Kjetil Lund, the director of the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) wrote about why it takes so long to build power generation and electrical grids in Norway. His argument, based on the book Abundance, is that it takes a long time to build any infrastructure in the Western world because of the many sustainability, environmental, and social requirements that must be considered for each project, even small ones.
I disagree with him. Abundance is about building in the US. The specific problems that the US faces cannot be generalized to the entire Western world. While it is true that many conflicting requirements must be considered, what makes the US unique is the involvement of judicial courts in what should otherwise be an administrative process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), allows anyone to sue in court to attempt to stop any project they oppose. Essentially, even if a developer performs a thorough environmental impact assessment and concludes that there is no significant impact, anyone can challenge this conclusion in court, alleging that some impact has not been adequately considered. Such litigation stalls the project in a judicial process, adding significant time and uncertainty. In the best case, a project can be delayed several years; in the worst case, projects get cancelled.
There is a difference in degree and in kind between the US and Norway. Projects take longer in the US than in Norway, and the process is more complicated, expensive, and unpredictable there. Norway is in a much better position than the US, but there is room for improvement. Here I disagree with Lund again. He frames the problem as purely political and disclaims all responsibility. He writes that difficult cases will take a long time anyway, unless society, through a political process, defines clearer priorities. My assessment is that project review in Norway has substantial room for improvement without requiring political change. Projects go back and forth between developers and the administration, the administration takes considerable time to review proposals, and there are lengthy consultation processes. In some cases, multiple administrations review the same project.
There are obvious improvements that require no political change at all. Developers perform the environmental impact assessment themselves. There is no real need for the administration to conduct an in depth review of the assessment before approval. Approval should be granted by default. The administration should use its oversight authority to check afterwards, and impose fines or retract permits if deficiencies are found. There is no legal requirement for the administration to conduct the consultation process --this is something that developers can do themselves, but this option is not widely used. To be clear, I still think that the consultation process is important and should be carried out thoroughly, but by taking responsibility for it, developers can perform it simultaneously with the environmental assessment, instead of sequentially. Additionally, the consultation process can uncover issues that, while not related to the environmental impact, indicate that the developer has further work to do to secure necessary local buy-in for the project to succeed. Finally, the NVE already has a clear mandate to coordinate with other administrations that could be pursued more aggressively to avoid duplicate processing of the same project (main instruction for NVE, section 2.3). As far as I can see, very little has been done in this regard.
Lund writes that wind farms provide a cautionary tale against rushing the licensing of new energy generation. Ten years ago, there was significant political interest in wind farms in Norway, and the NVE was required to prioritize the processing of new applications. Later, public mood changed, and politicians reacted by pausing the processing of new applications. I am confused as to what this tale has to do with the question of why it takes so long to build electrical infrastructure in Norway. I do not think there would have been less opposition to wind farms if licensing had proceeded more slowly.
I suspect that the opposition to wind farms has little to do with how licenses are processed. Wind farms are a nuisance, as are as hydro power plants and any other infrastructure. Local opposition to infrastructure is mitigated by local gains. For example, in the case of small hydro power, local landowners enter into agreements with companies to lease their land and their waterfall rights for construction, thus benefiting directly from the development. This partially balances the concerns of other interest groups, like fishermen. In the case of wind power developed mostly on public lands, there is little or no direct benefit for the local population. Thus, in Norway, small-scale hydro power development is generally viewed favorably, while wind farms are not. This reflects the balance of local costs and benefits, rather than deficiencies in the permitting process. This is more evident when we compare the situation with other places that have different legislation and local rights, such as Spain. In Spain, all rivers and waterfalls are public domain, so there are few direct local benefits from small-scale hydro power development; consequently, small hydro is unpopular. Wind farms on private land, on the other hand, tend to be well received, for the same reasons that small hydro is popular in Norway. Landowners can lease their land on favorable terms to wind farm developers, so they benefit directly from the construction and help rally local support.
Norway does not suffer the same problems as the US regarding projects taking too long because of litigation risk. There are unique factors in Norway that make the permitting process too slow. Norway has a tradition of public involvement and consensus building that is important to maintain and respect. These traditions shape both current laws and how the laws are implemented. Nonetheless, it is possible to speed up permitting processes and conduct thorough environmental impact assessments while respecting both the letter and the spirit of the law.
The cost-benefit ratio of hydro-power projects in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was so advantageous that it would have been unthinkable to question them. Nowadays we still need more energy, but all suitable spots for large-scale hydro have already been developed. To produce as much energy, we need an array of smaller projects, whether wind farms, small hydro-power, or solar. Combined, they may produce the same amount of energy as a large hydro-power plant, but the cost-benefit ratio for each small project in isolation may be marginal. It is difficult to argue that any specific project is needed in that precise location fulfill society's need for energy.
Opposition to infrastructure has more to do with the balance of direct costs and benefits than with the environmental impact of the projects. The problem of projects taking too long can be addressed by streamlining permitting processes, but I think it is equally important to consider how to secure local buy-in as well. That is the responsibility of developers.
Last updated: 2025-06-22