❌

Normal view

Himalayan Communities Are Relying on Centuries-Old Water Solutions In the Face of Climate Change

30 October 2026 at 18:55
A man-made structure, called an ice stupa, rises up against the winter skies in India's Ladakh region. —Ajith Kumar—Getty Images

The word Laya describes the natural rhythm that has carried the people of the Himalayas through monsoons and drought for centuries. Across the peaks and glaciers, the populated mid-hills and the foothills, communities have harmonized their calendars to the pulsing of water.

Where annual rain falls in just four months, these master engineers funnel rooftop rainwater through handmade bamboo piping into gravel pits to recharge underground wells, maintaining them at the annual festivals. They adapt to the climate by unearthing ancient subterranean medieval stone spout networks for drinking, washing, and bathing.

But there’s another Sanskrit word used in Hindi called Pralaya, passed down through oral tradition like Himalayan myth. It means the melting away of places that no longer exist. 

“Recent flooding in Nepal was a pralaya,” says hydrometeorologist and environmental scientist Ngamindra Dahal, chairperson of the Nepal Water Conservation Foundation (NWCF) and executive board member of the South Asian Meteorological Association. “We’ve never witnessed anything like it.”

Himalayans have fallen out of sync with nature at no fault of their own. As earth’s largest swath of ice outside the poles thaws from the unprecedented rapid global warming, high- and mid-mountain villages across eight countries of the Hindu Kush and Himalayan mountain regions have entered a new world of extremes: too little and too much water. 

The Himalayas are losing glacier mass 65% faster than a decade ago. The impacts will be felt by 2 billion Asians across 12 major downstream river basins by 2050. And by 2100, it’s projected that 80% of glacier mass will be lost. The reality of dangerous cloudburst floods and water scarcity is, however, already being felt.

On Aug. 26, a 55 million-ton, 93-m.p.h. ice-rock avalanche triggered by a glacier collapse in Nepal near the Tibet border killed more than 1,400 people, with thousands more still missing. Meanwhile, the Nepali government will drain four massive glacial lakes to reduce the danger of yet another catastrophic flood.

The vulnerable, historically low-polluting country has been waiting for a response to its request for compensation from high-emitting nations for the damage created in part by this climate disaster. And on Oct. 22, Nepal became the first country approved for a provisional payout from the U.N.’s Loss and Damage Fund, securing over $21.6 million for recovery from the catastrophic floods. Meanwhile, with deepening uncertainty about the planet’s most basic natural resource, Himalayan people forge on charting their own solutions to save their homes by reviving ancient water systems, building artificial glaciers, and uncovering hidden flood risks. 

“The Himalaya is often described as Asia's water tower, but that metaphor is dangerously passive if it makes the mountains sound like a stable reservoir. What the laya-to-pralaya concept clarifies is that the Himalaya is a living, dynamic system—and that climate change is compressing geological time,” says Dahal. “What once happened across generations may now happen within one.” 

Reviving Lifelines 

For centuries, perennial springs, or mool, have dictated how Himalayan communities live their lives. But that trusted relationship is breaking down. Still, resilient Nepali communities are adapting to the shifting environment of melting snow and ice and unpredictable monsoon rain by reclaiming historic infrastructure. 

To combat water shortages often from erratic rainfall shifts disrupted by climate change, they’re reviving an ancient network of underground terracotta canals that channel water to sunken stone spouts, some chiseled as early as the 6th century. Known as hiti or dhara, these water systems connect to ponds that absorb monsoon rain, recharging the groundwater table to keep spouts flowing during dry season. In places like the Kathmandu Valley, local governments are actively restoring and rerouting this massive ancient spring network, originally engineered by the Licchavi and Malla dynasties and now threatened by climate change and rapid urbanization. 

Through the NWCF and an intergovernmental organization protecting mountain environments and cultures called the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development, Dahal is replenishing water supplies by taking inventory of more recent drying springs to gauge a new baseline of water availability. 

"A community may have adequate water in its landscape but lack the investment to bring it to households,” says Dahal. “Conversely, a community may have taps everywhere but an increasingly unreliable source.”

He’s teaching local communities how to revive and reroute their drying life sources based on changing water movement underground, by tracking seasonal flow rates, water quality, and geographic elevations. Once new water patterns are mapped, Dahal helps communities design localized water-sharing agreements and storage, and adapt household rainwater harvesting systems—in a grass-roots water governance model aligned with the Nepal government adaptation plan. “When a pipe breaks, you repair the pipe; when a tank collapses, you rebuild the tank,” says Dahal. “But when the spring itself stops flowing, repairing the infrastructure solves nothing.”

Hidden Risk

Up in Nepal’s Limi Valley, families are confronting a different kind of uncertainty. Tashi Lhazom recalls being 13, studying at a Kathmandu boarding school, when she received a phone call from her remote high-alpine village. On the other line her mother simply said, “You better study hard because you have nothing to eat here anymore.”

An avalanche had struck her 1,000 year-old ancestral valley—just two years after a massive glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF), a sudden violent release of water from a melting glacial lake—and had taken with hundreds of the yaks that were her nomadic herding family’s generational livelihood. This went against everything Limi Valley indigenous villagers had known about trusting the mountain Gods.  

“My people believed the Gods were angry with them for being greedy. That was their cultural rationalization,” explains Lhazom, now 26. When what villagers assumed was another catastrophic GLOF washed away bridges and a hydropower plant in the Limi Valley in May 2025, Lhazom was ready to do something about it.

“I couldn’t let the community blame itself for something it was not responsible when I knew it was those emitting greenhouse gases who were partially to blame,” says Lhazom, one of the first from Limi Valley to earn a college degree and now an activist among a wave of Gen Zs fighting climate destruction in Nepal. 

She tracked down climate scientists and politicians, urging them to investigate the cause of the flood, until a field team finally agreed to come. After Lhazom directed them around closed flooded roads to local water sources, they trekked upstream, reaching glacial terrain at 17,000 ft. to learn the truth: It wasn’t a GLOF this time.

Instead, thawing permafrost—the ice that acts as glue to bind mountain rock—was without warning, draining trapped small “thermokarst” lakes, releasing massive volumes of underground water down the slope. As a result of their investigation, that 2025 Limi Valley flood was reclassified as Nepal’s first-ever recorded thermokarst lake flood. 

After sharing drone footage, photos, and satellite images with the scientists who proved the flood mechanism, Lhazom became co-author of a September 2025 comment paper in the Communications Earth and Environment Journal alerting the world to this overlooked risk.

It led to an acknowledgement and warning in a July 2026 scientific paper about the increased risk of thermokarst lake floods due to climate change—not just in the Himalayas, but across Peru, China, and other high-alpine mountain environments. And from it, a newly defined dangerous hazard category, called Small Alpine Lake Outbursts (SALOs), emerged. 

“Limi is fortunate enough to know they are in danger, but there are hundreds of ‘Limi Valleys’ across the Himalaya. There are still villages whose mountains have not been studied. They don't know if they are living in danger or not,” says Lhazom, whose 2024 film documenting the Limi Valley flooding, No Monastery No Village, was screened at Banff.

But most importantly to Lhazom, she was able to convince her Indigenous people of the Limi Valley that the flooding was not their fault. Since finally putting them on the map, Lhazom has been working to help secure government funds to resettle the remaining families away from danger on nearby ancestral land. 

As Nepal’s politicians scramble after this year’s floods to reform the legal framework for disaster relocation, Lhazom is traveling high in the mountains to deliver relief for the victims among 33,000 now in need of permanent resettlement after being banned from rebuilding their homes along the permanently destabilized high-risk mountainside. 

“The frozen water banks we know are melting, and that means flooding that can sweep an entire village away within a fraction of a second. Our water sources are getting thinner and fewer and that is a grave concern,” says Lhazom. “But what’s most heartbreaking for these mountain people is knowing they can never go home.”

Generational families have no choice but to accept the erasure of their ancient Indigenous settlements. “The mountain is more than land. It is our identity, our history. The water spirits we worship inspired our folk songs and Indigenous wisdom, and polluting means you are being disrespectful to the water spirits,” says Lhazom. “It’ll be a challenge to convince the people to live in safer places, but I don't want them to be in a place that could kill them.”

Growing Artificial Glaciers 

Northwest of Lhazom’s home, in Ladakh, India, where –40°winds whip through a remote desert on an 11,500-ft. shelf in the shadow of the Himalaya’s highest northern peaks, the people rely on a single water source: melting glacial ice, now covered in soot from vehicles carrying adventure tourists acclimating in its capital of Leh. 

The region’s unbearably beautiful and dry glacial-dependent settlements could become the next Himalayan ghost villages—joining the 2,000 already abandoned from drying glaciers, water scarcity, drought, and unpredictable monsoons in places like Spiti and the Uttarakhand, India, and the Upper Mustang of Nepal. 

But here in the “Third Pole,” climate activist and mechanical engineer Sonam Wangchuk is blending modern technology with his traditional knowledge. In 2015, inspired by stories of his ancestors moving “parent” glaciers into a cave to make “baby” glaciers—based on the early work of “the Iceman of India”—Wangchuk developed the science to revive the ancient cultural practice of grafting glaciers. He grew new ice to reverse water scarcity in Ladakh. 

He ran a mile a mile-long pipe from a glacier spring down a steep slope; at the bottom in the shade the water shot straight into the air and, in the dead of winter, froze. Over a month, the ice grew into a multistory conical artificial glacier fountain he called an ice stupa after the sacred Buddhist dome-shaped shrines. Rather than wasting down the mountain, his invention preserves a critical water supply for an extra month through June when farmers need it most for planting. 

Word of Wangchuk’s ice storage traveled, and he built ice stupas in numerous Himalayan villages facing water scarcity, even allowing a community from Ladakh’s abandoned village of Kulum to return home. 

Beneath this elegant solution lurked a critical flaw. The pipes feeding the stupas were freezing. But working with longtime colleague Surya Balasubramanian, who earned his PhD in Switzerland in ice reservoir behavior, Wangchuk last year brought the ice stupas back to life through automation. By integrating solar-powered, computer-controlled sensor networks and motorized valves, the water flow could be turned off remotely to prevent the pipes from icing, ensuring 80% of the incoming spring water is frozen and stored.

“We innovated a method to either spray water from fountains or drain the pipes using valves controlled by weather and pipeline sensors,” says Balasubramania, who in 2023 independently launched Acres of Ice to scale the ice stupas. 

Today, they’ve built or supported 160 ice stupas across Ladakh, Nepal, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Chile, and Pakistan, each standing up to 12 stories and capable of storing 3.2 million gallons.  

But the fight may never be over for Wangchuk, who knows the temporary nature of his adaptation strategy won’t outlive the glaciers. He is now testing a new application: sourcing water for his stupa from a dangerous glacial lake to help prevent it from collapsing and sending a massive GLOF wave down the mountain—and using natural refrigeration to refreeze the lakes. 

With the growing threat of climate-induced glacier collapse, intensifying monsoons, and prolonged dry spells, the Hindu Kush-Himalaya region is nearing a tipping point. As global temperatures rise, the people who have learned to adapt to harsh conditions for centuries have little control over the destabilization of their ancestral homes. Still, they look to nature for a way forward through simple innovation to make every drop of water count. The question is: Will it be enough? 

“There’s very little that can be done at this point to protect against glaciers in vulnerable places in the Himalayas, so these communities suffer and pay the price for what the rest of the world does,” says Wangchuk. “The recent avalanche in Nepal is an alarm bell for the rest of the world to mend our ways on this planet.”  

The Key Climate Issues to Watch In The Midterm Elections

30 October 2026 at 18:45
People cast their ballots on the first day of early voting for the U.S. midterm elections, in New York, on Oct. 24, 2026. —Ryan Murphy—Getty Images

With the midterms approaching, the climate crisis doesn’t seem to be top of mind for most voters. In a recent poll, voters told Gallup that, among 11 issues, the economy, health care, and the war in Iran are the top of their concerns when it comes to this election season. 

That doesn’t mean climate isn’t on the ballot. The midterms come as the U.S. has faced a slew of climate rollbacks under the first two years of the Trump Administration, including withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, rolling back the landmark endangerment finding, and leasing public lands for oil and gas drilling. With Democrats being significantly more likely to view climate action as a priority, many in the climate movement are hopeful that if the Democrats take back some leadership in Congress, as it could prove essential in helping to prevent further rollbacks.

“A new government could stop the bleeding,” says Malcolm Araos, assistant professor at the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University, whose work focuses on the politics of climate policy. “A new Congress, or new Senate can't reverse [many of the climate rollbacks], but they could investigate why [they were] repealed, and they could stop things like that from happening in the future.”

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be determined on Tuesday, Nov. 3, while 35 Senate seats are up for election. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to take control of the Senate.

Why local elections matter these midterms

With a low likelihood of federal climate policy under Trump, regardless of the outcome of the midterms, state races are where most environmental advocates are looking. That’s because state-level elections still leave open the potential for local climate action—especially if Democrats can manage a “trifecta” and win the governor’s mansion and a majority in both chambers, says Geoffrey Henderson, assistant professor of environmental policy and planning at the University of Michigan. “We've seen in recent history that when we have Democratic trifectas at the state level, that lends itself to an opportunity to pass pretty transformative climate policies,” he says. “It's often underrated how important state level races are, because there are states like Michigan that are not currently Democratic trifectas, but that could shift back in that direction…and that can really unlock major policy change.”

Since President Trump took office, several states, including California, Virginia, and Colorado have pushed forward climate policies despite federal rollbacks. 

Climate ballot measures to watch in the midterm elections 

A number of climate measures are also on the ballot in several states. In Colorado, Amendment 82 will have voters deciding on the constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas—a measure that critics say, if passed, could challenge climate policies in the state by promoting fossil fuel reliance.

On the other hand, in Michigan, a ballot measure hopes to limit utilities from influencing political campaigns. (Michigan utility companies have previously lobbied against community solar expansion.) Voters in Eugene, Ore., meanwhile, will be asked to decide whether to tax large corporate retailers to fund climate resilience projects. (The measure is modeled after a similar program passed in neighboring Portland in 2018.) 

These all serve as bellwether cases, says Henderson. “These ballot measures are in some ways testing theories of how each side is going to approach state level climate policy.” 

How could the Iran war and data center concerns in the midterms impact climate policy?

Two issues of concern for voters—the war in Iran and data center construction—could also prove an opportunity for climate-friendly policies like renewable energy investments. “These moments of crisis when energy is really really expensive [can] lead to these switches to renewable energy,” says Araos. As the war laid bare the precarity of fossil fuels, many communities around the world began turning to renewable energy for greater energy security. 

Voters in 10 states, including California, Kansas, and Ohio, will decide whether to curb data center development in local communities, a fight that’s been resonating with climate advocates. “Data centers have drawn a grassroots bipartisan opposition, and climate groups are very much aligned with that opposition because data centers are major energy users, and in many cases they're major water users,” says Henderson. “I think it is really a climate issue as well as local land use issue, an issue of costs and water availability, and there's an opportunity here for climate advocates to to be a part of a broader coalition.” 

Skip the small talk: Make game-changing connections at TechCrunch Founder Summit with Braindate

30 October 2026 at 17:00
At TechCrunch Founder Summit 2026, happening November 4 at SoWa Power Station in Boston, networking powered by Braindate is designed to make those conversations easier to find, whether they are in 1:1 or small-group on-site meetings. Register before the event starts to save up to $100 on your pass, plus get a second for free.

Democrats can do something about energy prices — without winning the midterms

30 October 2026 at 13:00
A white three-vaned wind turbine standing on a wide plain with blue sky and puffy clouds behind it.

A great deal is at stake in next week’s midterm elections. The partisan makeup of the new Congress will shape future spending bills, congressional investigations, and judicial nominations, among other things.

And yet, the most consequential bill of the next 12 months — and the one that speaks most directly to voters’ concerns about the cost-of-living — might well pass before the new Congress is seated.

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA) could dramatically reshape America’s energy system. And the bill’s supporters plan to pass it during the House and Senate’s lame-duck session — the months between next week’s elections and the new Congress’s arrival. 

The bill is long and complex, revising the rules governing everything from how ocean-powered turbines are licensed to what some geothermal plants must pay in royalties. 

That said, the legislation’s fundamental aim is simple: to make building all forms of energy infrastructure easier. 

The BAAJA has united fossil fuel companies and green energy firms in its favor — while cleaving the climate movement in two.

Key takeaways

  • The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act would make it easier to build new power plants and transmission lines.
  • The bill benefits fossil fuel companies, but it would likely do even more to accelerate the growth of clean energy.
  • Environmentalists are divided over the bill, with critics warning that it would weaken important environmental protections.
  • The bill has one potentially serious flaw that Congress should fix. But with that change, it would be a win for the climate and consumers alike.

Some climate hawks contend that the legislation pares back vital environmental regulations, while clearing the way for new gas pipelines and power plants that will drive up America’s emissions. “This is not the permitting deal that we were promised,” Jeremy Symons, president of the Center for Energy and Environmental Analysis, told me, citing its “historic environmental protection rollbacks.”

Others insist that the bill is a net-win for decarbonization. In their account, permitting reforms will do more to facilitate a buildout of green energy than to lock in America’s dependence on fossil fuels. 

“Fossil is the incumbent technology and fuel mix,” Jane Flegal, a senior fellow at the center-left Searchlight Institute, said. “A system that makes it easier for everyone to build should advantage the nonincumbent.”

I think Flegal’s side has this right. The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act will likely help renewables erode fossil fuels’ share of the electricity market. By itself, the legislation will not ensure a timely transition to a green electricity system. But it will get us a little further down that road, while also making energy more affordable for US consumers — which might well be the midterm electorate’s top priority.

This said, the current draft of the bill does contain one potentially major — and seemingly, accidental — flaw. Assuming Congress fixes that issue, climate hawks should join hands with Big Oil and push for the BAAJA’s imminent passage.

A carbon-free electric grid requires a lot of infrastructure 

The climate case for permitting reform begins with a simple observation: If you want to decarbonize America’s energy grid, you need to build a metric fudge-ton of new infrastructure.

Today, low-carbon energy sources provide about 43 percent of our nation’s electricity. Thus, even if America embraced “degrowth” — and froze its electricity consumption at current levels — zeroing out the power sector’s carbon emissions would require constructing a gargantuan number of new wind, solar, battery storage, and geothermal (and/or nuclear) projects. 

But of course, America is not actually going to freeze its use of electricity. And mainstream climate hawks don’t even want it to. After all, if every SUV owner replaces their gas guzzler with an EV, then demand for electricity will rise. And decarbonizing home heat or heavy industry will have the same effect. Indeed, to an extent, this basic process is already playing out.

“We’re seeing quite rapid demand growth,” Flegal said. “And that is not only — or even primarily — because of data centers. It’s because of broader structural trends toward electrifying our economy and onshoring manufacturing.”

Taking demand growth into account, a study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimated that getting to a carbon-free electric grid by 2035 would require generating roughly 2,000 gigawatts of wind and solar energy; today, we generate roughly 396 gigawatts. 

The challenge appears even more formidable when measured in land. According to Princeton’s 2021 Net Zero America estimate, in a “high electrification” scenario, the US will need wind and solar developments that collectively span nearly 600,000 square kilometers of land — roughly the size of California and Washington state combined.

And even this may undersell the scale of the task. Achieving net zero does not only require constructing immense quantities of wind turbines and solar panels — complemented by battery storage and firm power sources like nuclear or geothermal — but also a vast network of new transmission lines.

America’s transmission infrastructure is already inadequate to our current electricity needs. But a carbon-free grid would demand far more high-voltage lines than today’s. This is because fossil fuel plants are more geographically flexible than renewable ones. Per unit of power generated, gas plants require a small fraction of the land that wind and solar do. And in regions with mature pipeline networks, gas plants can be located in a wide range of places. For these reasons, it’s not that difficult to site carbon power facilities near major population centers or existing transmission lines.

By contrast, wind and solar farms need to be located in areas with both favorable weather conditions and a great deal of affordable land. Such sites are often far from the urban areas where electricity is most needed. Therefore, to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy, America will need a lot more transmission lines. According to NREL, to achieve a 100 percent clean electric grid by 2035 would require building between 1,400 and 10,000 miles of high-capacity transmission lines annually; in 2024, America built just 888 miles.

Given all this, a permitting system that’s biased toward stasis is one that’s biased toward fossil fuels: The harder it is to build new power plants and transmission lines, the longer our electric grids will need to rely on carbon energy.

This world was built for fossil fuels

Alas, the current permitting regime does, in fact, make building power infrastructure really hard.

There are myriad regulatory obstacles to energy development at the state, local, and federal levels. But one major hurdle is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law that requires federal agencies to study the ecological consequences of projects before authorizing their construction. 

When first enacted, NEPA was not intended to dramatically impede infrastructure development. Indeed, the law does not actually hold proposed projects accountable to any particular environmental standard; it merely requires that a thorough study of the relevant ecological effects be carried out. 

But litigators successfully turned NEPA into a tool for obstructing projects — one used by both sincere environmentalists and opportunistic NIMBYs. Such lawyers argued that if the government’s study of a development failed to account for some significant environmental impact, then its authorization was invalid and needed to be redone. When courts started accepting this argument, federal agencies began drafting more and more comprehensive environmental impact statements (EIS), in hopes of preempting legal challenges. In the early 1970s, an EIS could be as short as 10 pages; by the 2010s, the average statement had ballooned to 661.  

Such extravagant due diligence takes time. As of 2024, the median federal EIS took more than two years to complete. And even so, NEPA lawsuits have continued to flourish.

A Stanford study published in 2023 examining 355 major infrastructure developments found that 28 percent of the projects requiring an EIS ended up facing litigation before construction. And the median NEPA lawsuit takes 19 months to resolve — despite the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, courts ultimately fail to identify any legal flaw requiring a new study, according to an analysis from the Breakthrough Institute. All this doesn’t merely slow projects down; by driving up expected costs, it also prevents many from being pursued in the first place.

A second obstacle to energy development is the exhaustive — yet somewhat anarchic — process for permitting interstate transmission lines. These lines must generally secure approval from authorities in every state whose borders they cross. The federal government already recognizes the impracticality of this arrangement when it comes to natural gas infrastructure: Uncle Sam has claimed the authority to site an interstate natural gas pipeline, in defiance of states’ wishes. But Washington lacks similar powers with respect to transmission projects.

High-voltage lines are further stymied by an absence of procedures for divvying up their costs. Over time, a single transmission project can lower electricity prices across several states. But precisely which jurisdictions will derive the most benefit isn’t always clear ahead of time. And this makes it hard for utilities to agree on how to allocate the lines’ upfront costs, which can nip the developments in the bud.

How the permitting reform bill addresses these problems

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act tackles both of these barriers to energy deployment (along with many others).

To clear the way for new high-voltage lines, the bill empowers the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to overrule states that reject or obstruct new transmission projects. (Technically, FERC already has this authority in certain designated corridors. But current restrictions on this power are so binding that the agency has never actually sited a transmission line over state opposition in practice.)

As importantly, the legislation requires regional grid planners to adopt a common set of methods for estimating which jurisdictions will benefit most from a new transmission line (and thus, how much their respective utilities should chip in for it). This will hopefully foster greater consensus. But if it doesn’t, the bill opens up an alternative path to approval: Developers can go above the regional planners’ heads and ask the federal government to approve the line and impose a cost-allocation scheme.

Meanwhile, the legislation also constrains the reach of NEPA litigation. Under current law, after an environmental review is completed, plaintiffs can file lawsuits over that review’s purported flaws for up to six years. Under the BAAJA, they’d have only 150 days. Plaintiffs would also be required to demonstrate direct harm and show that they raised their objections during the review’s public comment process. Most consequentially, the law forbids judges from freezing projects solely because their environmental impact statements were inadequate. Instead, construction would be allowed to continue while federal agencies corrected their review’s deficiencies.

Cutting red tape is good for green energy

By reducing our permitting system’s bias toward the status quo, these reforms make the green transition a bit more possible. Renewables are rapidly growing more cost-competitive. And battery technology is steadily advancing. In a world where new energy infrastructure is relatively easy to build, green power has a good chance of dominating grids in the long run.

But there’s also cause for thinking that the BAAJA’s reforms will disproportionately benefit green projects in the near term. 

With transmission, the case is simple: When you look at today’s interconnection queue — which is to say, the backlog of projects seeking connection to the grid — you see that wind, solar, and storage (an enabling technology for weather-dependent renewable power) account for nearly 85 percent of pending capacity. Building out transmission infrastructure should reduce such backlogs, primarily benefiting green technologies in the process.

And the NEPA reforms are likely to benefit renewables more than fossil fuels, even in the short run. To see why, consider the following:

  • As mentioned, solar and wind are extremely land-intensive. The former covers between 10 and 20 times as much ground as a typical gas plant (even when drilling needs are taken into account), in order to generate the same amount of energy; wind farms can require up to 200 times as much. 
  • Many of the areas that are best-suited to renewable generation — those with abundant sunlight, wind, and open space — are in the western United States, where the federal government owns a large share of all undeveloped land.
  • If an energy project is built on federal land, it must go through the NEPA process.

For these reasons, carbon energy development probably isn’t as burdened by NEPA as the renewable kind. Gas and coal plants just don’t need as much land in general — and less federally owned western acreage in particular. 

According to Daniel Palken, an energy expert at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, NEPA’s suppressive impact on green development is well-illustrated by any map of wind and solar power in the US. (Disclosure: Vox has received a grant from Arnold Ventures. This story was not funded by that grant, and Vox has full discretion over the content of its reporting.)

“If you look at where the wind and solar congregates, it carefully builds in the negative spaces between where all the federal land is out west,” Palken told me. “Most of the West is de facto off-limits because they just don’t want to go through the process.”

“The NEPA provisions are described as Republican asks,” he added. “But it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they asymmetrically aid renewables.”

More broadly, the notion that a lax permitting environment can enable a rapid expansion of green energy — and with it, a shift away from carbon power — isn’t just some distant hypothetical. Rather, that scenario has already played out in one of America’s most pro-oil states.

Texas has scant federal or state-owned lands and no NEPA-like environmental review process. “They’re the only state where you don’t need siting permission from either the state or localities to site a large energy project,” Palken said. “And they have had very forward-looking, long-range transmission planning policies.”

Thanks in part to this permitting environment, wind and solar power have flourished in the Lone Star State, rendering its electric grid far less carbon-intensive. In 2003, natural gas and coal generated 86 percent of the power on Texas’s main grid, while wind and solar supplied less than 1 percent. By 2025, renewables’ share had soared to nearly 38 percent, while fossil fuels’ had fallen to 54 percent.

The real problem with the BAAJA

To be sure, Texas is no climate hawk’s idea of utopia. Its permissive regulatory regime has enabled a remarkable green buildout. But by failing to regulate carbon pollution, that regime has also allowed a rise in Texas’s overall emissions, as gains in population, prosperity, and industrial investment have led to higher electricity consumption.

Given this, environmentalists reasonably deem permitting reform inadequate for achieving timely decarbonization. 

“Clean energy will not win in the marketplace at the scale and speed needed unless fossil fuels are held accountable for their pollution,” Symons, of the Center for Energy and Environmental Analysis, told me. “Gas and clean energy are growing hand in hand.”

Such concerns animate environmentalists’ objections to the current bill. Two of their complaints warrant attention here — the first because it is widely held but unpersuasive, the second because it is compelling but easily addressed.

Environmentalists’ less convincing objection to the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act goes like this: Democrats have no good reason to accept the current legislation’s trade-offs. After all, the party will almost certainly have more power in the next Congress than it does in today’s. With control of the House — and perhaps also the Senate — Democrats would have more leverage in negotiations. And they could use this clout to secure permitting relief for green energy projects without throwing as many bones to Big Oil.

“A system where you’re allowed to build the most economic energy resources with fewer encumbrances, fewer delays, and fewer restrictions is, almost by definition, a more affordable system.”

Daniel Palken, energy expert

But there are a couple of problems with this reasoning. For one, permitting reform will still require President Donald Trump’s sign-off in 2027, even in Democrats’ rosiest midterm scenario. And it isn’t remotely clear that the White House will feel compelled to offer Democrats a more environmentally friendly permitting reform bill just because the party captured Congress (especially since the Democratic majorities will likely be inundating the administration with subpoenas and corruption investigations). 

For another, however imperfect the legislation may be, it still creates a permitting environment that’s more favorable to green development than the status quo. If Congress passes permitting reform now, the green buildout will likely be further along by 2029 — or whenever Democrats next take full control of the government, at which point they can tweak permitting and environmental rules how they see fit.

The more compelling critique of the BAAJA concerns its “project certainty” provisions. Ironically, this part of the bill was actually a Democratic priority. And it was conceived as a response to the Trump administration’s capricious cancellation of renewable energy permits. 

Essentially, the “project certainty” section would prohibit federal agencies from revoking or modifying previously issued permits — or “otherwise interfering with the construction or operation” of permitted projects, unless they uncover a violation of existing law.

But some environmental lawyers fear that the bill’s language is vague and broad enough to threaten the EPA’s future rulemaking authorities: If a Democratic administration tightened air pollution standards, that might “interfere with the construction or operation” of a permitted gas plant. Courts might therefore rule that such regulations are unlawful. 

This is genuinely concerning. But it would also be easy for legislators to preempt this scenario with a few tweaks to the bill’s wording. 

“I think there is a pretty narrow technical fix to be made that ensures the project certainty section is doing what the drafters wanted it to do,” Flegal said, “which was not to prevent future regulatory action but just to make it harder to rescind legally issued permits.”

When in doubt, err on the side of lowering energy costs

Assuming the “project certainty” details are ironed out, the BAAJA should be good for the climate. And it’s all-but guaranteed to be beneficial for consumers. 

According to one analysis, the legislation’s transmission provisions alone would save US households well over $1.1 billion annually on their electric bills. 

Further, even the bill’s most regrettable consequences from a climate perspective — such as its facilitation of new natural gas pipelines — would likely be positive for affordability. In particular, such infrastructure could help ease high home heating costs in colder, energy-scarce states like Maine — an issue that some Democratic candidates are explicitly running on.

“A system where you’re allowed to build the most economic energy resources with fewer encumbrances, fewer delays, and fewer restrictions is, almost by definition, a more affordable system,” Palken said.

Thus, to green America’s grid — and save Americans’ money — Congress needs to cut red tape. They should waste little time in doing so.

❌