Apologies for the hiatus, the FAI State Permitting effort has been running at full tilt. We have the new edition of the State Permitting Playbook, expanding our coverage to 49 states; an expansion pack focused on what states can do to improve the prospects of nuclear energy in their states; and, thanks to the inimitable Daniel King, a second expansion pack targeting behind-the-meter reforms for states grappling with data centre expansion.
As part of these projects, I have been thinking a great deal about what we mean when we say a state is good at permitting. Good at permitting how? Does the state intrude minimally? Does the state balance environmental and development considerations? Does nothing that would cause an environmental harm ever get built?
If you’re at all interested in the permitting debate—at the state or federal level—you likely have views that adhere to one of the three categories above. But, at the risk of stating the obvious, these are three very different definitions of being good at permitting, with very different yardsticks for measuring success. The first is about providing a minimum level of protection for the worst environmental harms, with a strong focus on development. The second is a middle ground, focused on considering the balance of the upsides and downsides—accepting some harm for some development. The last is skeptical of our ability to perform analysis at all, particularly when there are long-tail risks of ecosystem collapse.
