Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/raimondo-warns-us-chips-push-faces-long-delays-in-permit-process.19294/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Raimondo warns US chips push faces long delays in permit process

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
(Bloomberg) — Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo warned that US efforts to build out the domestic semiconductor industry could be delayed by years if companies are required to go through standard environmental reviews, signaling climate regulations may clash with national security goals.

Projects under construction by Micron Technology Inc., Intel Corp. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. — who’ve together pledged up to $195 billion in US investment — are among those that could be affected by lengthy reviews that Raimondo and a bipartisan group of lawmakers had tried to avoid.

Raimondo in October urged Congress to approve a measure exempting federally-funded chips projects from such environmental permitting, which she said could force construction to stop for “up to years.” Asked whether that was still her assessment after House Republicans killed the exemption measure last week, she said “yes, potentially.”

“Obviously we want to do everything always to protect the environment,” Raimondo said in an interview with Bloomberg News in Nashua, New Hampshire. “But this is a national security priority, and we need to move quickly.“

The Commerce Department on Monday announced its first award from the 2022 Chips Act, which set aside subsidies worth $100 billion to revitalize domestic chipmaking and reduce reliance on Asian supply chains that Washington worries has left America vulnerable.

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo

Over the next year, Raimondo said she expects to make as many as a dozen additional announcements — including to large advanced chipmaking facilities that cost tens of billions of dollars to build.

But those facilities also come with risks to the environment, as the semiconductor sector’s carbon footprint is set to double by 2030. They have water demands equivalent to small cities, and can consume as much electricity as small countries. They also use process gases that drive greenhouse gas emissions, and rely on toxic so-called forever chemicals.

Chips Act applicants had to submit an A-Z environmental questionnaire to Commerce — and the vast majority of such projects that win funding will now go through permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA is triggered by the amount of federal money involved, among other factors.

That review could force a lengthy construction stoppage at sites key to the US effort, which is already under significant pressure from Beijing as China races to build its own chipmaking capabilities.

169e4e836f0ea257fcf4ac73adfb58b4


Raimondo said Commerce has a small NEPA team that’s focused on streamlining the process for particular facilities, like TSMC’s in Arizona or Intel’s in Ohio. Commerce is also urging governors’ offices to designate a point person for state-level permitting, Raimondo has previously said.

“We’re gonna do everything we can to parallel process,” she told Bloomberg on Monday, including encouraging companies to staff up for NEPA review.

“That’s the single most important thing we can do — get the companies to hire consultants and lawyers,” she said. “The sooner you start, the sooner it finishes.”

Some companies have already begun the NEPA paperwork, she said, given that such reviews were always on the table if they received Chips Act subsidies. But they had hoped for a reprieve from Congress, particularly after the Senate overwhelmingly approved the NEPA exemption provision over the summer.

Manish Bhatia, Micron’s executive vice president of global operations, said of the measure that he’s “still hopeful that everyone wants this to happen.” Micron is building sprawling semiconductor sites in Idaho and New York, both of which have their own permitting regimes in addition to the federal process.

Leading artificial intelligence chip supplier Nvidia Corp, meanwhile, said its supply chains are unaffected by last week’s permitting showdown. That’s because the American firm outsources production to companies largely based in South Korea and Taiwan.

Many environmentalist groups, meanwhile, consider NEPA to be a bedrock climate law and opposed a 2022 law that made semiconductor projects eligible for expedited review. Now, a new coalition of leading labor and environmental groups wants chipmakers to enter formal community benefit agreements that address a range of sustainability and other issues.

The coalition seeks a “baseline commitment to building the industry in a way that is far more sustainable than it was decades ago,” Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said in an interview — and “each year a commitment to evolving to become more and more sustainable.”

 
NEPA, signed into law by Richard Nixon, is probably the greatest legislative creator of bureaucratic inefficiency in the history of the US. I'm glad a lot of critical US infrastructure was built before the law went into effect, because I suspect a lot of it would never be approved today. Like virtually every hydroelectric dam, much of the interstate electrical grid, many harbors and docks, many airports, the interstate highway system, water reservoirs (especially in California), numerous bridges, and probably Cape Canaveral. I'm sure I'm leaving a long list of infrastructure we take for granted out of my list.
 
NEPA, signed into law by Richard Nixon, is probably the greatest legislative creator of bureaucratic inefficiency in the history of the US. I'm glad a lot of critical US infrastructure was built before the law went into effect, because I suspect a lot of it would never be approved today. Like virtually every hydroelectric dam, much of the interstate electrical grid, many harbors and docks, many airports, the interstate highway system, water reservoirs (especially in California), numerous bridges, and probably Cape Canaveral. I'm sure I'm leaving a long list of infrastructure we take for granted out of my list.

We all know US Senate and Congress are seriously divided in most legislations by party line. Republicans and Democrats fight each other for almost everything. But recently the Senate has unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that would streamline the process of federal reviews for microchip manufacturing facilities while House of Representatives failed to pass a similar measure.

I did a quick research on the time needed to pass a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review process. Because Chips Act is a brand new approach so I can only use other Federal reviewed projects as reference. The result is horrible! I don't think a new fab project can survive or be feasible under this process in the current form.

For example:

1. Federal Highway Administration:

Note: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) projects for which FHWA signed a Record of Decision (ROD)

For the 34 projects in FY08, the median amount of time from the NOI to the ROD is 60 months.
For the 33 projects in FY09, the median amount of time from the NOI to the ROD is 84 months.
For the 31 projects in FY10, the median amount of time from the NOI to the ROD is 71 months.
For the 23 projects in FY11, the median amount of time from the NOI to the ROD is 79 months.

1702845640929.png

Unit: month


Source: https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/nepa/timeliness_of_nepa.aspx


2. NEPA Timelines for Clean Energy Projects: Understanding Delays in Clean Energy Development:

The average time to complete the NEPA process across all energy types is 3 years.
The average EIS report length is 1,214 pages.
Hydroelectric project approval takes the most time at 5.1 years on average.
The longest EIS report was 5,794 pages

Source: https://www.thecgo.org/research/nepa-timelines-for-clean-energy-projects-understanding-delays-in-clean-energy-development/#:~:text=The average time to complete,at 5.1 years on average.
 
Last edited:
If you want to see what might be the second most disgusting approval process in US history (I think the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository has to be #1), look up the Interstate Bridge project in Portland, OR. NEPA and its associated state and local processes at their worst.


(Note the link is from a decidedly left-of-center political action group, so an objective view is probably far dimmer.)

What a mess! Nothing but studies and argument going on for about 15 years, hundreds of millions of dollars wasted.

And now the locals in Hillsboro want to slow down Intel's planned fab expansion:


I think the US has lost its sense of urgency about building anything.
 
Before their collapse the Soviet Union had the same inefficient bureaucracy with too much power over economic processes. I think China has a better system laying out the rules with the money up front, putting the onus on the companies to comply or risk massive fines and nationalization.
 
Before their collapse the Soviet Union had the same inefficient bureaucracy with too much power over economic processes. I think China has a better system laying out the rules with the money up front, putting the onus on the companies to comply or risk massive fines and nationalization.
Dictatorships are always more efficient than democracies, especially rich and spoiled democracies. Unfortunately, dictatorships need to be benevolent to survive, and I can't think of even one benevolent dictatorship from history. The classic Winston Churchill quote comes to mind.
 
Problems You are describing are caused by too much government and i don't think that adding even more government would help. And even when it looks like dictator-approach is better in solving specific problem, it might create different more severe consequences...

China's case is about capital availability... Investment vs consumption driven model... I recommend book Trade wars are class wars, which explains how economic miracles works.
 
Which part? View on source of imbalances or style in which it is written? :D

In my opinion book makes sense and is one of better explanation out there.
 
Last edited:
Which part? View on source of imbalances or style in which it is written? :D

In my opinion book makes sense and is one of better explanation out there.
It's not the style...

I think the message is nonsense. Economic inequality mostly exists in capitalistic economies because there are vast differences in human intelligence, capabilities, education, motivation, discipline, and personal priorities, not because of exploitation by the rich.
 
Generally i agree with Your view, but during off-shoring, did people got screwed because they were not intelligent or lacked education? I think that policies played bigger role. Environmental is one of them...
 
Dictatorships are always more efficient than democracies, especially rich and spoiled democracies. Unfortunately, dictatorships need to be benevolent to survive, and I can't think of even one benevolent dictatorship from history. The classic Winston Churchill quote comes to mind.
Dictatorships are rarely more efficient, and those rare cases age out rapidly. What gets done depends on who has the dictator's ear, and generally the only efficient result is filling pockets. Sure, decisions are made fast, and when some of the decisions happen to be good, that looks like efficiency. Just look at all the bad decisions. Then factor in the lack of information flowing up from the people who actually get done, the inevitable cycle of decay, incompetent flunkies, paranoia about losing power in older age, and the lack of graceful renewal. Ugh. That "dictators are more efficient" simply does not stand up to inspection.

As for China being more efficient with laying out the money first, it is not clear that has worked. Look at all the empty housing developments, at the total waste of prior rounds of throwing money at semiconductor fabs. The successes in China's economy have been built around the engines of foreign investment in things which got completed and made money.

It is interesting to see how both Korea and Taiwan have flourished after the dictatorships ended, not so much before.

Bureaucracy is a serious problem in both democracies and dictatorships. In some democracies it remains well controlled, though difficult. In dictatorships it is a foundational tool.
 
Hearing "dictatorships are more efficient" said in the USA is as puzzling as seeing Princes and Princesses as the good guys in Disney. This democracy has put all dictatorships to shame, and got its start by rising up against aristocracy.
 
Generally i agree with Your view, but during off-shoring, did people got screwed because they were not intelligent or lacked education? I think that policies played bigger role. Environmental is one of them...
Off-shoring happened almost purely for lower costs. Only the manufacturers of high margin, expensive, or unique products could risk that the competition would go off-shore and they would get left behind with higher costs in the US and other rich countries. Sometimes for the US "off-shoring" often means just going over the border to Mexico, but the intent is the same. Environmental laws, permitting inefficiency, construction codes and costs, labor costs, whatever, it's all just a matter of cost. Of course, the grotesque implementations of environmental policies in the US and Europe, to name two examples, are probably far more inefficient than they need to be, so I think that factor is exaggerated by politicians wanting to win votes with people who just want to keep things the way they are for their own benefit or enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
Dictatorships are rarely more efficient, and those rare cases age out rapidly. What gets done depends on who has the dictator's ear, and generally the only efficient result is filling pockets. Sure, decisions are made fast, and when some of the decisions happen to be good, that looks like efficiency. Just look at all the bad decisions. Then factor in the lack of information flowing up from the people who actually get done, the inevitable cycle of decay, incompetent flunkies, paranoia about losing power in older age, and the lack of graceful renewal. Ugh. That "dictators are more efficient" simply does not stand up to inspection.
Looking at various dictatorships around the world, and there are many, decision-making is far more efficient. Even, for example, in North Korea. Don't confuse my observation about decision-making efficiency with any desire to live in a dictatorship. I wouldn't want to. Or to use a political system as a way to judge the quality of the decisions made.
As for China being more efficient with laying out the money first, it is not clear that has worked. Look at all the empty housing developments, at the total waste of prior rounds of throwing money at semiconductor fabs. The successes in China's economy have been built around the engines of foreign investment in things which got completed and made money.
I agree, but the decisions, however misguided, were made more efficiently. That's my only point.
It is interesting to see how both Korea and Taiwan have flourished after the dictatorships ended, not so much before.
Two much smaller and more homogeneous countries than the US, where democracy tends to be more efficient, but I agree.
Bureaucracy is a serious problem in both democracies and dictatorships. In some democracies it remains well controlled, though difficult. In dictatorships it is a foundational tool.
It is difficult to call the US bureaucracies well-controlled.
 
Dictatorships are rarely more efficient, and those rare cases age out rapidly. What gets done depends on who has the dictator's ear, and generally the only efficient result is filling pockets. Sure, decisions are made fast, and when some of the decisions happen to be good, that looks like efficiency. Just look at all the bad decisions. Then factor in the lack of information flowing up from the people who actually get done, the inevitable cycle of decay, incompetent flunkies, paranoia about losing power in older age, and the lack of graceful renewal. Ugh. That "dictators are more efficient" simply does not stand up to inspection.
You're still equating achievement of a decision you agree with to efficiency. That's not efficiency, since almost all decisions have pros and cons. Efficiency is simply how much time and energy was spent to achieve a decision, and all I meant by the term.

All of your complaints happen in democracies too. The advantages of democracies are usually better checks and balances (obviously), and the ability to vote those who lose the confidence of the populace out of office. Yes, I like having those checks and balances and orderly transfers of power.

One problem with US democracy, and also in some European countries as has been posted here, is that the power of private individuals has been over-extended in situations of land use, infrastructure building, environmental issues, and permitting approvals. To win votes elected officials have passed laws which abdicate the power of decision-making from government officials to the courts via private special interest groups. So private landowners and various "protectionist" groups can hold up projects for years with lawsuits based on laws like NEPA. That is what technically what happens to hold up many industrial and infrastructure projects. Building a long distance electrical transmission line in the US can take many years, sometime more than a decade, for example.
 
Back
Top