Tribes, conservation groups urge FERC to uphold veto policy on preliminary hydro permits – Utility Dive

Report on U.S. Hydroelectric Permitting Policy and its Intersection with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary: A Conflict Between Clean Energy and Indigenous Rights

A significant policy conflict has emerged between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Native American tribes concerning the preliminary permitting process for hydroelectric projects. The dispute centers on a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) policy that grants tribal authorities veto power over projects on their lands. This report analyzes the conflict through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting the tension between advancing SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and upholding SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), particularly concerning the rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

2.0 Background of the FERC Policy

The policy at the center of the debate was established by FERC in February 2024. Its key provisions and context are as follows:

• Policy Establishment: FERC adopted a policy to reject preliminary permit applications for hydroelectric projects on tribal lands if the respective tribal authority opposes them. This was demonstrated in the rejection of permits for pumped hydro storage projects on Navajo Nation land.
• Purpose of a Preliminary Permit: This permit is the initial step in the FERC licensing process, granting a developer exclusive rights to study a site’s feasibility for up to four years before applying for a full construction and operation license.
• Alignment with SDG 16: The policy is a mechanism for ensuring inclusive and participatory decision-making, a core target of SDG 16, by formally recognizing the authority of tribal governments in the management of their lands and resources.

3.0 The Department of Energy’s Proposal to Accelerate SDG 7

On October 23, 2025, the DOE formally requested that FERC initiate a rulemaking process to overturn its 2024 policy. The DOE’s position, supported by industry groups, is primarily aimed at advancing clean energy objectives.

1. Stifling Clean Energy Development: The DOE argues that granting third-party veto authority stifles the development of hydroelectric power, a critical resource for achieving the targets of SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy).
2. Centralizing Authority: The proposal asserts that the Federal Power Act empowers FERC alone to issue permits and does not provide for veto authority by other entities, including tribal or federal land managers.
3. Industry Support: The National Hydropower Association (NHA) supports the DOE, stating that rescinding the policy would preserve FERC’s independent expertise and that project-specific concerns are more appropriately addressed during the later, more detailed license application process.

4.0 Tribal Opposition: Upholding Indigenous Rights and Sovereignty

A coalition of Native American tribes has voiced strong opposition to the DOE’s proposal, citing violations of their sovereign rights and a failure to adhere to principles of sustainable and equitable development.

• Violation of Sovereignty (SDG 10 & 16): Tribal groups, including the Inter Tribal Association of Arizona, argue that the proposal disregards their inherent and recognized sovereign rights. This directly contravenes the goals of reducing inequalities (SDG 10) and building just and inclusive institutions (SDG 16).
• Lack of Consultation: Opponents state that the DOE failed to engage in required tribal consultation before issuing its proposal, undermining procedural justice.
• Protecting Cultural and Natural Heritage (SDG 11): The existing policy is viewed as a crucial safeguard for tribal lands, which hold immense cultural and environmental significance, aligning with the target of SDG 11 to protect cultural and natural heritage.
• Facilitating Effective Development: The Navajo Nation contends that the 2024 policy has not hindered development but has instead facilitated better engagement and early coordination between developers and the Nation, leading to more successful and sustainable long-term projects.
• Broad Opposition: Other opposing tribal groups include the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and the Chickasaw Nation.

5.0 Environmental and Conservation Perspectives

Conservation organizations have joined the opposition, raising concerns about the environmental impacts of unchecked hydroelectric development and the integrity of the permitting process.

• Ecological Impact (SDG 6 & 15): Groups such as American Rivers and American Whitewater oppose the proposal due to the potential negative impacts of hydroelectric projects on river ecosystems, water quality (SDG 6), and terrestrial biodiversity (SDG 15).
• Resource Management: American Whitewater noted that many preliminary permit applications are speculative. They argue that upholding the current policy prevents unnecessary conflict, ensures the efficient use of resources, and allows FERC to focus on viable projects.

6.0 Current Status and Conclusion

As of October 7, 2025, FERC reported 109 active preliminary permits totaling 55.4 GW, with an additional 21 applications for 12 GW under review. The DOE has directed FERC to take final action on its proposal by December 18. This case exemplifies a critical challenge in global sustainability efforts: the need to balance the urgent pursuit of renewable energy targets under SDG 7 with the fundamental principles of human rights, social equity, and environmental stewardship as enshrined in SDG 10, SDG 11, SDG 15, and SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The article’s central theme is the development of hydroelectric power, specifically pumped hydro storage projects. This directly relates to increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the energy mix. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) proposal aims to remove barriers to “stifle hydroelectric development,” positioning it as a key energy source.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The conflict highlights the rights of indigenous peoples (Native tribes). The debate over their “sovereign rights” and veto power over projects on their land is a matter of ensuring their political inclusion and protecting them from potentially discriminatory policies that disregard their authority and land rights.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article focuses on institutional processes and governance. It discusses the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) policy-making, the DOE’s intervention through a rulemaking request, and the tribes’ demand for “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making.” The core issue is whether institutions like FERC should grant veto power to tribal authorities, ensuring their participation in decisions affecting them.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Hydroelectric projects inherently impact terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. The article implies this by mentioning concerns about a “potential project’s design, operating parameters, and environmental effects.” The tribes’ control over their land is directly linked to the management and protection of these ecosystems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The DOE’s push to overturn FERC’s policy is explicitly motivated by a desire to “advance hydroelectric development.” The article mentions that as of October 7, FERC had approved preliminary permits for projects totaling 55.4 GW, with another 12 GW under review, indicating a significant effort to increase renewable energy capacity.
2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • The tribes argue that the DOE’s proposal to remove their veto power violates their “sovereign rights.” FERC’s original policy, which the tribes support, can be seen as an action to ensure equal opportunity and protect the rights of indigenous communities in the development process on their own lands.
3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • This target is central to the conflict. The tribes’ opposition is based on the fact that they “weren’t consulted before [the proposal] was issued, as is required.” Their demand to maintain veto power is a mechanism for ensuring their participation in decision-making. The Navajo Nation states that the existing policy “facilitated engagement between developers and the Navajo Nation and early project coordination,” which are key components of inclusive decision-making.
4. Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services…
   • While not the main focus, this target is relevant because the tribes’ authority over their land allows them to manage and protect it from potentially harmful development. The National Hydropower Association (NHA) acknowledges that projects raise concerns about “environmental effects,” which are directly related to the health of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems on tribal lands.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 7.2:
   • The article provides specific data that can serve as an indicator: The total capacity of proposed hydroelectric projects. It states, “FERC had approved 109 active preliminary permits totaling 55.4 GW, and it was reviewing 21 preliminary permit applications totaling 12 GW.” This directly measures the potential increase in renewable energy supply.
2. Indicator for Target 10.3 and 16.7:
   • An implied indicator is the existence and enforcement of policies that guarantee the participation and consent of indigenous peoples in development projects on their lands. The article revolves around FERC’s February 2024 policy giving tribes “veto power,” the existence of which is a key measure. The tribes’ statement that they “weren’t consulted” provides a measure of non-compliance with participatory processes.
3. Indicator for Target 15.1:
   • An implied indicator is the number of projects subject to consultation and environmental review before approval. The NHA’s statement that concerns about “environmental effects” are “best addressed during a license application’s consultation process” implies that this process is a standard measure for assessing and mitigating environmental impact, thus contributing to the sustainable use of land and water resources.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: utilitydive.com