WaitingForPower

Email Congress and Advocate for Change.

Select the issues you care about

Interconnection process reform

A fast, real yes or no on grid connection.

Learn more →Not included
NEPA timeline & review reform

Faster reviews. Same rigor.

Learn more →Not included
One Federal Decision

One review. Not a relay race.

Learn more →Not included
Federal backstop transmission siting

One state can't veto a national grid.

Learn more →Not included
Judicial review reform

Give lawsuits an end date.

Learn more →Not included
Earlier community engagement

Talk to communities before the fight, not after.

Learn more →Not included
Interconnection

Interconnection process reform

A fast, real yes or no on grid connection.

Grid queues can outlast the construction itself. Thousands of projects sit stuck behind one plant's paperwork with no deadline forcing an answer. The fix is first-ready-first-served cluster studies with hard deadlines and readiness deposits that weed out speculative filings, plus 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.
FERC Order No. 2023Congress.gov: interconnection queue reform
NEPA

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

  • +This already has bipartisan precedent, since the 2023 debt-limit deal did the same thing once before.
  • +Same questions get answered, just on a clock instead of indefinitely.

Weaknesses

  • −Hard deadlines can pressure rushed reviews.
  • −A clock doesn't help if agencies stay underfunded to meet it.
SPEED Act (H.R. 4776, 119th Congress)Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (H.R. 3746)
Multi-agency

One Federal Decision

One review. Not a relay race.

A project can need sign-off from several federal agencies running separate, sequential reviews. The single slowest one sets the pace for everyone else's already-finished work. The fix is one shared schedule and record of decision across every agency involved, using 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. It just loses its veto over the calendar.

Weaknesses

  • −Real interagency coordination is hard, not just paperwork.
  • −A shared deadline can pressure a rushed sign-off.
FAST Act of 2015 (H.R. 22), Title 41
Transmission siting

Federal backstop transmission siting

One state can't veto a national grid.

A single state, or even just 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 is federal backstop siting authority for nationally significant lines, the same model that already governs interstate gas pipelines.

Strengths

  • +Interstate gas pipelines already work this way, so there's a direct precedent to follow.
  • +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.
SPEED Act (H.R. 4776, 119th Congress)Grid Expansion and Reliability Act (H.R. 8248, 119th Congress)Congress.gov: federal transmission siting authority
Litigation

Judicial review reform

Give lawsuits an end date.

A fully-approved project can still be re-litigated for years, with no deadline to file a challenge and 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.
SPEED Act (H.R. 4776, 119th Congress)Energy Permitting Reform Act (S. 4753, 118th Congress)
Local input

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 is real engagement and binding community benefit agreements early, before decisions are set in stone.

Strengths

  • +It fixes the real cause of opposition, not just the symptom, since people get no say and no benefit today.
  • +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.
Congress.gov: community benefit agreements