Regarding the Oct. 31 editorial “An environmentalist’s case for permitting reform”:
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act sets deadlines for environmental reviews and gives opponents 150 days to sue, not six years. If passed, it would let the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hand developers the power to condemn land and would assign the cost to ratepayers by formula.
Since 2005, FERC has held a “backstop” power to permit a transmission line to be built over a state’s objection, but only within Energy Department corridors. No line has ever been built under that authority. The bill would abolish the corridors and extend the override to nearly everywhere outside Texas. If a state says no or sits on an application for a year, FERC must grant the permit once the line meets the bill’s tests, and the permit carries the right to condemn private land.
The bill takes away a state’s right to refuse a line and keeps the formula. California requires 100 percent clean electricity by 2045. Say a developer proposes a line to carry wind power there through a state that never adopted such a mandate and that state says no. If FERC finds that the state’s customers would benefit, families there pay a share, and the Supreme Court has determined that their regulators must give FERC-approved rates binding effect.
A line worth building will find customers willing to pay for it. A state that says no shouldn’t be made to pay anyway.
Gregory A. Schroeder, Albuquerque
The writer is the executive vice president of the Southwest Public Policy Institute.
The Oct. 31 editorial is right that projects should not be held up for years and that better rules can produce better outcomes. But reform must not come at the expense of the people whose land these projects cross.
Farmers and landowners should be treated as partners whose property, livelihoods and communities are directly affected by pipelines, transmission lines and other energy infrastructure. Consulting with landowners early on in the permitting process, providing clear information about proposed routes and genuinely considering alternatives can help resolve conflicts before they become yearslong disputes.
America can build the energy infrastructure it needs while respecting private property rights. A transmission line may strengthen a regional grid, but it can also divide a farm, limit future land use and burden a family for generations.
Furthermore, streamlining condemnation proceedings by moving authority away from states would be a mistake. Local officials and courts understand the communities and properties at stake. Their roles should not be sidelined in the name of speed.
The goals should be clear standards, predictable decisions and prompt resolution, not fewer opportunities for affected people to be heard.
Infrastructure developers should engage landowners early, explain impacts honestly and make a serious effort to reach voluntary agreements.
Garrett Hawkins, Appleton City, Missouri
The writer is president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
I agree with the Nov. 7 editorial “Jeffries flirts with derailing long-overdue permitting reform.” The midterm election wins by Democrats seem to have Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (New York) and other Democratic leaders forgetting facts they should know well: The American people need Congress to pass bipartisan bills that address electricity affordability.
The permitting bill should be passed in the lame-duck session, not only because Americans need it now, but also because it is a bipartisan action, which Americans badly need more of.
Sabrina S. Fu, Ellicott City
‘Politics is a tough business’
George F. Will’s Nov. 8 column, “President Vance? More slogging through a sewer of odious politics,” highlighted Vice President JD Vance’s support for Vivek Ramaswamy’s noxious ad in the Ohio gubernatorial race. Will also noted that Vance, “disgusted” by Republican pushback, defended the ad on the grounds that “politics is a tough business.”
All Americans understand that politics is a tough business. But it needn’t be a cruel business that inculcates indecency. Vance apparently views the political arena as detached from virtue — a space where the pursuit of power justifies immoral means.
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.” Indeed, Vance’s opinion of the political world as a moral wasteland says less about politics than it does about his own character. We must demand better from everyone seeking the presidency in 2028.
T. Michael Spencer, Washington
Everyone should benefit
Regarding the Nov. 6 editorial “Voters want a better deal from data centers”:
Election Day’s results must be taken seriously. Local officials should address residents’ concerns about electricity costs, water use and siting before data center projects move forward.
To do so, clear expectations should be presented to communities and developers. These protections would provide a smarter path forward: Developers pay their energy and grid costs, not families and small businesses. Projects manage water, siting, noise and light, and plan for the power they need. Communities get real data on energy and water use and a voice early enough for their input to matter. And in return, projects expand the tax base and create career opportunities.
Data centers’ benefits are real. In Coshocton County, Ohio, which lost a coal plant and a paper mill, officials expect a new data center campus to bring more than 1,800 construction jobs and about $2.3 million a year in local school revenue.
When state legislatures convene in January, they should write the proposed protections into law so every American community gets the same strong deal. And Congress should resist a blanket national moratorium that would take decisions away from communities.
It matters which country builds the future. It matters just as much that the towns hosting data centers share in the benefits.
Doug Kelly, Columbus, Ohio
The writer is CEO of the American Edge Project, which is an advocacy group founded by Meta.
Letter submissions
Send letters to [email protected].
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
The post There’s more to the permitting reform bill than faster projects appeared first on Washington Post.
