* I went after the US Chamber the other day for a job-loss projection “study” that didn’t seem to mean a whole lot. A new Chamber study deals more in reality, however. Check it out…
Stalled energy projects are costing Illinois $40.9 billion and 67,600 jobs a year, according to a study released Thursday by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business group said 15 projects have been delayed or canceled in the state due to a dysfunctional permit process and numerous lawsuits by “Not in My Back Yard” activists. Of all the delayed projects in the nation, almost half are renewable energy projects.
Brandon Leavitt, who installs solar panels for commercial and residential customers, said he is not at all surprised.
“The permit process is a nightmare in many communities,” said Leavitt, who owns Solar Service Inc. in Niles. “It has cost the company several installations, where the customer decided not to endure the costly and uncertain process. Each community can make its own rules, which change month to month depending on who’s in charge.”
He cited a current project in Logan Square that has been held up for seven months and cost the customer $2,000 in permit fees so far “to put something on a flat roof that can’t be seen,” he said.
And it’s not just Chicago. There’s a crazy quiltwork patch job of local regulations throughout the state. It’s Kafkaesque. Ogle County is basically attempting to shut down the local wind industry with onerous new regs.
* Now, even though this is more reality-based than their last study, the Chamber acknowledges that it has some flaws. For instance…
(W)e do not believe that all of the subject projects will be approved or constructed even in the absence of any legal and regulatory barriers. Also, as with all economic forecasts, we recognize that there is an element of uncertainty.
But whether or not the study is off a little or a lot, the state really needs to step in and set limits on these local governments. Seven months for a solar panel permit is beyond ludicrous. It’s downright harmful to our economy.
- Ramsin - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:53 am:
Many counties are meeting resistance from local landowners who don’t want to “see” wind farms, or have been convinced by anti-wind power activists(i.e., http://www.windaction.org/) that wind farms cause mass depreciation, make it impossible to use aerial spray, and cause seizures from “shadow flicker,” etc. It’s big business–coal, nuclear–funding the anti-wind, anti-solar hysteria, i.e., here, and in turn putting pressure on county governments to keep out wind farms.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:54 am:
This is exactly the type of pro-business action that I support. These issues are an extremely time consuming obstacle when trying to plan any infrastructure improvements in the energy utility business. The local rules as well as the approval process by the ICC definitely all need to be looked at. I very much support a strong ICC, but the relationship between the regulators and the utilities needs to become a little less hostile. Streamlining these processes would help a great deal.
- Doug - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:04 pm:
Few times I disagree with the Chamber, but control of local land use belongs at the local level. Bureaucrats in Springfield or Washington D.C. should not be making decisions that will impact the lives of the people that have to live around those installations.
- Ghost - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:34 pm:
I agree. Mandate a system where permits have to be issued in 60 days; and they can only be denied based on documentation that granting the permit will harm the public or someone elses use rights.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:35 pm:
Doug, instead you’d leave it to locals who know little to nothing about what they’re doing?
- OneMan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:43 pm:
The NYT had something about this a couple of months ago as it related to CA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/business/energy-environment/20permit.html?scp=8&sq=california%20solar%20project%20permit&st=cse
Their are solar firms who have people who do nothing but wait in line to file permits all day.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:48 pm:
–Stalled energy projects are costing Illinois $40.9 billion and 67,600 jobs a year, according to a study released Thursday by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.–
Ugh, I hate these kind of studies. I checked out the chamber’s site and it’s chock full of multipliers pulled out of thin air, plus codicil’s in which they admit they don’t know if any of the projects should be approved or not.
I give the chamber points for the spin in leading with solar and wind, but the big money they’re talking about is in coal, gas and nuclear projects. I’m not necessarily against any of them, but I get a little nervous when I see the chamber spinning like the Sierra Club.
- Thomas Westgard 12836 /2011/01/13/cullerton-to-walker-bring-it-on/ - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:02 pm:
Rich, I’m skeptical about the supposed problems with that Logan Square project. There are many reasons why a permit might be held up, and there are thousands if not millions of people alive in Japan today solely because of strict building codes like those that the US Chamber of Commerce opposes. Soooo…. did you look into those claims at all, or did you just unquestioningly quote the US Chamber’s press release?
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:02 pm:
- the big money they’re talking about is in coal, gas and nuclear projects. -
Agreed word, and I’m definitely not advocating for a automatic approval for any of them. I just think the state needs to get rid of the patchwork rules, set new ones, and focus on making sure they’re followed.
- Thomas Westgard - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:03 pm:
Weird. Not sure why that url snippet gets appended to my name.
- Doug - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:03 pm:
Rich,
Around here that is just what is done. Each locality has a Gas/Oil Well drilling ordinance. When you come in to apply for a drilling permit, you must meet the local code. The state constitution states that mineral owners have a certain expected right to gain access to the minerals (so therefore the local government can not put restrictions that would prohibit the mineral owners from gaining access completely).
It works well. The locals have a say, and the gas companies are still drilling. And URBAN gas wells (one is within 1000 yards from my house) have a whole lot more impact that wind farms.
If you take away the local citizen’s rights to control where and how these things are going in, you will end up with lots of problems. These companies have full time staffs to push these items through local government bodies, and yes, they may take some time.
Just ask yourself the question, would you want a wind turbine that stands just outside of the fall radius of your house? Or how about if it was just outside the fall radius, that you didn’t have any local say in where it was placed?
There are problems with wind turbines that are very similar to gas wells. Noise being one. Although the noise on the A scale (what you hear) may be low, the sound on the C Scale (what you feel) can be very disturbing to residents at long distances from the turbines.
I’ve helped to write both a gas drilling ordinance and a wind turbine ordinance. Both we took input from not just the local citizens, but from the industry. It can be done, but as you know, sometimes the process takes time.
- Leroy - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:05 pm:
Are any of these alternative energy source economically viable without subsidy?
Not trying to dog anyone here, I am really curious. I’d love to have solar panels or a wind turbine (if it was cheaper than the legacy products)
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:15 pm:
===did you just unquestioningly quote the US Chamber’s press release? ===
If you had clicked the link you would’ve seen that was a story by Medill.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:17 pm:
===so therefore the local government can not put restrictions that would prohibit the mineral owners from gaining access completely===
So, you just contradicted yourself.
- Going nuclear - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
If the U.S. Chamber wants to address the environmental group opposition to big projects that use coal and other fossil fuels, it needs to step up to the plate and work out a compromise to deal with global climate change. Otherwise, the enviros are going to use whatever legal means are available to try to stop or slow down individual projects. There are many industries, even some oil companies, which are ready to invest huge sums of money into renewable energy technologies. If the so-called “cap and trade” mechanisms aren’t workable, then we should look at other options like carbon taxes that will help provide the economic incentives to move to a cleaner energy future.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:06 pm:
One of the greatnesses of American government is the blessings we find in it’s inefficiencies. Streamlining is so 20th Century. It is a belief that centralization will create efficiencies. What we have discovered instead has been stupid people with no ties to the unintended consequences of their own decisions, rolling over everyone and creating more inefficiencies than efficiencies.
Like computers, if you put garbage into a streamlined system, you get more garbage coming out of it faster than before. That really isn’t the goal of good decision making.
In light of this, I believe that local government is the best government with the best abilities of making decisions for an individual.
Smaller is better. And more efficient.
Naturally a chamber like this one, wouldn’t understand.
- mokenavince - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:16 pm:
Chicago’s planning & permit dept. is the biggest
retardent to growth and building there is. The permit process is a joke. Get bounced from dept. to dept. for months at a time,and your start to realise what a job killer it is. Zoning ,alderman,
landscaping, you name it takes lots of time and money . Local control is not the answer. Clear cut rules spelled out in English and not legalize
would help. Plus they clobber you with sky-hi fees. Let hope the new Mayor cleans this mess up.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 2:48 pm:
- Smaller is better. And more efficient. -
Can you back that up with actual evidence? You think it’s more efficient to build a large natural gas pipeline when you have to deal with a different permitting process every time you enter a new county or township government? I don’t think larger is always more efficient, and I don’t think you should just be able to put your pipeline wherever you want to, but the current set up is most assuredly less efficient than it could be.
- Going nuclear - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:33 pm:
I think the problem with big energy systems like natural gas pipelines, nuclear power plants, power transmission lines and offshore oil rigs is that you need a fairly large government bureaucracy to make sure they are built, operated and maintained in a safe manner to protect public health and the environment. Obviously the most efficient way to regulate these large, complex projects is at the national or state level, as opposed to local jurisdictions. I recognize that renewable energy technologies have their own set of environmental limitations. However, I wouldn’t mind getting to the point in the future where I could satisfy my energy needs utilizing smaller-scale systems (e.g., solar panels, fuel cells, small wind turbines),thereby eliminating or greatly reducing my reliance on the traditional “big systems” approach to energy generation. These small-scale projects could be more efficiently regulated at the local level (ok at least theoretically). They would probably create more community jobs too.