Key ideas: Powering a modern gridConsequences of Deployment Barriers The U.S. has seen a recent spur in solar and wind energy generation capacity and battery deployment, adding roughly 229 GW of capacity between 2020 and 2024.63 The passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) drove many of these investments, and were projected to add a combined total of 390 to 850 GW of solar, wind, and battery storage capacity by 2030. These investments would result in roughly 44 to 93 GW of solar and wind capacity and 5 to 12 GW of battery storage being deployed every single year between 2023 and 2030.64 While these projections equate to a massive power sector emissions reduction—a 72% to 91% reduction below 2005 levels—achieving such a large buildout of clean power depends on overcoming a variety of deployment barriers.65
Deployment rates and decarbonization targets will become even more challenging to meet after the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Projected deployment of solar and wind will decrease significantly compared to a scenario where IRA tax credits had been maintained. However, the market will still spur heavy growth in these sectors. By 2030, we could see an average deployment of 33 to 35 GW of solar, wind, and batteries (Figure 7 ). Again, these projections face one major uncertainty: there are still significant deployment barriers that could hold back the buildout of VRE.66 To continue deploying high levels of VRE, especially without tax incentives, the U.S. needs to remove barriers to deployment.
Figure 7: Average annual net capacity change in Gigawatts (additions less retirements) (67)Deployment Challenge Areas We identify three major opportunities for addressing barriers to clean energy deployment:
Streamlining and accelerating federal permitting. Removing and preventing local permitting and siting roadblocks. Modernizing the interconnection process and clearing the backlog. We believe philanthropy has the opportunity to drive progress across all three barriers and to ensure the U.S. continues to make strides toward decarbonizing the grid. We briefly describe these challenges and opportunities and describe these challenges further in the sections below.
Strategy: Streamlining and accelerating federal permitting Challenge: Permitting is transmission's largest bottleneck, and federal reform could significantly accelerate—or set back—clean energy deployment in the coming years.Philanthropy can: Inform and guide policy discussions to ensure federal permitting reform hastens clean energy deployment.Examples: Support government engagement and policy development; conduct policy modelingStrategy: Removing and preventing local permitting and siting roadblocks Challenge: Local siting and permitting challenges are widespread and could stall clean energy momentum.Philanthropy can: Prevent and reverse restrictive local policiesExamples: Support government engagement and policy development; fund research; build new climate grassroots networks; build diverse alliances across issue areasStrategy: Modernizing the interconnection process and clearing the backlog Challenge: Interconnection queue backlogs are limiting the effectiveness of policies designed to drive clean energy deployment.Philanthropy can: Drive change through education, thought leadership, and government engagementExamples: Support government engagement and policy developmentStreamlining and Accelerating Federal Permitting Key ideas: Streamlining and accelerating federal permittingAll energy facilities require permits at the local, state, and interstate levels, but only transmission lines and large-scale projects typically require federal permits.68 In recent years, federal permitting has become increasingly challenging, resulting in delays or even cancellations of energy infrastructure projects. 69 These challenges generally fall into two categories: (1) transmission permitting issues, and (2) broader federal permitting issues affecting large-scale energy projects such as nuclear, geothermal, and utility-scale solar facilities.70 We believe that both of these federal permitting challenge areas can benefit from additional philanthropic support.
Building More Transmission Transmission buildout is crucial to deploying high rates of renewables: For VRE deployment to continue growing, transmission will be needed to connect remote areas with concentrated wind and solar resources to centers of demand further away.71 Beyond decarbonizing the grid, expanding transmission capacity will also be critical for reliability and resilience as electricity demand rises.72 Several of the reliability and resilience services that are provided by transmission buildout are listed in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Grid benefits of transmission buildout (73)Looking ahead, to meet projected electricity demand, the U.S. transmission system will need to grow substantially: by 2050, the transmission system must be 2.1 to 2.6 times the size of the transmission system in 2020, and between 2.4 and 3.5 times larger if we are to achieve a 90% reduction in grid emissions by 2035 and 100% by 2050.74
The U.S. is not building enough transmission: Despite the clear need, transmission buildout remains far below required levels to meet our climate targets. To meet even the minimum projected demand growth by 2050, the U.S. will need to build 5,000 miles of new transmission lines each year—a pace far higher than what has been achieved over the last 15 years (Figure 9 ).75
Figure 9: Miles of new 345 kV+ transmission lines built over the last 15 years (76)There have been recent policy efforts, however, to support the buildout of transmission, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 1920. This FERC order requires all transmission planning regions to conduct detailed, long-term, scenario-based transmission planning, something many regions do not currently do.77 In the long run, we expect that such regionalized transmission planning will help identify more potential transmission projects and improve coordination; however, it will not overcome the deeper barriers that have slowed transmission deployment to date.
Permitting is holding back transmission buildout: A major barrier is the challenging, complex siting and permitting process. Throughout this process, multiple government jurisdictions—from the local to the federal level—will oversee and permit a transmission line, creating numerous opportunities for delay, especially when a project crosses state lines.78 Federal permitting alone can take years, with transmission projects averaging seven years to receive approval compared to three years for natural gas pipelines (Figure 10 ).79 This imbalance in permitting timelines strongly suggests areas for improvement in transmission permitting.
Figure 10: Time taken for federal permit review, as of September 23, 2022 (80)Longer transmission lines, which are often required to connect renewable resources, face even greater permitting hurdles. For example, while only 3.6% of transmission projects between 2010 and 2020 underwent a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process—the most stringent environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA—these projects accounted for 26% of all transmission miles built during this time period.81
Some of the permitting challenges causing transmission delays stem from general issues that also affect other types of projects, as discussed in the section below, but transmission also faces its own specific permitting hurdles. Many of these challenges stem from the fact that most transmission permitting is conducted at the local and state levels. For example, many states have limited staff and budgets that keep them from actively participating in transmission planning before the permitting process. If they can, states may even be reluctant to plan or permit interregional transmission over the fear they would be subsidizing other states’ benefits at the expense of their own constituents.82 However, if a state decides to plan a transmission project and move on to permitting, various local and state offices will review the transmission project to determine which permits it needs, creating an arduous and lengthy process. To add further complication, a transmission project may require time-bound permits, such that a holdup with one permit could lead to the expiration of others.83
Without reforms, delays will reduce the deployment of VRE and push the grid toward a greater reliance on natural gas and even coal (Figure 11 ).84 In line with the proposals of many experts—and despite opportunities to improve state and local processes—we believe federalizing the transmission siting permitting process to avoid the complexity and inefficiencies of the current process represents a high-impact opportunity that could benefit from philanthropic support .85
Figure 11: Effects of transmission delays on power generation by energy source, in 2032 (86)What can philanthropy do? Philanthropy has a clear role in driving transmission buildout by educating policymakers on the importance of the issue and developing new policies to address permitting challenges. Funders can support research on policy design and impact, coordinate stakeholders, and advocate for federalizing or modernizing transmission permitting to accelerate clean energy deployment.
Other areas to explore in the future: Permitting is a major and immediate roadblock to the buildout of transmission; however, there are additional financing, planning, operational, and market challenges holding transmission back.87 While this report does not cover these challenges, we may look into this area in the future. Similarly, we may explore other advanced transmission technologies, such as grid-enhancing technologies and advanced conductors, which could help improve the performance of existing infrastructure and support the deployment of clean energy alongside transmission buildout.88
Avoiding General Federal Permitting Delays All clean energy and transmission projects require permitting from local and state governments. However, relatively large projects and projects sited on federal land often need a host of federal permits. In total, there are roughly 50 federal permits that may be relevant to a clean energy or transmission project. Most of these permits fall under three categories: wildlife protection, air and water protection, and federal/protected land usage.89 Projects that require a federal permit must also comply with federal procedural laws. The most common example is NEPA, which requires a project to assess any potential environmental impact through an environmental assessment (EA) and, if significant impacts are identified, a more stringent EIS. It is important to note, however, that NEPA does not normally apply to small projects through a categorical exclusion.90
Federal permitting can delay critical generation and transmission projects by years: On average, energy generation and transmission projects require five to six years to obtain federal permits.91 Although not all clean energy projects are subject to federal review, larger-scale technologies—such as nuclear power plants—or those with potential siting opportunities on federal lands—including geothermal and solar projects in the Midwest—are more frequently affected by federal permitting requirements.92 It is also uncommon for a project to require only a single federal permit; most projects must secure at least two to four.93 Each additional permitting requirement increases the likelihood of multi-year delays (Figure 12). These delays not only raise overall project costs but also impede the timely deployment of new capacity at a moment when demand growth is accelerating faster than supply.94
Figure 12: Time taken for federal permit view stages, as of September 23, 2022 (95)NEPA is a challenge, but not the sole problem: NEPA reviews, which have been at the center of permitting debates, are not the primary obstacle for most projects. For example, between 2010 and 2023, roughly 10% of new solar capacity and 3.7% of new wind capacity were subject to NEPA review. This represents a relatively small share of new VRE capacity and has not been a significant factor constraining overall solar and wind growth. Nevertheless, NEPA can still create delays for a subset of high-capacity VRE projects and therefore remains a barrier to deployment.96 Other clean energy technologies, such as nuclear and transmission lines, however, face a greater threat of NEPA reviews and subsequent delays.
Figure 13: Time for EIS under NEPA for renewable energy and electric transmission for the period 2010-2018 (97)For example, a new geothermal plant may be subject to as many as six separate NEPA reviews during its development, creating a substantial risk of delay and extending project timelines by several years. For context, NEPA reviews for geothermal lease nominations alone take between one and four years to complete.98 Figure 13 shows the average timeline for completing a single EIS across clean energy technologies, highlighting the long (2-3+ years, on average) and varied (frequently 7 and up to 12 years) delays such reviews can impose. Despite the apparent challenge, especially for technologies like transmission, we are unsure whether NEPA reform will lead to deep impacts across all clean technologies.99 However, we still believe that further federal permitting research and policy development that includes NEPA is an impactful area for philanthropy to engage in.100
Challenges behind federal permitting delays: Given the widespread nature of federal permitting, there is no single challenge responsible for delays. Instead, there are many potential factors that experts point to:
Federal agencies face capacity constraints: Insufficient funding, staffing, and access to necessary technologies at federal agencies responsible for reviewing permits and conducting NEPA assessments have repeatedly been cited as sources of delay. Over the last two decades, different studies have found that deficiencies in one of these three areas have led to permitting delays in federal agencies.101 Recent cuts to federal agency funding and a reduction of roughly 300,000 federal employees may further exacerbate these challenges, although the full implications remain uncertain.102 Federal permitting requires interagency coordination: With multiple agencies involved in a project's permitting process, there is potential for coordination inefficiencies. Improvements in interagency coordination from policies such as Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41) and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC) only apply to specific sets of projects, leaving room for improvement.103 Federal permitting can face legal challenges and judicial review: A large challenge with federal permitting, especially regarding NEPA, is the delay caused by legal challenges and judicial reviews. Various clean energy projects have faced legal challenges based on their permitting, and especially regarding their NEPA findings (Figure 14 ).104 Figure 14: Litigation and cancellation rates for energy projects that received an EIS (105)While most NEPA litigation is filed to reduce environmental impacts, there have been cases where NEPA litigation has been used as an obstructionist tactic to promote personal benefits.106 In both cases, lawsuits against projects tend to end in favor of the federal agencies conducting the NEPA analysis; however, despite the outcome, litigation still extends a project’s timeline and leads to expensive delays.107 On average, district courts have come to a ruling within a year, and cases that were appealed to the appellate courts have taken at least an additional two years to reach a final ruling.108
The goal is permitting reform, not repeal. It is important to note that while there is room for improvement in permitting, existing permitting laws should not be dismantled. Several experts have shared their concerns regarding the potential negative implications if current federal law is substantially weakened.109 Permitting reform must focus on improving the efficiency of the permitting process and eliminating waste and abuse, while ensuring permits continue to function as intended.
What can philanthropy do? We believe there are areas for philanthropy to better inform and guide policy discussions surrounding federal permitting reform that can hasten the economic deployment of clean energy.
Removing and Preventing Local Permitting and Siting Delays Key ideas: Removing and preventing local permitting and siting delaysBefore a renewable project begins construction, it must comply with local siting policies to ensure it is in an eligible location and meets all design requirements. These siting policies, and the relevant regulatory authority that oversees them, vary between states and may even vary across local governments within a state.110 At a high level, there are five ways a state may decide to allocate its siting authority for clean energy:111
The local government has primary control over siting. The state government has primary control over siting. Both local and state governments will have some level of control over siting. The local government will have control over siting, subject to state-imposed guardrails. There are minimal to no siting regulations, and landowners have control over siting. However, most states use a combination of these approaches by creating multiple pathways for siting and permitting that often vary by project size or, in some circumstances, provide a selection of pathways for developers (Figure 15 ).
Figure 15: Siting policy frameworks by state (112)Beyond these pathways, states will also apply different restrictions and requirements for clean energy siting and permitting, making every state's approach unique, even if they share a foundational approach to siting and permitting (see examples of these variations in Appendix D). While multiple siting and permitting approaches add complexity, they give states flexibility to tailor processes to their needs.113 For example, a state may make siting standards for clean energy resources that are widely available in its region more restrictive to manage buildout.
Growing clean energy siting challenges: Across the U.S., local governments increasingly challenge and prevent the construction of renewable energy projects through local ordinances that severely restrict or ban the siting of renewable energy projects.114 In total, 459 local governments across 44 states, as well as 16 states themselves, have enacted restrictive siting policies for renewable energy projects, resulting in at least 498 contested renewable energy projects in 2024.115 The breakdown of local government restrictions and the number of contested renewable energy projects are not concentrated in Republican- or Democrat-leaning states (Figure 16 ).
Figure 16: Opposition to renewable energy facilities in the U.S. (116)A study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that the level of local ordinances in 2022, which is lower than the number at the end of 2024, could reduce solar and wind energy up to 38% and 87%, respectively.117 This modeling also considered only the impact of setback ordinances on available land for renewable energy projects and, therefore, on the amount of potential generation. When taking into consideration other types of ordinances, the total impact could be much greater.118
While we do not yet have final data for 2025, current state-level renewable energy siting restrictions also seem to be growing. Nearly 150 state bills have been introduced so far this year that restrict the siting and deployment of renewable energy. States with the greatest level of renewable energy deployment in the last decade are also the states that have introduced the greatest number of restrictive bills.119 The number of bills passed so far this year that have made siting renewable energy either easier or more challenging, however, has been roughly even (Figure 17 ).
Figure 17: Anticipated deployment impact of enacted bills (120)Due to the immense restrictions on clean energy siting generated by local and state policies, we believe state and local siting policy reform is a key area for philanthropic engagement.
Motivation behind siting restrictions: It is challenging to pinpoint the exact cause of the growing siting restrictions for renewable energy. However, there are lessons we can learn from national political shifts and past project opposition.
Nationally, there is a political bifurcation of support for renewable energy. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that in 2020, 65% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats were supportive of expanding renewable energy over expanding exploration and production of fossil fuels. However, in 2025, only 33% of Republicans preferred expanding renewables, while 86% of Democrats still strongly supported expanding renewable energy.121 In other words, since 2020, Republican support for expanding renewables and expanding fossil fuel exploration and consumption has flipped. While this survey does not provide insights into why Republicans’ views have changed, it does show that renewable energy has become politicized. This shift in Republican support could explain the increase of restrictive siting policies recently introduced at the state level, as Republican-led siting bills have been disproportionately restrictive toward renewable energy.122 However, it does not necessarily explain the increase in restrictive local ordinances country-wide, especially in predominantly Democratic states.
Local opposition is complicated, with projects normally facing multiple sources of opposition.123 A recent study found that the most commonly cited challenges across projects are risks to land value and potential environmental impacts.124 These two risks affected roughly 50% of all projects studied.125 The study also found that opposition normally was not rooted in “disapproval of renewable energy” but rather in local and project-specific concerns, whether factual or perceived. Opposition to renewable energy projects may also differ between rural and urban areas. A 2024 Pew Research Center study found that rural residents were more likely to perceive negative impacts to the landscape, while they were less likely to perceive local economic benefits (Figure 18 ).126
Figure 18: Perceived impacts of a solar panel farm across different communities (127)The challenging political and cultural nature of renewable energy opposition makes solving the siting challenge at the local and state levels difficult. We are uncertain whether these challenges can be resolved quickly; however, we do believe that their resolution is a critical area for philanthropic involvement due to the scale of the issue.
Technology-agnostic reforms: In 2025, state siting bills were only passed in states where a single party held both legislative bodies and the governor’s office (a trifecta), signaling that state siting policies are a partisan issue. However, in states with at least one Republican legislative body, technology-agnostic siting and permitting policies were more likely to pass, suggesting that “technology inclusive” reform may have a higher chance of success in divided governments.128 Philanthropy should explore technology-inclusive siting policy strategies to better understand the potential emissions benefits of passing such reforms.
What can philanthropy do? We believe that philanthropy is well-positioned to support efforts to prevent and reverse restrictive and harmful policies. Funders can support local and state governments with technical expertise, engage conservative and unaligned constituencies, research siting dynamics, and advocate for the reversal or prevention of restrictive local ordinances.
Modernizing the Interconnection Process and Clearing the Backlog Key ideas: Modernizing the interconnection process and clearing the backlogTo connect an energy project to the grid, developers must undergo an interconnection study process. After selecting a site and finalizing a design, a developer submits a request to an independent system operator (ISO) in regulated markets or to a utility in unregulated markets.129 Once a project developer requests an interconnection study, the project goes into the “interconnection queue” and will wait for the utility or ISO to conduct an interconnection study.130 This study examines how the project's connection may affect the reliability or safety of the grid, and assesses what new transmission or distribution upgrades may be needed to safely interconnect the project to the grid. Once the study is completed by the ISO or utility, both parties negotiate an interconnection agreement outlining the project’s operating conditions and the costs of connection (Figure 19 ).131
Figure 19: Typical interconnection study process and timeline (132)Guiding this process are interconnection procedures and technical requirements set by a regulatory authority to ensure interconnection studies and the general process meet a high standard.133 The regulatory authority in charge depends on which type of interconnection process a project requires. For larger projects that connect to the bulk power system (BPS), also referred to as transmission interconnection, the regulatory authority sits at the federal level with FERC.134 For distributed energy resource (DER) projects that are smaller than 80 megawatts (MW) in size and connect to the distribution and sub-transmission system, also referred to as DER interconnection, the regulatory authority sits at the regional level with public utility commissions (PUCs).135
Challenges with interconnection: While transmission and DER interconnection happen at different levels and are regulated differently, they face similar challenges and can be improved in similar ways.136 However, the greatest challenge to deploying large amounts of clean energy and energy storage lies at the BPS level. As a result, we discuss these issues in the context of transmission interconnection, but they can be similarly applied to DER interconnection.
The current transmission interconnection queue is backlogged and has become a limiting factor to quick clean energy buildout. As of 2023, there were roughly 2,600 gigawatts (GW) of active capacity in the interconnection queue waiting to be interconnected, which had been increasing year after year for almost a decade, as seen in Figure 20 .137
Figure 20: Total (cumulative) activity capacity in queues and new (annual) capacity entering the queue (138)Ninety-five percent of the capacity sitting in the interconnection queue is from solar, wind, and energy storage, and is almost double the current installed capacity on the U.S. energy grid.139 The current grid is not physically capable of integrating all of the resources in the interconnection queue, but many of these applications were never fully intended to reach completion.140 Project developers tend to submit multiple applications to determine which project is the lowest cost and most feasible. By submitting multiple applications, they have a greater chance that at least one project will be successful.141 Due in part to this strategy, over 70% of interconnection requests end up being withdrawn, with most historically happening earlier in the interconnection queue process.142 More recently, there has been an increase in projects being withdrawn from the interconnection queue later in the process (Figure 21 ).143 This growing phenomenon points to other challenges causing withdrawals, as pulling a project out of the interconnection queue later in the process is more costly for developers.144
Figure 21: Active, operational, and withdrawn requests and share of withdrawal requests (145)The timeline for projects to successfully exit the interconnection queue and be connected to the grid has been steadily rising as well. For projects that were interconnected in 2023, the median time spent in the queue was roughly five years (i.e., a representative project would have entered the queue in 2018).146 Due to this growing interconnection delay, a recent study found that deployment of solar, wind, and batteries between now and 2027 will be lower than many current models have predicted.147 As a result, we believe reducing interconnection timelines is a high-priority area for philanthropic engagement.
Causes of interconnection challenges: Similar to permitting and siting, interconnection challenges are partly due to policy and regulatory challenges that have failed to keep pace with current deployment. As a result, we believe the major challenges laid out below are areas where philanthropy can help drive solutions:
PUCs and utilities are unable to keep pace with incoming applications. 148 The recent FERC Order 2023 now requires that PUCs and utilities switch from a first-come, first-served study approach to a first-ready, first-served cluster study approach.149 Further solutions to speed up the current backlog of current and future applications, such as automation strategies tied to AI or streamlined pathways for certain projects, are needed to reduce inefficiencies.150 Project developers have inadequate access to interconnection data. With more and higher-quality data on the state of the grid, project developers will be able to plan projects and interconnection requests more effectively, accounting for the grid's capacity for growth and specific operating restrictions. As a result, developers will also be less likely to blindly submit multiple applications.151 Grid upgrade costs are not equally distributed. As discussed earlier, after conducting an interconnection queue study, a project will receive a list of transmission upgrades needed to safely connect to the grid. The cost of these upgrades is then covered by the project developer. However, these investments in grid infrastructure may benefit other future projects. To make it easier for projects to interconnect and be more fair, there needs to be changes to how transmission upgrade costs are shared among facilities.152 Availability of transmission lines presents an additional challenge. The further a project is from a transmission line, the more expensive it will be.153 As a result, transmission and interconnection planning needs to be better integrated to ensure careful planning and intertemporal efficiency.154 Current interconnection standards are inadequate for IBR technologies. Interconnection standards were not designed for the current fleet of IBR technologies that are sitting in the interconnection queue, such as solar, wind, and batteries.155 As a result, there have been recent IBR performance challenges caused by disturbances to the grid that were never accounted for during IBR interconnection studies.156 Standards need to be updated and modernized to interconnect new resources better and protect the grid.What can philanthropy do? We view addressing these challenges as a critical area of engagement where philanthropy can help drive change through education, thought leadership, and government engagement. Funders can support advocacy for interconnection reform, educate state policymakers, fund research on automation and AI tools, and back thought leaders advancing smarter, more efficient interconnection mechanisms that leverage storage and grid-enhancing technologies.
Prioritizing Philanthropic Levers that Address Barriers to Clean Energy Deployment We evaluate each sub-strategy’s scale, feasibility, and funding need. For more information on these metrics and our research process, see Giving Green’s Research Overview . We excluded funding need due to limited data on available funding. For scale, we took a qualitative approach, focusing on current bottlenecks and considering whether a lever could meaningfully address them. We assumed that addressing the most pressing bottlenecks has the greatest potential for scale, since a technology or policy that is currently constrained by a specific barrier can unlock disproportionately large emissions reductions once that barrier is removed. For feasibility, we considered political and technical factors.
Based on this exercise, we have prioritized the following approaches:
Government engagement and policy development Policy modeling Research Building diverse alliances Unlike clean firm power and other topics that Giving Green has reviewed in the past, clean energy permitting, siting, and interconnection challenges are exclusively policy and regulatory challenges. As a result, a majority of the philanthropic sub-strategies that we reviewed and prioritized are related to government engagement and policy development. Other philanthropic levers could be targeted to improve the deployment of clean energy; however, these are unrelated to the permitting, siting, or interconnection process. Instead, these levers focus on technological opportunities to improve deployment conditions or even reduce electricity demand. We may explore these adjacent levers.
Scale and feasibility of various philanthropic levers that address barriers to clean energy deployment
Streamlining and accelerating federal permitting
Supporting government engagement and policy development Scale: High. Permitting is a policy challenge, meaning that to address the system's inefficiencies and prevent future delays, new policies need to be passed. Government engagement, such as Congressional education on the importance of transmission buildout and the debilitating nature of permitting challenges, is crucial to ensuring that federal policies are added to relevant policy vehicles. Additionally, policy thought leadership and development will be critical to guide final policies toward an impactful solution.Feasibility: Medium. While there are political windows during the 119th Congress for federal transmission reform, it is difficult to say whether they will materialize given political misalignment. There is bipartisan interest in federal permitting reform, but each party has different priorities, and it is unclear whether a middle ground can be found. However, we believe there are opportunities for philanthropy to support policy efforts and increase the likelihood that an impactful policy is passed.Conducting policy modeling Scale: High. During the policy development process, stakeholder feedback, existing studies, and modeling are typically used to inform policy design. Sometimes a policy’s impact is even modeled after its design to prove its effectiveness. Federal permitting reform, however, will most likely combine multiple policy proposals spanning several permits and processes, making it challenging to determine the combined impact of the policy package. To determine whether a permitting package is climate-positive and worth supporting, modeling will be needed.Feasibility: Medium. In 2024, Senators Joe Manchin and John Barrasso proposed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA), which looked to reform permitting related to clean and fossil fuel energy. Due to the bill’s fossil fuel provisions, several environmental NGOs rallied against it. Despite these provisions, the permitting bill may have been climate positive, as some organizations claimed. However, due to a lack of trusted modeling proving so, many advocates dismissed the bill. Trusted modeling and analysis of future permitting proposals may make the difference in attaining the support needed to pass a bill.Removing and preventing local permitting and siting roadblocks
Supporting government engagement and policy development Scale: High. Similar to federal permitting, local siting and permitting issues are policy challenges that require improved policies to reverse the restrictive and harmful status quo. While state advocacy does not benefit from the broader scale of federal policy, there are many states that have political pathways for reform or large levels of potential VRE deployment.158 There are also NGO strategies that can cover several states by focusing on key projects rather than state policy. By focusing on local advocacy where there are known VRE projects planned, this strategy can lead to more direct improvements that can be replicated and reach a wider coverage.Feasibility: Medium. Siting and local permitting are gaining greater attention on both sides of the aisle. While climate-friendly policy may not be feasible in every state, it is possible to pass improved policies in several states and prevent extreme policies in others. The opposite is also true. There are states that are proposing harmful siting and permitting policies that can be prevented. The challenge of local siting and permitting is, however, somewhat fueled by cultural and political tensions, which can make change more difficult, especially at the local government level.Funding research Scale: High. Local siting and permitting regulations are ever-changing, and there are so many data points to track that it is difficult to know where new or growing challenges lie. As a result, ongoing research to understand the evolving local siting and permitting dynamics will help guide advocacy efforts. Additionally, we still do not fully understand how best to counter opposition to clean energy siting. Further research into successful tactics can help inform NGOs and developers on how to best advocate against restrictive policies.Feasibility: High. Tracking various policy efforts at the local and state levels is challenging, but not impossible. Our understanding is that with additional resources, organizations can continue to conduct these types of studies. Research into best practices, on the other hand, may run into challenges when engaging with developers who have found success, as they may be hesitant to give up their playbook for fear of losing a competitive edge.Building new climate grassroots networks Scale: Medium. While siting and permitting challenges are local, it will be challenging to build and expand climate grassroots organizations across the country that have impacts in multiple counties, let alone states. As a result, while we acknowledge the effectiveness of grassroots organizations, we believe that building new climate-oriented grassroots networks may not be the most impactful solution at this time.Feasibility: Low. Establishing a new, effective grassroots organization or network with strong ties to several communities takes time and is very challenging. As a result, this does not seem like a feasible approach to a very timely solution.Building diverse alliances across issue areas Scale: High. There are already many established community-based organizations that may have common ground with clean energy activists regarding restrictive siting ordinances. For example, conservative organizations that favor individual property rights may oppose restrictions on individuals' ability to install renewable energy on their land. A study has found that community-based organizations that are not climate-related can play a large role in clean energy projects for other community-related impacts.159 This is further supported by the fact that opposition against clean energy projects tends to be for reasons that impact the local community, not direct opposition to clean energy.160 As a result, we believe that partnerships between technical clean energy organizations and community-based organizations could lead to greater siting impacts by leveraging the knowledge, experience, and networks of both organizations.Feasibility: Non-climate-related groups engaging on clean energy issues is not a new phenomenon, and many potential local and community-based organizations across the country may have aligned interests in removing and preventing restrictive siting ordinances.161 It is not clear, however, how easy it will be to start partnerships and whether there will be a learning curve to joint advocacy. As a result, we tentatively view this strategy as having medium feasibility.Modernizing the interconnection process and clearing the backlog
Supporting government engagement and policy development Scale: High. The interconnection queue is managed by regulations set at the federal and regional levels. As a result, future regulations can mandate more efficient and effective practices that can improve the interconnection rate of renewable energy projects. By engaging with relevant government bodies, NGOs can educate regulators on existing challenges and propose new industry-informed policies to remove barriers and improve the interconnection process.Feasibility: Medium. The interconnection queue challenge is very apparent to regulators and is of concern. While additional engagement and policy support can lead to better policy designs, it is not clear whether they can help achieve timely changes amid lengthy regulatory processes.Theory of Change for Philanthropic Engagement To visualize how our prioritized philanthropic sub-strategies would interact with one another and ultimately reduce emissions, we developed a high-level TOC for addressing barriers to clean energy deployment (Figure 22 ). Theories of change enable us to better understand the pathways of influence, the likelihood of each pathway, and the avenues of greatest impact for philanthropic and civil society efforts.
The TOC lays out the different outputs and outcomes we would expect to remove barriers and, in turn, achieve emission reductions.
Figure 22: Theory of change for addressing clean energy deployment barriers-----
63 WRI, 2025
64 See Table A. Ranges in Deployment, Total Installed Capacity, and Generation Share for Select Technologies Across the Suite of IRA-BIL Scenarios and Sensitivities. NREL, 2023
65 “Barriers to deployment, such as siting and permitting challenges, supply-chain constraints, and social acceptance of electricity infrastructure development, could significantly reduce the rate of clean electricity deployment. Evaluation of a stylized suite of concurrently-implemented deployment constraints,4 including more limited renewable resource access, constrained transmission development, and increased costs of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure demonstrated the potential for a 10 percentage point reduction in the clean generation share (relative to the Mid case) and a 24% reduction in cumulative avoided emissions 2023–2030.” NREL, 2023
66 “The outcomes we report throughout Taking Stock this year are subject to considerable uncertainty, including an incredibly dynamic policy environment and persistent non-cost barriers to clean energy deployment. These factors will continue to shape how the energy system and GHG emissions evolve in the coming years” & “renewable resources continue to face many of the same headwinds we identified last year. That interconnection queue—in which 95% of capacity is renewable— is still far too large, with years-long waits for new generators to be able to plug into the grid. In addition to federal permitting slowdowns, persistent local opposition, limited growth in transmission capacity, and inflationary pressures on installation costs all weigh on deployment” Rhodium Group, 2025
67 Rhodium Group, 2025
68 Small scale projects may also need a federal permit, if for example the project receives federal funding or is sited on federal land. Brookings, 2022 , FERC, 2025
69 Brookings, 2022
70 There are additional specific permitting challenges related to technologies such as nuclear and geothermal. These are covered in the clean firm section of the report and are not covered further in the proceeding sections.
71 "The large-scale increase in renewable energy production requires the operation of transmission systems with higher capacities. While renewable energy sources are often concentrated in remote areas, a significant portion of energy consumption occurs in urban areas." Basaran, 2025
72 "To meet the growing demand for electricity, improve electric service reliability and resilience, reduce consumer costs, and enable access to low-cost generation during both normal and emergency operations, there is growing recognition that additional interregional transmission capability and connectivity is necessary" DOE Grid Deployment Office, 2024
73 NREL, 2024
74 U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, 2024
75 Grid Strategies LLC, 2025
76 ibid.
77 RMI, 2024
78 "Siting and permitting infrastructure are always challenging but even more so for a transmission project that crosses multiple states and regions. Not only is there a multitude of potential authorities with jurisdiction to issue needed permits, but each of these authorities may be required to make a separate finding of need for the project to comply with the relevant authorizing statute.” PNNL, 2025
79 Brookings, 2023
80 ibid.
81 Clean Air Task Force, 2024
82 "For many state agencies, however, limited staffing and budgetary resources are constraints that inhibit active participation in transmission planning processes and require careful prioritization between transmission and other energy issues. In addition, because state utility regulators are required to look out for the public interest of their state, they may be reluctant to support interregional transmission solutions where benefits are shared across states in varying degrees, for fear that customers in their state would be subsidizing benefits accruing to customers in other states. This is often referred to as the ‘free rider problem,’ and it’s a consistent concern with interregional transmission projects." PNNL, 2025
83 “A single interstate transmission project may fulfill different needs or deliver different types or levels of benefits to each respective state or to the region overall. The result can be years of protracted siting and permitting proceedings, sometimes resulting in a patchwork of timebound permits along an interregional project’s route" PNNL, 2025
84 Resources for the Future, 2025
85 "A full build-out of the necessary macrogrid is also likely to require enhanced federal or regional permitting authority. Experts have long proposed siting and permitting reforms to address the mismatch between state authority over transmission line siting and the regional and national scope of the nation’s electric grid.[...] We believe that all of these reforms would be a significant improvement over the status quo. They would realign transmission-line-siting authority with both transmission-planning reforms and the need for a national macrogrid to maintain grid reliability." Klass et al, 2022
86 Resources for the Future, 2025
87 This includes planning, operational, financing, and market challenges. PNNL, 2025
88 WRI, 2025 , GridLab, 2024
89 Permits that apply to renewable energy, hydropower, geothermal, nuclear, and all types of projects: U.S. Permitting Dashboard, 2023 &Brookings, 2022
90 Brookings, 2022
91 “Energy projects” includes all forms of energy, including fossil fuels, so this number may be smaller or larger when just considering clean energy projects. McKinsey, 2025
92 Brookings, 2022
93 Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
94 “Reports of 10-year or longer timelines for transmission lines are not uncommon, and both solar and wind projects face long permitting delays. Delays in these projects make it more challenging for the United States to reduce emissions to meet time-bound targets and may cause cost increases or even cancellation of a project entirely as investors and developers lose interest.” Brookings, 2022
95 Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
96 “We identified 32 solar, 16 wind, and 3 geothermal projects completing EIS reviews and 19 solar, 9 wind, and 13 geothermal projects completing EAs over 2010–2023.” Resources for the Future, 2025
97 Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
98 “Geothermal lease nominations for projects proposed on federal surface lands not managed by the BLM must receive approval from the surface land management agency (43 CFR § 3201.10(a)(2)) and complete an environmental review process under NEPA for both the surface land management agency and the BLM (generally in the form of a single NEPA review) before the BLM can conduct a lease sale.51 In practice, this period lasts 1–4 years” DOE, 2019
99 Our uncertainty lies in how many projects and gigawatts of clean energy will be subject to federal permits and whether delays will be restricted to certain technologies moving forward.
100 Federal permitting reform legislation is unlikely to be focused on one permit, and NEPA is the most politically focused on permitting reform. As a result, not focusing on NEPA will not prevent NEPA reform, and instead could lead to harmful reform rather than beneficial reform.
101 Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
102 New York Times, 2025
103 Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023 &Niskanen Center, 2024 &Adelman et al, 2025
104 “We observe predevelopment litigation on 28% of the projects requiring an environmental impact statement, 89% of which involve a claim of a NEPA violation. The highest litigation rate is in solar energy projects, nearly two-thirds of which are litigated. Other high-litigation sectors include pipelines (50%), transmission lines (31%), and wind energy projects (38%).” Bennon and Wilson, 2023 ; “In federal courts, the grounds for the challenges were based on violation of NEPA and multiple other federal statutes.” Resources for the Future, 2025
105 Institute for Progress, 2024
106 “Although the NEPA process frequently induces agencies to modify project designs or choose alternative means of achieving their goals in ways that reduce environmental damage, the process can be abused by those opposed to agency projects for reasons having nothing to do with their desire to minimize environmental harms. In such cases, project opponents deploy NEPA litigation as an obstructionist tactic” - Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
107 “Defendants prevailed in most cases, but a few court cases caused or contributed to the termination of three projects. Six additional projects experienced significant delays as developers waited for final court approval.”Resources for the Future, 2025 ; “NEPA reviews can create delays and add to the expense of clean energy infrastructure projects, and NEPA litigation has sometimes been prompted by the private interests of litigants that do not necessarily correspond to the broader public interest, suggesting that legislative reforms may be desirable” Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
108 “District courts generally reached a decision within one year; appellate court decisions commonly required at least two additional years.” Resources for the Future, 2025
109 Adelman et al, 2025 ; Center on Regulation and Markets at Brookings, 2023
110 “The U.S. Department of Energy describes renewable energy siting as a series of decision-making processes and actions that determine the location and design of new wind, solar or other clean energy generating facilities. The entities that are involved in these decisions typically issue permits listing the terms and conditions that developers must adhere to for specific projects. As a result, the term “siting and permitting” is commonly used to describe both the decisionmaking processes themselves (siting) and their outcome (a permit or permits).” Regulatory Assistance Project, 2024
111 Clean Tomorrow, 2025 ;Regulatory Assistance Project, 2024
112 Figure: Siting Policy Frameworks by State, Clean Tomorrow, 2025
113 “...each state’s unique political, economic, environmental, and social conditions have shaped distinctive approaches to siting. What works in Texas may not be appropriate for Vermont, highlighting the importance of tailoring siting policies to local circumstances.” Clean Tomorrow, 2025
114 “The June 2025 edition of this report finds that severe restrictions, including outright bans and de facto bans on siting renewable energy facilities, as well as controversies over individual projects, are becoming more prevalent—particularly at the local level.” Eisenson et al., 2025 ; Ordinances are “laws enacted by local governments, typically municipalities. Zoning ordinances allow and restrict various types of projects and may use rules and regulations known as siting standards to manage land use and regulate development and construction of solar and wind projects.” Regulatory Assistance Project, 2024
115 “The 498 contested projects include 262 projects with a solar component, 212 with a wind component, 26 with a storage component and 16 with a transmission component.” Eisenson et al., 2025
116 Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, 2025
117 “Extrapolating setbacks throughout the country can reduce wind and solar resources by up to 87% and 38% (depending on the setback size).” NREL, n.d.
118 Setback ordinance: the distance a renewable energy project can be within of another object, such as a residence or business. Center for Rural Affairs, n.d. ; NREL, 2023
119 “The introduction of a slew of bills to restrict renewable deployment are most common in states that have witnessed the most wind and solar capacity additions over the last decade.5 Legislation to require more local approvals, expand restrictive setback requirements, and increase local control over zoning (see the full list on page 6) were most prevalent in Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.” Clean Tomorrow, 2025
120 Figure 17: See Figure 1 “The likely impact of enacted renewable energy siting legislation, by state.” Clean Tomorrow, 2025
121 Pew Research, 2025
122 See “Figure 4: The likely impact of introduced bills, by political party” Clean Tomorrow, 2025
123 “We find that it is unusual to have a project delayed, stopped, or canceled in response to only one source of opposition. As illustrated in Fig. 4, over 79 percent of our (larger set of) cases demonstrate more than one source of opposition in play. This suggests that local opposition is often multi-faceted” Susskind et al., 2022
124 Concerns regarding land value normally fall under two buckets: (1) the impact a project may have on the monetary value of private property or (2) the impact a project may have on a lands “religious, cultural, recreational to the potential use of a site for other productive purposes” like farming. Susskind et al., 2022
125 “We found that the most significant sources of opposition derived from concerns about land value (about 62 percent) and environmental impact (about 60 percent). These two affected nearly 50 percent of total generating capacity in our sample” Susskind et al., 2022
126 Pew Research, 2024
127 ibid.
128 “Siting and permitting reforms that benefit all energy technologies, including renewable and non-renewable energy technologies (also known as “all-of-the-above” or “tech-inclusive” policies), were more likely to pass in states with at least one Republican chamber.” Clean Tomorrow, 2025 ; Divided governments refers to states where both political parties hold control of a legislative body or governor's office.
129 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024 &Gorman et al, 2025 .
130 Gorman et al, 2025
131 Valova & Brown, 2022 &Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
132 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
133 Valova & Brown, 2022
134 For more background information about the BPS see NARUC, n.d.
135 Slide 6, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners n.d; DOE, 2025 ; Valova & Brown, 2022
136 DOE, 2025 &DOE, 2024
137 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
138 ibid.
139 There is 1,086 GW of solar, 1,028 GW of storage, and 366 GW of wind capacity in the grid. Current installed capacity is 1,280 GW. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
140 “The current volume of queue requests vastly exceeds the physical availability of interconnections today” Gorman et al 2025.
141 “Entering multiple projects in the queue, even when the developer only plans to construct one project, creates option value as the project with the lowest assigned costs can be kept while others are eventually withdrawn from the queue at low cost. This has been long understood (see, e.g., Gergen et al., 2008). Queue squatting with ghost projects is a way to insure against unexpectedly high network upgrade costs but leads to longer queues and greater uncertainty for all other projects around their ultimate assigned costs.” - MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research
142 “The majority (>70%) of interconnection requests are withdrawn. Just 20% of requests (14% of capacity) submitted from 2000-2018 had been built as of the end of 2023” - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
143 “The average duration from interconnection request to withdrawal date has edged upward in recent years” & “This trend implies that some recently withdrawn projects have waited longer in the queues before making the determination to withdraw” - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
144 “Late-stage withdrawals can be more costly for developers (sunk costs, deposits) and can trigger re-studies for other projects in the queue, increasing delays.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
145 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
146 “The median duration from interconnection request (IR) to commercial operations date (COD) continues to rise, approaching 5 years for projects completed in 2022-2023” - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024
147 “In the near term (2024–2027), our analysis projects that the annual installation rate will be below the near-term ramp up of installed capacity modeled in leading decarbonization studies” Gorman et al, 2025
148 DOE, 2024
149 The prior approach would conduct studies of projects in the order that they came in, which is what incentivized developers to submit multiple applications in slightly different locations or at different times to see if another project’s integration would lower their interconnection costs. Under FERC Order 2023, PUCs and utilities must conduct interconnection studies by grouping projects that are located near each other and that were submitted to the queue during a 45-day window. It also sets more stringent requirements for projects entering the interconnection queue. All in all, the order could lead to fewer interconnection proposals moving forward and reduce wait times late in the process, but it will not solve the interconnection queue challenge. This approach had already been implemented by some ISOs prior to the FERC Order, and while it can bring improvements, it will not solve everything. MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, 2023
150 “Several incremental queue management solutions—from automation and expanded access to fast tracks to more stringent commercial readiness requirements and study timelines—may help reduce queue volumes and interconnection delays in the near term and enable transmission providers to handle larger and variable queue volumes in the longer term” DOE, 2024
151 “...there has been continued concern that inadequate access to information is contributing to high volumes of interconnection requests, high project withdrawal rates, interconnection processing delays, and an overall inequitable system. Improved access to and quality of interconnection data also support other solutions, such as interconnection study automation” DOE, 2024
152 “...having the generation facilities that prompt the network upgrades pay the entire cost of upgrades violates FERC’s “beneficiary pays” principle and likely leads to too little investment. Socializing some of these costs to all transmission grid users is a policy meriting greater consideration and is likely to be an important incentive for adding new zero-carbon generation to the grid and so contribute to national plans to green the electrical grid dramatically.” MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, 2023
153 Gorman et al, 2025
154 “Closer alignment in the data inputs, assumptions, and process timelines between interconnection and long-term transmission planning can help ensure that transmission solutions that would have been more efficiently identified in transmission plans are not instead triggered through the interconnection process.” DOE, 2024
155 “To ensure reliable and secure operation of newly interconnecting plants, comprehensive interconnection standards are necessary. Interconnection requirements specifying IBR capabilities and expected project performance remain a work in progress.” DOE, 2024
156 “In recent years, there has been a series of large disturbance events leading to significant IBR disconnection. These performance issues were not identified during interconnection studies of the involved plants.” DOE, 2024
157 RMI, 2024 ; Third Way, 2024
158 Examples of promising states are Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia where permitting policies are likely to pass in 2026, Clean Tomorrow .
159 Grimley et al., 2022
160 “We find that it is unusual to have a project delayed, stopped, or canceled in response to only one source of opposition. As illustrated in Fig. 4, over 79 percent of our (larger set of) cases demonstrate more than one source of opposition in play. This suggests that local opposition is often multi-faceted” Susskind et al., 2022
161 News from the States, 2024
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
