Progressive Initiatives in Virginia to be Blocked by Environmental Laws?

by James C. Sherlock

Sometimes we are too clever for our own good.

American environmentalists have been hugely successful and have done a great deal of good. We have them to thank for cleaner water and air.

But traditional environmentalists, supported by legal interests, incorporated two features in America’s environmental laws that may prove as fatal to progressive goals going forward as they were to major polluters in the past:

  1. They required environmental reviews by regulators; and
  2. They allowed (encouraged, actually) citizen lawsuits to challenge in federal court the findings of regulators they thought they could not always trust to shut down “bad” projects. Laws permitting citizen lawsuits include, among others, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Traditional environmentalists — those who sought clean water and air and protection for endangered species — did not foresee the trouble that would come from both government bureaucracies and the courts to threaten modern-day progressive climate-change projects.

The legal interests foresaw spectacular profits in the lawsuits, regardless of outcomes. These were civil cases, in which attorneys billed not-for-profit plaintiffs by the hour regardless of outcome, because there are no civil damages available. But, unsurprisingly, attorneys fees are recoverable.

Now Virginia is ground zero as those features for traditional environmentalists have turned into bugs for progressives.

In these pages we often discuss infrastructure projects that we admire, both in the United States and overseas.

For example, Dwight Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System, funded by the federal government as a defense project. That system could not be built today at any price.

Bullet trains, the high-speed rail supported by commuters and the greens, are made so expensive and time consuming by government oversight and lawsuits as to fail any common sense cost-benefit analysis. There are better uses for the money.

Federal Oversight. From the bureaucracies come environmental impact reviews (EIRs) in support of permits, an excellent idea in principle.

But, due to a combination of philosophical and bureaucratic motives, this has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry for consultants that adds years to every infrastructure project.

A dozen or more agencies in Washington and their contractors get a whack at the federal reviews. Thousand-page multi-year EIRs for even smaller projects. They are often filled with obscure and seemingly fatuous assessments of potential harm.

Remember when President Obama promised to fund “shovel ready projects,” got the money, and found out there was no such thing?

Virginia Oversight. Similar fumbling with a good idea occurs the state level. The Code of Virginia requires state agencies to prepare and submit an environmental impact report (EIR) for each major project in the state.

Virginia is in the middle of headline political and regulatory contests over the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Dominion’s offshore wind project, controversial permits for massive wind and solar farms that threaten wildlife and bring noise and heat pollution, and permits for data centers that require astonishing amounts of energy.

The Department of Environmental Quality oversees the process. It reviews and approves EIRs prepared by proponent agencies. It has a Procedures Manual if you are interested.

The Department of Aviation creates the EIRs for airports, the State Corporation Commission for electric power generating and power line projects requiring SCC licensing. The Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy issues permits for drilling in Tidewater. VDOT is mentioned 19 times in the manual. Suffice it to say that VDOT has a lot of work in the EIR business.

DEQ’s Office of Environmental Impact Review (OEIR) is responsible for “coordinating state reviews” with their federal counterparts, except when they are not, such as VDOT coordination with the Corps of Engineers.

When that does not work, and it often enough does not, things get sticky; for example:

  • The Corps of Engineers denied a permit to the Rt. 460 project on environmental grounds after VDOT under Gov. McDonnell had spent $282 million on it;
  • The Northam DEQ failed to deliver on time the state EIR for the Mountain Valley Pipeline as required by the Clean Water Act, stalling it.

When there are different outcomes between state and federal reviews, the federal ones win, unless a federal court likes the state one better.

The Courts.

When the environmental laws were written, the environmentalists and the legal community did not settle for government executive branch oversight.

Most environmental laws specifically permit civilian lawsuits to enforce them. Greens sponsored those provisions as protection against elected officials who did not share their zeal. The legal profession just wanted them.

The legal community gravitated happily to the newly defined field for various combinations of philosophical and financial reasons. Cocktail party posturing was a bonus. Almost as good for virtue signaling as working for a non-profit.

The usual way to block projects is lawsuits to block government permits by contending they were issued in error. The EIRs are challenged. Mountain Valley Pipeline. Dominion’s offshore wind project. High-speed rail. Solar farms. Wind farms. Data centers. Mines. Oil wells.

Whatever.

Progressive climate change-mitigation projects are in some trouble because the anti-energy hawks ran head-on into the traditional environmentalists:

  • Dominion’s offshore wind project is supported by the greens and their lawyers, but perhaps not by the ones who want to save the whales – and their lawyers;
  • High-speed rail is supported to get cars off the road — good until the new tracks have to cross streams;
  • Solar farms and terrestrial wind farms bring their own environmental challenges. Dead eagles anyone?

All may prove losers in court.

Virginia’s federal appeals court is the Fourth Circuit in Richmond. It has proven under current membership a reliable roadblock to government approvals of pipelines. It killed Mountain Valley.

The solution favored by and promised to Senator Joe Manchin for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a federal law removing the permits for that project from review by the courts, especially including the Fourth Circuit, looks like it likely will not make it.

And the Manchin compromise was not going to provide broader reform anyway.

We will soon find out if the Fourth Circuit applies the same level of environmental scrutiny to projects favored by the anti-energy crowd and contested by the save the whales crowd. Seems a quandary for progressive judges.

But I’m going to bet they side with the-world-is-ending-in-2030 group.

Bottom line. The cases centered in Virginia are but symptoms of the problem.

The core mistake in the environmental laws were provisions allowing private organizations and individuals to sue for their enforcement, so-called citizens suits.

Without that, there would still be our system of government. In representative government, we elect people to pass laws and others to oversee their enforcement.

Suits are brought by the state governments against the feds and vice versa. True conflicts would still get their day in court.

Private suits for enforcement of laws that keep infrastructure projects in court for decades, whichever side we may be on in an individual case, are ultimately undemocratic and destructive of the people’s ability to get public business done.

Again, consider the interstate highway system.

There would be no way to get it built, at any cost, under today’s laws.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

71 responses to “Progressive Initiatives in Virginia to be Blocked by Environmental Laws?”

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oooh, I went back too far. So, it’s just the neoNaz, er, I mean neoconservatives that want to burn the planet?

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          How would burning the planet benefit the military-industrial complex?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            They’ve got the best devices to do it. Swap out inventory.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            They’ve got the best devices to do it. Swap out inventory.

          3. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Even drug dealers know that killing your customers is bad for business…

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Drug dealers, yes, but you’re assuming the military is that smart.

          5. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            They do say that military intelligence is an oxymoron.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Still not the law under which the lawsuits have been and are being filed.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          NEPA is the law that requires the “hard look” analysis which are studies and permits done by the associated agencies.

          A highway project, for instance, might require the ACE as well as Historic , NOAA, etc.

          That’s what happened with the Atlantic Coast pipeline. NEPA requires the studies, permits, but specific agencies to them and the lawsuits are at that level usually unless NEPA has issued a Record of Decision and there are lawsuits challenging that.

  1. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Right on!! There are too many damned individual citizens seeking to protect themselves and neighbors. Mr. and Mrs. Loving seeking to stay in VA and out of jail; Mr. Heller in DC complaining about 2A infringement; Marbury wanting to be a judge; MacPherson who bought a Buick; Gideon who thought he was entitled to a lawyer. The list goes on and on including pseudonym folk like Roe. If these people simply kept to themselves, the big guys could conduct business and the nation’s affairs smoothly, efficiently, and effectively.

    1. Tom Blau Avatar

      So, you think that innocent “little” people are being bullied by mustache-twirling “big” guys?Like Little Nell at the mercy of Snidely Whiplash? But you might want to address Mr Sherlock’s point, which I read as this nutshell: There are no innocents here, just a bunch of over-reaching virtue signalers, cashing in as they get hoist by their own petard. (Also, you might flesh out what your point is in citing some Court cases. Why not Jeanne d’Arc? Now there was a little person who got a raw deal.)

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Was she a victim of a Catholic Supreme Court too?

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        I damn near wrote those words myself.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Next time you can clarify your point. Juice it up with red meat terms like woke and virtue signaler, cash-greedy plaintiffs, etc. If that was what you meant to say.

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Virtue signaler plaintiffs!!! Before what court did Jeanne appear? High court of Kangaroo? No raw deal, she’s a saint. Greedy little virtue signalers like those named actually, except Marbury, succeeded. Don’t think the others got cash.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Cross dresser too.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Thanks. Lawyer Jim. Man of the people. Champion of the little guy.

      You are riding a horse trained and saddled by traditional environmentalists. Who I support.

      Federal environmental laws were written by Democrats in full control of the federal government. They inserted non-governmental enforcement provisions for two reasons:
      1. to prevent Republicans hostile to them from abandoning enforcement; and
      2. to enrich the legal profession.

      You know it and I know it.

      The fact that progressive projects are now being blocked by the same provisions is an unintended consequence for the environmentalists. But the legal profession is delighted. More billable hours.

      And you know that too.

      The little guy is not suing on environmental issues, and never has. It is rich people’s not-for-profits.

      Our republic sets up tension between state and federal authority. We have conservative states and progressive states. Those tensions on federal enforcement of federal laws can play out in the federal courts, just like our system of government is designed.

      Enabling rich people on both sides of the debate to sue endlessly for enforcement of federal law is a sacrament to the legal profession, but not to the rest of us.

      To the rest of us, it is a major flaw.

      Consider the fate of the interstate highway system under current law. Or, put another way, what interstate system?

      Or consider President Obama’s “shovel-ready projects”.

      So shed the William Jennings Bryant act.

      It’s not a “cross of gold”, its just about plain old rent seeking by the legal profession.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Your stuff is super rich – or polluted. Take you pick. Rules preventing hostile Republicans ought to be a component of all law. Lawyers don’t all live in caves; some have ordinary homes and pay taxes too. The interstate highway system exists; the roads exclude your horse and buggy rig. My horse is excluded also. Apologies to your eminence for reminding you of the rights of the little guy. He understands where you stand.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        signed into law by a Republican…

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “The little guy is not suing on environmental issues, and never has. It is rich people’s not-for-profits.”

        Considering the wallet of corporate polluters, the little guy could never hope that the law would be enforced unless someone with deeper pockets could step up and force the issue. The not-for-profits I have encountered were never rolling in dough but they do have some resources and hence can take on the majors to a degree. Eventually, the corporation will outspend them in court. This is the reason they target the regulators instead… they don’t have limitless funds.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Fighting the polluters is the job of the government under the law. Adding limitless private law suits to the mix is a refutation of representative government and causes the infrastructure gridlock we face every day.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            thing is, that for decades, there was no legal recourse for people affected by polluters. It was them as individuals up against the corporate lawyers.

            And surely Sherlock remembers the Conservative idea that Health Care would be less costly if we limited lawsuits against doctors, right?

            what happened to that?

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Why must the snake swallow itself? She swallowed a fly to catch the spider. Substantial infrastructure project proposals are not necessarily polluters requiring the government to fight them.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The issue is that major corporations use the court systems to fight enforcement and the have the deeper pockets needed to run the clock out.

        2. How much money does it take for you to consider a particular entity or individual to be “rolling in dough”?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            More than 5% profit.

          2. So, then, the Sierra Club is “rolling in dough”…

            And certain non-profit hospitals are positively wallowing in dough…

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Uh yep. Wasn’t it the Great A&P whose motto was “A penny a day profit”?

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            The one’s I have encountered have a few people on staff, a couple attorneys under contract and survive on fund raising. A far cry from what an major oil company (for instance) brings to the table.

      4. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        This nation, unlike England, was built upon little guys. The common law in England was not for the commoner, the people; it served the upper classes who seem to be your favs.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    I think NEPA is the law you are looking for with regard to citizens and interests groups ability to be involved in projects.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3dc6a7d7d5fb25bae38d978fdf5a4cbe3b7934db0f1bdbf0e357f5fb210851d6.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act

    It’s only 50 years old so I guess that’s when “woke” and “virtue signaling” and getting hoisted on one’s own petard got going.

    NEPA itself does not stop a project as long as the applicant has fully documented the impacts (taken a “hard look”). NEPA does not require permits – only that permits have been obtained per law.

    I agree, it’s much harder to build a interstate-grade highway these days – in places where there are houses and businesses and NEPA came about in part because of folks like Robert Moses who pretty much put stuff where he wanted and Richmond Va is an example of how an interstate was driven Moses-style right through minority neighborhoods. It was that kind of thing that brought on the NEPA law.

    NEPA does not stop private projects by the way unless those projects need Federal permits which then requires NEPA.

    NEPA will not stop – for instance, a cell tower or even a transmission line – like the one put over the James River near Jamestown nor I-295 near Richmond or the 895 road even though they were Federal.

    NEPA has not stopped mega landfills, biosolids on farmland, solar farms nor most onshore wind turbines, new natural gas plants, data centers, Walmarts, new bridges or or the new Hampton Roads tunnels, racetracks, water parks, ball stadiums, etc, etc, etc.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Only one of them.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        It does not stop the vast majority of projects, only a tiny number and it’s not NEPA per se that does it. NEPA itself does not deny projects from going forward.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          You declared the problem to be NEPA, and found NEPA unobtrusive. The front end of that assumption is wrong.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No. You misunderstood or perhaps I did not explain.

            Projects need permits to get built.

            That has always been that way.

            NEPA requires that the projects that need permits also show impacts as well as look at alternatives.

            Like a road will need permits and before NEPA, they’d get the permits and build it without regard to impacts right through a neighborhood or school or park. NEPA adds additional rules for specifying the impacts. It requires the development of alternatives and documenting impacts for each and comparing – including a “no build” alternative.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Laws with “citizen lawsuit” provisions include, among others, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. (BTW, one does not have to be a U.S. citizen to file.)

      It is the job of the government to enforce those laws. Yet they are used by private actors to strangle infrastructure projects. Now they are being used to strangle green energy projects. Sauce for the goose.

      Remember President Obama’s “shovel-ready projects?” Neither does he.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Most govt-sponsored projects require permits, nothing new there and NIMBY is often not partisan at all.

        “Shovel-ready” is real and a bunch of projects that actually were “shovel ready” DID get built.

        What it means is that they’ve done the modelling and engineering , that they know the cost and impacts and are “ready”.

        Virginia’s SmartScale requires that projects be essentially “shovel ready” – that all they need is funding. It’s a real concept.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The measure of a law isn’t in the good done when applied as intended, but in the harm done if applied in unintended circumstances — Some really smart Supreme Court justice, or an arbitrary casual observer. One or the other.

  4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    There are a lot of issues that could be addressed here, but it
    is best to limit comment to four general areas:

    1. Any human activity is going to have an impact on
    the environment. The purpose of the EIA process is to identify and understand any actual and potential impacts. With the exception of the Endangered Species Act (and possibly a few others), a finding of an adverse impact, does not in and of itself, “block” a project. The general requirement is that the government and public understand and weigh the potential impacts versus the “good” that is intended.

    2. As I understand it, most of the EIA suits that are filed are based on challenging the sufficiency of the environmental assessment (the agency did not consider everything it should have) or the accuracy of the assessment (the agency is wrong in its assessment). Ideally, if the federal or state agency had done its job properly, there would be no need for a suit, or the assessment would have been upheld by the courts.

    3. We are a litigious society; have always been. Basic to the American governmental system is the notion that individuals have rights that should not be arbitrarily violated or ignored by the government. There has to be “due process”. One of the
    functions of the judicial system is to protect those rights, civil or criminal, by ensuring “due process”.

    For this idea to have any effect, an individual must be able to seek redress in the courts. To challenge the scientific findings and legality of a governmental agency’s actions takes subject matter and legal assistance of one’s own. Few citizens can handle such expense alone, so they band together with other like-minded citizens, rich and not-so-rich, and pool their money to fight in the courts what they feel are inadequate or
    faulty environmental assessments.

    The law and the environmental process are neutral. Any organization of any political ideology, from the Southern Environmental Law Center to the Mountain States
    Legal Foundation, can use it. There are some landowners in Pittsylvania County who are sitting on a uranium deposit that
    is worth a fortune who cannot use their land due to the efforts of liberal environmentalists in the Piedmont Environment Council, funded primarily by wealthy folks, who teamed up with conservatives down river in Halifax County and adjacent localities to persuade the General Assembly to impose a moratorium on uranium mining due to its potential for environmental damage.

    It is certainly true that any group can tie a project up in courts interminably. One can always argue that there are more unanswered questions or nitpick some findings. It is up to the courts to decide how much is enough.

    Lawyers are an easy target to criticize. Sometimes lawyers and their clients abuse the system, using the courts and their deep pockets to wear out the opposition. But, consider the alternative of no court protection for individuals.

    4. I would think that conservatives would be in strong support of providing individuals legal protection against the encroachment of their rights by the government.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Dicks last point is especially relevant when the govt decides that it must take property or do something that has in impact to property in the name of the public interest.

      What NEPA also requires is a hard look at alternatives to the proposed action – another way to achieve the desired goal – as opposed to just stopping ANY action.

      And as Dick pointed out, NEPA does not stop the agency from proceeding anyhow , only that it has taken the “hard look” to include all the impacts and alternatives including what is known as the “no action” alternative which details what a lack of action will result in.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      He serves his party best who serves the country best. — Rutherford B. Hayes, 19th US president (4 Oct 1822-1893)

      He serves his party best who sues to protect the environment best because he can and because that’s what we do. — Dick Hall-Sizemore (~1950- )

      The law is there to protect us all, and anyone may use it.

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      1. the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act each have citizen lawsuit provisions.
      2. “Citizen suit provisions in environmental legislation, were the first provisions empowering private citizens to act as “private attorneys general,” enforcing statutory rights for the benefit of the community as a whole, rather than personal benefit.” (Citizen Suits: Private Enforcement of Federal Pollution Control Laws by Jeffrey G. Miller)
      3. These provisions provide standing to the Sierra Club et al.
      4. Congress, on the record, provided these provisions because it thought government corrupt. That polluters would be able to influence enforcement.
      5. Truth is, it did not want individual citizens to have to sue under tort law, under which claimants must show that they have suffered foreseeable loss or harm as a direct result of the breach of duty. Why? Tort cases put attorneys at risk for their investments of time and money in return for a big share of damages awards. The plaintiff is suing to enforce environmental law is entitled to no damages.
      6. So the plaintiff pays the attorneys in suits under these provisions. Successful plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other costs of litigation. But attorneys, unless they take cases pro bono, get paid by the Sierra Clubs of the world, and the plaintiff gets its attorney fees reimbursed if they prevail.
      7. Thus, the provisions remove risk from attorneys. All they need to do is find deep pocketed non-profits, with which America overflows, to pay them.
      8. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act of course did not specify the type of project that could be targeted or the type of plaintiff who could sue. The writers of those provisions did not anticipate that deep pocketed conservative organizations would 50 years later sue to stop green energy projects. But sauce for the goose…
      9. The legal profession wins no matter who is suing. Which, in this legislation, was the point.

      1. 4. Congress, on the record, provided these provisions because it thought government corrupt.

        I guess they would know….

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Simply one more Sherlockian expression of inanity. “They” are us, not them. Such makes the Reagan aphorism about government solutions/problem self immolation.

          1. I understand what you are saying, but I am not so sure “they” really are “us” any more.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Have always been, are, and will be until the next coup.

    4. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      #4 is the heart of the contention.

  5. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Environmentalism goes industrial:
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/04/environmentalism-has-lost-its-way/
    With chemical energy no less!

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Nice spam post… but this is a doozy:

      “As I pointed out in my recent article on Virginia’s ill-named Clean Economy Act, we are talking about hundreds of square miles of solar devastation today, for just one state.”

      Let’s say you are actually correct (doubtful, I know) your “hundreds of square miles” amounts to less than 1% of the land area of Virginia….🤷‍♂️

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        indeed.

        enough land to power Va would be a square about 16 miles on a side or 16 parcels one mile square scattered across the state.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5cbd6deff23ef1a5ab522a106a5f7f4ae40138226bfeeb9e804cd07991699b9c.jpg

      2. your “hundreds of square miles” amounts to less than 1% of the land area of Virginia….

        I guess that depends on how many hundreds of square miles you are talking about.

        200 square miles is less than one-half of one percent of Virginia’s total land area (42,7774 sq. mi.). 500 square miles is 1.17%. 999 square miles is 2.34%

        😉

        With that said, Mr. Wojick’s “hundreds of square miles” of “solar devastation” is incorrect.

        On average, it takes a total of about 6-8 acres of land to generate 1 MW of solar electricity. That being the case, I will be super-conservative and use 10 acres/MW in my computations.

        At the end of 2021, Virginia’s total solar production capability was in the neighborhood of 2,650 MW.

        So,

        2,650 * 10 = approximately 26,500 acres of land in Virginia currently being used for solar production.

        There are 640 acres in a square mile.

        So,

        26,500/640 = 41.4 square miles of “solar devastation” – quite a long way from “hundreds of square miles”.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          “Hundreds of square miles” was Sherlock’s characterization which Mr. Wojick challenged. I think you have perhaps inadvertently agreed wth his criticism.

          1. “Hundreds of square miles” was Sherlock’s characterization which Mr. Wojick challenged.

            That is not correct.

            It was Mr. Wojick, in an article for which he posted a link, who made that claim.

            In his article, Mr. Sherlock makes no mention of specific areas being utilized for solar farms. The phrase “square miles” does not appear anywhere in his article, nor does the term “solar devastation”.

            Here is the relevant quote from Mr. Wojick’s article titled “Environmentalism Has Lost Its Way”: As I pointed out in my recent article on Virginia’s ill-named Clean Economy Act, we are talking about hundreds of square miles of solar devastation today, for just one state.

            With that said, however, if Mr. Sherlock had made the claim, I would have refuted it, and my refutation would not have been inadvertent.

          2. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            I stand corrected. Thanx.

          3. No worries. Have a nice day – but only if you want to, of course…

  6. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    There are too many lawsuits in the US today. Both conservatives and liberals agree that our infrastructure needs improvement. That desire for improved infrastructure lasts until the infrastructure improvements are planned near somebody’s home or “viewshed”. When that happens, the lawsuits start.

    If endless lawsuits are acceptable then what use are the regulatory agencies that analyze projects and issue permits? Once gain, big government is a big failure. We need to either find aa way to constrain the lawsuits or we need to downsize the regulatory bodies that are constantly being sued.

    “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

    Ronald W Reagan

    The Biden Recession is upon us. Seems like a good time to start cutting positions at the federal, state and local level inside agencies that make rulings and issue permits only to see their rulings and permits reversed by the court system.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Too bad government is so involved in the law.

  7. There’s one point that I don’t see anyone disputing in this thread: It’s damn near impossible to build big infrastructure projects anymore.

    The climate-change warriors have perfected the tactics of endless lawsuits, endless appeals, and endless delays. Anyone with the money to pay a team of lawyers can gum up the works for any project. What the climate-change warriors didn’t bargain on is other people adopting their tactics to thwart renewable energy infrastructure. We can see that happening in real time with the swelling save-the-whales movement in the Dominion offshore wind project. I am sympathetic to that line of attack because I have major reservations about the project. But let’s not pretend that the concern about right whales is anything but what it is — a tactic to delay and obstruct for other reasons.

    A net zero electric grid also will require a lot more high-power transmission lines. Nobody likes them (understandably so). It’s damn difficult to upgrade a transmission line these days, much less to obtain new right of way and build a new one. Count on more delay-and-obstruct tactics from landowners in their path to ensure that very few get built, or, if they do get built, to take years longer than necessary.

    Yes, there is value to allowing citizens to mount legal challenges against big infrastructure projects. There’s also a huge societal cost to be paid if the end result is no more new infrastructure.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      In terms of big infrastructure, are you aware of the second Hampton Roads tunnel project? $3.8 billion dollars.

      They’re gonna build a new rail bridge into DC – that’s another billion dollars.

      big infrastructure can have big impacts these days but it depends on the proximity to developed property.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      The only clear winners are the lawyers.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Can’t reward those buggers for their efforts. Especially when it is not clear concerning the environmental impact they opposed or supported.

    3. I disagree with you on one point: But let’s not pretend that the concern about right whales is anything but what it is — a tactic to delay and obstruct for other reasons.

      Many people from all walks of life genuinely care about trying to prevent the unnecessary extinction of animal species on our planet. And, despite my occasional “nuke the whales” jokes, I am one of them.

      Current estimates indicate that there are fewer than 350 North Atlantic Right Whales remaining on the planet, including only about 100 mating-age females. Their population has declined about 14% in the last ten years.

      I do not consider requiring Dominion to honestly (and publicly) investigate whether their project will further endanger these animals a “tactic to delay and obstruct for other reasons”.

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Risk aversion.

    5. I disagree with you on one point: But let’s not pretend that the concern about right whales is anything but what it is — a tactic to delay and obstruct for other reasons.

      Many people from all walks of life genuinely care about trying to prevent the unnecessary extinction of animal species on our planet. And, despite my occasional “nuke the whales” jokes, I am one of them.

      Current estimates indicate that there are fewer than 350 North Atlantic Right Whales remaining on the planet, including only about 100 mating-age females. Their population has declined about 14% in the last ten years.

      I do not consider requiring Dominion to honestly (and publicly) investigate whether their project will further endanger these animals a “tactic to delay and obstruct for other reasons”.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The measure of a law isn’t in the good done when applied as intended, but in the harm done if applied in unintended circumstances — Some really smart Supreme Court justice, or an arbitrary casual observer. One or the other.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Or not applied at all.

  9. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” A net zero electric grid also will require a lot more high-power transmission lines. Nobody likes them (understandably so). It’s damn difficult to upgrade a transmission line these days, much less to obtain new right of way and build a new one. Count on more delay-and-obstruct tactics from landowners in their path to ensure that very few get built, or, if they do get built, to take years longer than necessary.”

    Basically the turbines would be replacing existing fossil fuels not adding more electricity.

    Over the next 20, 30+ years we’d might need more lines but we’ve already said that we need to modernize the grid.

    New powerlines get built all the time despite NIMBY, they don’t get stopped, they sometimes get re-routed but even the one over the James at Surry got approved.

    Opposition from landowners is not new at all. What is new is opposition from Conservatives for political purposes using false excuses (like whales that they never have previously worked to protect).

    Conservatives have opposed clean air and clean water, unleaded gas, CFCs, as well as closing coal plants – remember the “War on Coal”? Ya’ll have always been
    this way and then after you lose, you then talk about the “success” of cleaner air and water – that you opposed earlier.

    You say “Clean up the Chesapeake Bay” but when it comes time to do it, ya’ll oppose the measures!

    It’s what you do!

  10. Turbocohen Avatar
    Turbocohen

    I think you are confusing Environmentalists with Conservationists. BIG difference.

Leave a Reply