When ‘permitting reform’ isn’t really about permitting reform
by Michael McKenna · The Washington TimesOPINION:
Team Trump announced in a court filing a few days ago that it wants to rescind the federal approval granted to Revolution Wind, a wind project off the coast of Rhode Island, and to reassess whether the project’s original 2023 authorization was justified.
That sounds fairly routine, but this is Washington, so there is no such thing as routine — and actions always have context, and usually subtext.
The context is pretty straightforward. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat and a big supporter of the Revolution Wind project, has been working diligently alongside lead sponsor Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia Republican, on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, which has been characterized as “permitting reform.”
People were interested in these podcasts
The legislation was originally intended to curb the worst excesses of the federal government in permitting and to make it easier to navigate the often incomprehensible and inconclusive federal permitting processes.
Yet what the bill actually does — like most other federal legislation — is expand the size and scope of the federal government. In this case, it expands the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority and gives it greater power to override state authority over the regulation of electricity transmission.
This includes questions about siting and who gets stuck with the bill for building transmission. Spoiler: It is the ratepayers.
The legislation would compel utilities to build transmission where, when and how the federal government prefers. It would maximize conflict among and between states, the federal government, utilities and citizens and will almost certainly increase bureaucratic and legal friction and costs.
The legislation seems to be built around the idea that involving more lawyers and bureaucrats will magically simplify and speed the process. As anyone who has ever dealt with bureaucracies, lawyers or both will tell you, they never simplify or accelerate anything.
Advertisement Advertisement
Some congressional Republicans seem ready to allow this expansion of federal authority, the potential impairment of property rights and the increased political and judicial tussles that will ensue over transmission projects.
This is despite the fact that the only permitting improvement the Republicans are getting in exchange is a modest amendment to the federal Clean Water Act that requires states to cede some authority on the permitting of stream crossings.
No meaningful changes have been made to the Endangered Species Act. The National Environmental Policy Act remains in place. The Clean Air Act is not even mentioned.
Despite this, supporters of the legislation continue to maintain that it is about permitting. That is understandable. How much enthusiasm could one generate for a call to “increase FERC’s scope and authority,” “increase conflict and litigation” or “keep environmental lawyers employed”?
Supporters are also casual in how they pitch the legislation. The flavor of the moment is that the White House likes it. Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once noted that the White House is a building that cannot want anything — his actual formulation being: “Don’t say the White House wants. Buildings can’t want.”
Advertisement Advertisement
Usually, when people say “The White House thinks X or Y,” they really mean, “I want the president to agree with me. I hope he does, and I will tell everyone that he does.”
One of the truly beautiful things about President Trump is that he is the ultimate in transparency. If he is in favor of something, he says so. If he is opposed to something, he says that too. When he does not care about something, you can tell by the silence.
In this instance, the president has not said a word in public or on social media, so he probably has not given the legislation much thought. When he does, though, he may be surprised to discover that it includes language that would thaw the permit applications — mostly for wind power — that the administration has so diligently slowed or stopped.
I am not sure how Mr. Trump will feel about legislative provisions that extend a lifeline to the 200 or so onshore wind and 30 or so offshore wind projects that are pending.
Advertisement Advertisement
This brings us back to Revolution Wind. A week or so ago, Mr. Whitehouse harrumphed that he expected Team Trump to continue processing permits for wind projects as a show of good faith while the legislation proceeds. The Trump administration has responded by taking a hard look at Revolution Wind’s legality.
This is not the first, nor even the second, time the administration has put this project under the microscope. It is the third. That is probably not accidental.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor to The Washington Times.
Follow the author
Michael McKenna
Follow author updates Follow Click to follow. Manage followed authors