Policies to support
Six bipartisan fixes, one per bottleneck. No silver bullets — real trade-offs included.
Informed by Citizens’ Climate Lobby and other bipartisan reform advocates, in this site’s own words.
Interconnection process reform
A fast, real yes or no on grid connection.
Grid queues can outlast the construction itself — thousands of projects stuck behind one plant's paperwork, with no deadline forcing an answer. The fix: first-ready-first-served cluster studies with hard deadlines and readiness deposits that weed out speculative filings — full enforcement of FERC Order No. 2023, which is already final law.
Strengths
- +Already federal law — the gap is enforcement, not legislation.
- +Readiness deposits fast-track serious projects, cut the rest.
Weaknesses
- −Needs real ISO staffing to actually run cluster studies.
- −Doesn't fix the grid capacity shortage causing the queue.
NEPA timeline & review reform
Faster reviews. Same rigor.
Environmental reviews routinely run past a decade with no real deadline, often re-studying effects already well understood from comparable projects. Citizens' Climate Lobby's ask: hard time limits (1-2 years) and page limits (75-300 pages), one lead agency, and reuse of prior review findings instead of starting from scratch every time.
Strengths
- +Bipartisan precedent — the 2023 debt-limit deal already did this once.
- +Same questions get answered — just on a clock, not indefinitely.
Weaknesses
- −Hard deadlines can pressure rushed reviews.
- −A clock doesn't help if agencies stay underfunded to meet it.
One Federal Decision
One review. Not a relay race.
A project can need sign-off from several federal agencies running separate, sequential reviews — so the single slowest one sets the pace for everyone else's already-finished work. The fix: one shared schedule and record of decision across every agency involved, the FAST-41 model, extended beyond its current small set of covered projects.
Strengths
- +Already proven at smaller scale under FAST-41 today.
- +No agency loses its say — just its veto over the calendar.
Weaknesses
- −Real interagency coordination is hard, not just paperwork.
- −A shared deadline can pressure a rushed sign-off.
Federal backstop transmission siting
One state can't veto a national grid.
A single state — or one county within it — can block a transmission line meant to serve an entire region, with no federal option if local approval stalls. The fix: federal backstop siting authority for nationally significant lines, the same model that already governs interstate gas pipelines.
Strengths
- +Direct precedent: interstate gas pipelines already work this way.
- +Targets the #1 reason big multi-state lines die.
Weaknesses
- −The most politically contested idea on this page.
- −Could override real local concerns, not just parochial ones.
Judicial review reform
Give lawsuits an end date.
A fully-approved project can still be re-litigated for years — no deadline to file a challenge, no deadline to decide it. Citizens' Climate Lobby has proposed cutting the filing window from 6 years down to 5 months, paired with a single consolidated venue and expedited briefing.
Strengths
- +Doesn't remove the right to sue — just puts a clock on it.
- +Today, litigation risk hits good and bad projects equally; a deadline fixes that.
Weaknesses
- −Litigation is often the only real check on agency shortcuts.
- −Too short a window can bar claims discovered late for good reason.
Earlier community engagement
Talk to communities before the fight, not after.
Local opposition usually shows up only after the site and design are already locked in — by then it's an all-or-nothing fight instead of a negotiation. The fix: real engagement and binding community benefit agreements early, before decisions are set in stone.
Strengths
- +Fixes the actual cause: no say, no benefit — not just the symptom.
- +Fewer late-stage fights tend to mean fewer lawsuits too.
Weaknesses
- −"Meaningful engagement" is hard to define in statute.
- −Adds real time and cost to project development up front.