parties a degree of certainty that does not now exist.
There are many other tweaks that could be made to the regs; Harris' new rules (Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations) offer such tweaks. In reality, these are little more than flyshit in the pepper, and will not address the fundamental problem of providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection.
I understand the sentiment and sure EMF is a bit kooky, but wind actually does really suck. Iberdrola, Mid American and Ørsted are all really shitty companies running over rural landowners and building garbage for tax breaks with no plan to decommission at end of life.
This is a work of comedy. Please stop using terms like clean energy to describe installations that have vast carbon footprints due to rare earth metal and mineral extraction and purification, associated dangerous waste ponds which will leach chemicals and other waste byproducts into the air for centuries while remaining dangerous to acquifers and ground water, coal fired manufacturing of panels and turbines parts, diesel powered transport, and on an on. Ignoring the filth and absurd land use for diffuse, intermittent power sources is journalistic and scientific mayhem of the first order.
whirly-gigs and sparky billboards are useless electric generators as their output is farcically erratic.
the erection of such useless structures is a prime example of government waste.
A recent op-ed by Debra Strusacker and Sarah Montalbano on NEPA also spoke to the need for NEPA reform, like them, you offer several examples of particularly badly managed permitting processes. Like them, you speak to the need for reform. And like them, you offer no plausible suggestions as to how those reforms should be structured. That’s like telling me today’s special is homemade peach pie, then telling me you’re out of it.
As a NEPA practitioner for over 40 years, I disagree with you, Ms. Montalbano, and others who cry out for “NEPA reforms.” We have tens of thousands of pages of regulations to implement NEPA and its various daughter products (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resources Recovery and Conservation Act), NEPA does not need reforming; how it is implemented and practiced does.
The original intent of NEPA and its enabling regs was to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the environment. Today's interpretation of that is absolute assurance of perfect protection, a subjective standard that is impossible to meet. Look no further than the EPA’s standard for disposal of radioactive waste, where the proposed standards set a maximum dose level for the first 10,000 years, more than twice as long as recorded human history. Further, the standards REQUIRE the facility to withstand the effects of earthquakes, volcanos, and significantly increased rainfall to contain the waste during a 1-MILLION YEAR PERIOD. Do those terms sound “reasonable,” or are they more towards “perfect protection?”
Legal shenanigans are blamed for NEPA’s failure. I believe this is scapegoating. The fact is that over the years, Congress has shirked its responsibilities to legislate and make difficult decisions; thus, Congress has literally abdicated that role to the agencies. The many new standards we deal with today are little more than legislation written by unelected officials. This age of buck-passing has resulted in the politization of agency’s upper- and mid-level managers, allowing them to enable a desired agenda and pursue it aggressively without the need to compromise with political opponents. The four-year political cycle has brought with it the chance for sudden change in policy direction and domain, leading to uncertainty in the process. Lately, new presidents have begun their terms by undoing their predecessor’s key actions.
Three fundamental changes are needed. These changes must come from Congress, not the Council on Environmental Quality. The latter office is subject to undue influence from its boss, the President. Congress created NEPA; it should be responsible for restoring its original purpose.
First, agency reviews should be conducted with good faith. While that seems obvious, it is not always the case. For example, it is fair for one agency to reject a project that threatens endangered species and/or their habitat, and for another agency to issue a “take permit” to allow the killing of that species (a common practice in wind projects)? “Take permits” bring to mind the phrase, “a little bit pregnant.” If a major dam can be stopped because of one small snail, a wind turbine should also be stopped because of one bald eagle. You make a good case for the Tule Wind project, but did the government negotiated in good faith with TransCanada’s Keystone XL project, Alaska’s Ambler Road project, or Arizona’s Resolution Mine, or the Twin Metals mine in Minnesota? If so, why were those projects permitted by one president, then canceled by their successor?
Second, realistic and reasonable time and page limits should be established for agency reviews, including the preparation of environmental documents (CEs, EAs, and EISs). In no case should such limit exceed 18 months, regardless of its controversy. Such limits might give rise to the cry of "inadequate review," but again, my purpose in this suggestion is to establish reasonable assurance of adequate protection."
Lawfare is far and away the biggest impediment to progress. Breakthrough’s recent paper, which you co-authored, was a brilliant example of this. But that problem rises from the judicial system and its practices and procedures, not the regulations being litigated. Thus, as a final suggested reform, I believe the judicial process should be amended to require NGOs to file notice of lawsuit within twelve (12) months of the initial filing (or within the first two-thirds of the document’s time limit). This will allow the agency and the proponent to examine the issues raised and determine appropriate steps to minimize or mitigate. Further, in cases where an NGO challenges an agency decision, and that decision is upheld, the NGO should be liable for all costs borne by the defendant (project proponent).
As an aside, I would also suggest agencies revisit their emphasis on “community consent.” Public participation is vital to the proponent’s action and the agency’s review, but it should never be a priority in the decision process. As an example, the federal program for siting a spent fuel repository rests in finding a “host community”. It is absurd that disposal location of mankind's most toxic waste be decided by a “yes-no” election. Such decisions should be made on technical merits, environmental effects (over a reasonable period, not 1,000,000 years as the EPA would have it), and finally a community willing to accept the proponent's offerings to assuage community concerns.
You speak of the problems permitting energy projects, to which I agree. But that process could be greatly simplified with a government energy policy that is rooted in the physics of energy production and not in the politician’s desire to pick winners or losers. The global economy is a derivative of energy and energy production. Policies that subsidize diffuse and intermittent energy sources are not, in the long run, sustainable. A policy directive, one that is NOT dependent on the four-year political cycle, would provide all parties a degree of certainty that does not now exist.
There are many other tweaks that could be made to the regs; Harris' new rules (Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations) offer such tweaks. In reality, these are little more than flyshit in the pepper, and will not address the fundamental problem of providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection.
My two cents, ladies, adjusted for inflation.
You can reach any desired pre-determined conclusion by choosing which 5% of a system you analyze.
I understand the sentiment and sure EMF is a bit kooky, but wind actually does really suck. Iberdrola, Mid American and Ørsted are all really shitty companies running over rural landowners and building garbage for tax breaks with no plan to decommission at end of life.
To the authors of this trope -- Live with it -- you can still do what BAD did.
This is still the US - and legal is legal - no matter how much you piss and moan about it..