Less Than 5% of Wind and Solar Projects Require Comprehensive NEPA Review Amid Permitting Debate

A recent tweet from Santi Ruiz has ignited discussion regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other regulations, asserting that claims these regulations do not impede clean energy projects are "just not true." Ruiz's social media post highlights an ongoing debate, particularly involving "The Revolving Door folks," concerning the actual impact of environmental reviews on the pace of renewable energy development.

"This is a funny saga, if you’re up for it, about sloppy opposition research. But the underlying debate is pretty interesting. The Revolving Door folks are arguing that NEPA and other regulations don’t slow down clean energy projects. But that claim is just not true," Santi Ruiz stated in the tweet. This perspective suggests that environmental regulations are a significant bottleneck for green energy initiatives.

However, organizations like The Revolving Door Project present a counter-narrative, arguing that NEPA is often unfairly blamed for delays. According to their analysis, drawing on data from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and David Adelman, less than 5 percent of wind and solar projects between 2010 and 2021 required a comprehensive environmental review. The vast majority were granted categorical exemptions or streamlined procedures, indicating that extensive NEPA reviews are the exception, not the rule.

Further research by the Roosevelt Institute and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) suggests that most delays in clean energy projects stem from functional, rather than regulatory, issues. These include insufficient staffing, unstable budgets, vague or incomplete permit applications, and poor coordination among permitting authorities. Addressing these systemic challenges, they argue, would be more effective in accelerating clean energy deployment than weakening environmental safeguards.

Recent changes to NEPA implementing procedures by federal agencies, following a directive from the White House Council on Environmental Quality, have also drawn scrutiny. While intended to streamline processes, groups like CATF warn that these revisions could limit public engagement and weaken environmental reviews. Such changes, they contend, may lead to increased project uncertainty, community opposition, and ultimately, further delays, rather than the intended acceleration of clean energy infrastructure.

The ongoing discourse underscores a complex challenge in balancing environmental protection with the urgent need for energy transition. While some advocate for regulatory reform to speed up development, others emphasize that robust environmental reviews are crucial for sustainable projects and that the true impediments lie elsewhere within the permitting ecosystem.