Post

Renewables won't benefit from this anytime soon if ever, thanks to the 5-year historical baseline period. Under Trump, all fossil fuel projects are approved and most renewables are delayed (or worse). Four years of that and any rejection or delay of fossil permits will look like "disparate impact"!

Meanwhile, because the baseline for renewables is mostly delay or rejection under Trump, it's not clear there's a plausible path to remedies for renewables that get delayed under a future administration. (Not advocating otherwise; this is bad policy. Just noting the asymmetry.)

Bill text here, search section 1402 (which is short):

I could be wrong, but I think it would give wind companies extra ammo to end the current freeze on airspace permits. A court ordered DOD to start reviews again, but so far it hasn't. Though maybe it will by the time the bill would go into effect. heatmap.news/plus/the-fig...

Are you suggesting that wind projects currently being mass-delayed by the feds might have access to remedies under Section 1402? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just seeking clarification. Again, I don't think "parity" is good outcome here. This is bad policy.

I don’t think this is the correct reading of that section, fwiw. The focus on the baseline is off. It downplays or misses entirely that the raw statistics don't make a claim alone. Showing "pattern of disparate treatment" requires **intent** as evidenced by administration statements, EOs, etc.

Appreciate you weighing in and hi! I'm glad you raised this issue, as it's important to clarify the difference between the policy standard (an intentional action is required) from the legal mechanics (where statistics are "prima facie" evidence of government intention).

The key term "pattern of disparate treatment" is defined in section 1402(b)(3), which requires all three subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). As you suggest, subparagraph (C) requires a kind of intent.

This is worth a longer conversation. In context I just do not think this is the risk you’re suggesting.

It is that very prong re: **intent** that's the problem. The calculation is secondary in import except to degree it reveals a wild level of legislative micromanagement of agency capacity & gives developers litigation position to force the judiciary to manage agencies for developer's benefit.

I was wondering, do you think provisions like this could be easily fixed, especially if Dems wait to pass until 2027?