rogers corporate plan number

Rogers Business Association Program

As a valued business member, your organization is eligible for special offers from Rogers Business. The Association Program will empower your business with connectivity solutions. Wireless devices and plans along with user-friendly collaboration tools will help increase productivity and efficiency.

Shared Unlimited Data plan

Of max speed data, reduced speeds thereafter*

Microsoft 365

Business Basic License Free includes Microsoft Teams (value $6.40/mo/license 1 )

(Available for businesses activating 5 lines 3 or more.)

Ask about adding Unlimited US long distance 2 for as low as $5/mo.

As a member of the Rogers Business Association Program, you can save more by taking advantage of the full suite of products and services. Ask us about:

• Collaborative Voice (Options: Microsoft Teams and Rogers Unison TM to manage your phone system)
• Hardware at $0 up-front and financed at 0% over 24 or 36 months
• Enterprise Mobility Management (Maximize productivity and safeguard sensitive communications across all mobile devices and operating systems.)
• Internet Connectivity and Security
• Asset Tracking and Fleet Management

We'd be happy to tailor a solution for your unique business needs. Contact us to take advantage of the Rogers Business Association special introductory offer.

First Name *

Last Name *

Company Name *

Postal Code (Business) *

Province (Business) * AB BC MB NB NL NT NU NS ON PE QC SK YT

Are you a current Rogers customer? Yes No

To reach a sales specialist call us at 855-359-0341 Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. (ET) Or Fill out the form above and a sales specialist will contact you within two (2) business days.

Check your eligibility

Contact our team to speak with a Rogers Preferred Expert

• 1-866-462-4468
• [email protected]

Get exclusive savings on smartphones and wireless plans with the Rogers Preferred Program

Save on Plans

Save up to $20/mo on Rogers unlimited 5G+ data plans (compared to regular consumer rates).

Save on Devices

Get additional savings on select phones with 2 year financing. Get any phone for $0 down, on approved credit, 0% interest with financing on select plans.

Extend your Savings

Add up to 9 family members or friends to your account so they can also benefit from your exclusive discounts.

Benefits of the Rogers Preferred Program

How to join the Rogers Preferred Program

Check if you’re eligible.

Check to see if you’re eligible for the Rogers Preferred Program by searching for your company name in the form above, or giving one of our Preferred Experts a call! We will confirm if your employer is part of the Rogers Preferred Program. If you’re eligible, you'll have access to an online ordering portal, and dedicated services!

Validate your Employment

Employee validation is fast, easy, and secure. Once you speak with an expert, or place your order in your online portal we'll ask you to upload a copy of your employee validation. This can be a corporate email, a copy of a paystub, or other employee documentation. Don't worry, we'll send you the information you need to complete this step!

Didn't find your company in the list?

You might not be eligible for the Rogers Preferred Program, but our team of experts is equipped to find the best deal available to you! Give us a call or send us an email to inquire on what the best offer is for you.

Subject to change without notice. A Setup Service Fee of $60 applies to setup your device and related services. Taxes extra.

Rogers Preferred Program. Employee verification is required; Rogers reserves the right to request proof of employment from each Individually Paid Employee at any time. A one-time Employee Pricing Fee of $50 may apply for existing customers. Existing customers with in-market Rogers consumer plans with 6 months or less tenure on their term plan switching to the plan above are not eligible to receive this discount. This offer cannot be combined with any other consumer promotions and/or discounts unless made eligible by Rogers. Plan and device will be displayed separately on your bill. 

*Largest based on total square kilometers of Rogers 5G coverage compared to published coverage of other national networks. Rogers was ranked first in the umlaut Mobile Data Performance audit in 2022-2023. Visit www.umlaut.com/en/benchmarking/canada.

 1. Compared to in market consumer rate plans, subject to change without notice. Applicable only on select Rogers Preferred Program plans available online. Discount available on both primary and additional lines. Excludes stick, hotspot, rocket hub, Talk & Text and Wireless Home Phone additional lines. May not be combined with any other monthly service fee discount offer unless specifically stated. Plan change or phone upgrade will cancel the discount. 

Rogers & Design and related brand names and logos are trademarks of Rogers Communications Inc. or an affiliate used under license. © 2023 Rogers Communications.

Global Support

Advanced electronics solutions.

RF solutions laminates, 3D printable materials, prepregs/bondplys, busbars, metallized ceramic substrates and cooling solutions solve design issues such as signal integrity, Radio Frequency (RF) signal management, power efficiency, power distribution and thermal management.

Elastomeric Material Solutions

High reliability silicones, polyurethanes and foams for cushioning, sealing, impact protection and thermal management solutions.

Elastomer Components

The Elastomer Components Division produces molded elastomeric products for specialty applications.

Order Process

“How to” information on sample requests, product orders and more.

General Request

Please contact us with any questions you may have.

Please provide the following information. ( * Required Field)

Submission Successful The information you provided has been submitted successfully.

Find a Location

China - shanghai.

Rogers Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Shanghai Branch

Room 607 Building Tian’an Center, #338 Nanjing West Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai 200003, China Phone: 021.62175599 Fax: 021.62677913

China - Shenzhen, PRC

Rogers Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch

Unit 08, 32/F Shenzhen Kerry Centre No. 2008 Renminnan Lu, Shenzhen, PRC 518001 Phone: 86.755.8236.6060 Fax: 86.755.8236.6123

China - Suzhou, Jiangsu

Rogers Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.

No. 28 West Shenhu Road, Suzhou Industrial Park Suzhou, Jiangsu, P.R.China, 215122 Phone: 86.512.6258.2700 Fax: 86.512.6258.2808

Rogers Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Innovation Center

No. 28 West Shenhu Road, Suzhou Industrial Park Suzhou, Jiangsu, P.R.China, 215122

Japan - Chuo-ku, Tokyo

Rogers Japan, Inc.

Korea - Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do

Rogers Korea, Inc.

407ho A-dong Pyeongchon Acro Tower, 230 Simin-daero, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do Korea Phone: 031.360.3622 Fax: 031.360.3623

Korea - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do

Utis Company Manufacturing

349, Haean-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15613, Korea

UTIS Company Sales

#404, Pyeongchon Acro Tower A, 230, Simin-daero, Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi-do,14067, Korea Phone: 82.31.689.5027 Fax: 82.31.689.5028

Singapore - Singapore

Rogers Technologies (Singapore) Inc.

60 Kaki Bukit Place #03-04 Eunos Techpark (Lobby B) Singapore 415979 Phone: 65.6747.3521 Fax: 65.6747.7425

Taiwan - New Taipei City

Rogers Taiwan, Inc.

11F-1, No. 345 Chung-Ho Road Yung-Ho District New Taipei City, 23447 Taiwan Phone: 886.2.8660.9056 Fax: 886.2.8660.9057

Corporate Office Headquarters CA

Offices, reviews and public commentary for Australian companies

Head Office Address : Rogers Communications Inc. 333 Bloor Street East, 7th Floor Toronto,ON M4W 1G9

Phone Number : 18887643771

Email : [email protected]

Web : https://www.rogers.com/home

Twitter ID : @Rogers

Ha Ha Ha Ha! Joe Natale How’s your Love Life! Ha Ha Ha Ha!

My experience with Rogers in the past month has been absolutely horrible, the customer service and what I've been told and assured not of it has happened. I would not recommend them to anyone

I would actually give it a no star. Had booked a tech to hook up cable and internet and no one showed up. When I called they said the Tech tried to call me to which I said they did not as my phone shows all calls and missed acalls and messages. They insisted I was wrong. After arguing for about 15 min I was put on hold and then told the Tech had lied about calling me, When I said this is not acceptable and that I need my internet and cable up and running they said the next earliest appt is 3 days later. Now I jsut found out the exact same thing happened to another person today who had also moved into the building like myself. When I say the same thing I also mean the lie. Unfortunatelfy I have no choice but to stick with Rogers as it is a bulk agreement in the building where I have moved and it is included in my monthly rent. Not at all impressed. Absolutely no customer service and liars. If you can avoid Rogers I would insist you do.

Absolutely garbage its feels like G3 all the time!! Telus way better!

"Corporate head office" phone number is regular customer service number. You can't get Office of the President of Ombudsman via that route.

Recently updated on November 21st, 2023 at 09:34 am

Rogers Canada Headquarters Info

You can find the corporate office address and Rogers Canada headquarters in Toronto, ON M4W 1G9 Canada. Most of the operations handled from this Rogers CA corporate headquarter.

• Address: Rogers Canada headquarters is completely transparent when it comes to contact information and location of the Rogers headquarters. You can address any letters to this corporate headquarters office to:

 333 Bloor Street East, 7th Floor Toronto, ON M4W 1G9

For any general inquiries, please contact Rogers head office number : 1 888 764-3771

• Phone Number: Call 1 888 764-3771 to reach someone at Rogers Canada headquarters. As soon as you speak with a representative, you should have a fair solution to your problem that is relatively fast, You can contact during Mon to Fri: 24 Hours and Sat to Sun: 24 Hours.
• Email: As an alternative, you can email Rogers at [email protected] that may help spread the word about your problem. You can also contact someone close to the corporate office by emailing the Customer Support Help department.
• Website: You can use their website rogers.com and contact any department for general help. there is no dedicated website for Rogers headquarters.

Rogers Headquarters Executive Team

Rogers headquarters is run by an executive team. Below are some executive team members name of Rogers corporate office Canada.

• Tony Staffieri: President and CEO
• Navdeep Bains: Chief Corporate affairs officer
• Robert Dépatie: President, and Chief operating officer , Residential & Business
• Glenn Brandt: Chief Finanacial Officer
• Ron McKenzie: Chief Technology and information officer
• Bret Leech: Chiief Human Resources officer
• Phil Hartling: President, Wireless
• Zoran Stakic: President Residential
• Thomas A. Turner: President, Rogers Business
• Terrie Tweddle: Chief Brand and Communication Officer
• Marisa Wyse: Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
• Mahes Wickramasinghe: Chief Commercial Officer
• Colette Watson: President, Rogers Sports & Media

Rogers Canada corporate office addresses

Rogers canada headquarters location & directions.

Rogers Head Office Canada Photos

Resource Links

Support Feedback

Also Read : CRA Canada Headquarters Info

Rogers Canada FAQ

Q. Where is Rogers Canada Headquarters? A. Rogers Canada headquarters is located at 333 Bloor Street East, 7th Floor Toronto, ON M4W 1G9 Canada.

Q. What is Rogers Canada phone number? A. Rogers Canada Phone number is 1 888 764-3771

Q. Who is the CEO of Rogers Canada? A. Tony Staffieri is the CEO of Rogers Canada.

U.S. 3G/HSPA networks are shutting down

Read this important message BEFORE travelling to the U.S.

Rogers Prepaid

New! Semi-annual plans now available!

Why choose Rogers Prepaid?

Bring your own phone and change your plan whenever you want!

Cost certainty

Enjoy a plan with no bill, no surprise charges and no hidden fees

No commitment, no term contract or credit checks

Are you an existing Rogers Prepaid customer?

You can now manage your plan by calling us or visiting a Rogers store.

Semi-annual plans

All Rogers Prepaid plans come with Call Display, Call Waiting, Call Forwarding and Voicemail

Talk, Text & Data 1

6 GB of data

Unlimited Canada-wide talk

Unlimited incoming and outgoing texts, picture and video messaging to Canada, U.S. & International 2

18 GB of data

30 GB of data

Monthly plans

Talk & Text 1

100 Canada-wide minutes 1

Talk & Text & Data 1

500 MB of data

2.5 GB of data

4.5 GB of data

8 GB of data

U.S. Preferred Calling

Get a 10¢/min calling rate to the U.S.

Regular pay-per-use U.S. long distance ($0.70/minute) charge applies if recurring $5 monthly fee is not paid

International Preferred Calling

Get preferred rates for international calls to over 180 destinations

Regular pay-per-use international long distance charge applies if recurring $5 monthly fee is not paid

How to get it

1 800 575-9090

Find a store

Subject to change without notice. On the Rogers network only. Coverage not available in all areas. Subject to Rogers Terms and Conditions and Acceptable Use Policy; rogers.com/terms .

± A monthly 75¢ 9-1-1 Emergency Access Fee (non-government fee) applies and is included.

Certain provinces may charge an additional 9-1-1 government fee. No airtime charges apply to calls made to 9-1-1 from your Rogers phone. The 9-1-1 emergency access fee is charged for providing mobile access to 9-1-1 service. Visit rogers.com/911 for more details. Applies to all prepaid plans and rates: Prepaid airtime (when available) is billed by the minute (excludes calls made through Call Forwarding, Video Calling or similar services). Voicemail (when available) includes up to 10 messages that can be saved up to 10 days, max. 3 min each (airtime charges apply).

Directory assistance charges at $2.50/call and per minute rate.

$5, $10, $20, $30 and $40 vouchers provide access to the network for up to 30 days from date added to the account; $100 vouchers for up to 365 days.

• Valid for one-month (30 days) or 6-months (180 days). If your account does not have sufficient funds to pay the plan fee for the following period at the end of any given period, a 70¢/min rate will apply.
• Includes messages sent from Canada. If your account does not have sufficient funds to pay the plan fee for the following period at the end of any given period, a 70¢/text rate and a 70¢/picture and video message rate apply to each message sent to any mobile numbers. Sent/received premium messages and messages sent while roaming are extra.
• Add-ons require a subscription and must be added to a monthly prepaid or semi-annual plan. If your account does not have sufficient funds to pay the monthly fee of an Add-on for the following month at the end of any given month, pay-per-use rates will apply. Long-distance calls are billed by the minute and airtime charges apply. Applies to all prepaid plans and rates : Prepaid airtime (when available) is billed by the minute and applies to local calls only (excludes calls made through Call Forwarding, Video Calling or similar services). Voicemail (when available) includes up to 10 messages that can be saved up to 10 days, max. 3 min each (airtime charges apply). $10, $20 and $30 vouchers provide access to the network for up to 30 days from date added to the account; $50 vouchers for up to 60 days; $100 vouchers for up to 365 days.
• Valid for one-month (30 days), 6-month (180 days) or one-year (365 days) periods. If your account does not have sufficient funds to pay the plan fee for the following period at the end of any given period, a 70¢/min rate will apply to monthly and semi-annual plans; a 35¢/min rate will apply to the yearly plan
• Additional anytime local minutes: 15¢/min. A 70¢/min rate applies to long distance calls in Canada in addition to a 15¢/min airtime rate.
• A 50¢/text rate applies to additional Canada-wide outgoing text messages and a 30¢/text rate to additional incoming text messages in Canada.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

Rogers Introduces Connected for Success 5G Wireless Program

Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

Introduces $25 plan as part of commitment to make 5G services more affordable 

Company gives Canadians in need a no-cost 5G smartphone, with plan  

TORONTO, Nov. 07, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Rogers Communications Inc. today announced the launch of a new program to make 5G wireless services more accessible to eligible low-income Canadians. The new Connected for Success 5G Mobile Plan with a no-cost 5G smartphone gives over 2.5 million Canadians a more affordable way to connect to 5G wireless services.

“We're deeply committed to making 5G technology more affordable and accessible for all Canadians,” said Phil Hartling, President, Wireless. “Today's announcement builds on a number of investments we have made to help connect all Canadians across the country."

Making 5G services more affordable Today’s announcement builds on Rogers commitment to bring affordable 5G services to all Canadians. In May, the company reduced the price per gigabyte of data on its most popular 5G plan by 50% and lowered its 5G entry price by 35% to $55 when bundled with residential services. It also provided all Rogers 4G wireless customers with access to the 5G network at no extra charge.

Since Rogers dropped the price of its 5G mobile plans in May 2023, wireless prices in Canada declined 12% according to Statistics Canada’s latest Consumer Price Index. The report measures changes in the cost of goods and services.

The company is also offering Canadians more affordable ways to buy a new phone and get more value for the money they spend. Customers can buy a new phone with any Rogers credit card and lower their monthly payments by up to 50% with 48-month device financing, 0% interest, and no term mobile contract. Rogers customers with the Rogers red credit card also get up to 2.6% unlimited cash back on all purchases.

Available to over 2.5 million eligible Canadians   The new $25 5G plan offers 3GB of 5G data with no overage charges and a no-cost Samsung Galaxy A14 or Motorola G 5G with financing when you keep your phone for a 24-month term. Eligible recipients include:

• People who receive provincial income support or disability benefits
• Seniors receiving the federal Guaranteed Income Supplement
• Rent-geared-to-income tenants of a non-profit housing partner organization
• Recipients of the federal Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP)
• Families receiving the Maximum Canada Child Benefit through Connecting Families  

In July, Rogers expanded its Connected for Success high-speed internet program to Western Canada and Northern Ontario. For more information about Connected for Success high-speed, low-cost Ignite Internet, TV bundles and 5G Mobile services, including eligibility criteria or how to apply, please visit  connectedforsuccess.ca . 

“We all want people to be able to get online for services and connection to loved ones. The Connected for Success program adds a way for people to access affordable wireless services, which will help access training and supports they need to build better lives.” Sheila Malcolmson, British Columbia’s Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

“As more and more aspects of everyday life move online, universal access to reliable, affordable, high-speed internet and wireless service is essential so everyone can reach their full potential. This is the foundation upon which the Alberta Broadband Strategy was built. I couldn’t be happier that Rogers’ commitments align with that strategy and I look forward to continuing to work together toward a better, more connected future.” Nate Glubish, Alberta’s Minister of Technology and Innovation

“Connectivity is an essential need for all Albertans. I applaud Rogers for providing low-cost Internet services and their new 5G wireless program to make services more affordable for seniors, people with disabilities, families, youth and individuals with low incomes. These services will help unlock opportunities for those who need it most – breaking down barriers, empowering communities and increasing connection for all Albertans.” Jason Nixon, Alberta’s Minister of Seniors, Community and Social Services

“Connectivity impacts so many aspects of our daily lives. It’s needed for work, school, safety, and connecting with loved ones. We welcome programs that expand access to affordable 5G wireless services for Nova Scotians and Rogers’ low-cost option will benefit those who need it most.” Trevor Boudreau, Nova Scotia’s Minister of Community Services

“It is important that Islanders can be connected – to loved ones, healthcare, work, school, and more. Having access to a low-cost cell phone plan helps make that possible, and we are pleased to have Rogers’ Connected for Success wireless program now available to Island residents.” Barb Ramsay, Prince Edward Island’s Minister of Social Development and Seniors

“As a government, we welcome any investment in our province that helps to improve access to important services, such as health care, educational training and employment resources, for those living with low income.” Dr. Andrew Furey, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador

“Being connected is more important than ever from learning opportunities, online meetings, planning a trip on transit, or keeping in contact with family and friends. The Connected for Success program gives the option for more people to access high speed internet, mobile plans, or tv. 25,000 residents living in Saskatoon alone are eligible for this program. Helping people stay connected creates more opportunities for everyone to succeed in a rapidly changing world.” Charlie Clark, Mayor of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

“As the first 5G City in Atlantic Canada, the City of Fredericton is pleased to see this new program being introduced by Rogers. It means 5G wireless services will be accessible to more people, providing the opportunity for more of our residents to be able to connect with City services online.” Kate Rogers, Mayor of Fredericton, New Brunswick

"Our housing program supports at-risk women and their children through a difficult period of their lives in which they are faced with numerous hardships such as financial instability. By providing these women with affordable and accessible wireless services, including the option of a no-cost device, we are taking an influential step toward supporting and uplifting these women toward a more independent and successful future."   Neena Randhawa, Director, Transitional Housing & Women’s Initiatives at Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society in British Columbia

“We are thrilled to partner with Rogers Communications in the launch of their new affordable 5G wireless program for low-income Canadians. For the women and children YW supports, the Connected for Success program provides affordable and reliable connectivity that will ensure they have access to needed resources, skill-building, support homework and online learning for children, and source employment opportunities.” Stacey Ashton, Manager, Shelter Services and Affordable Housing at YW Calgary in Alberta

“For the past decade, our invaluable partnership with Rogers Communications on their Connected for Success program has provided thousands of Toronto Community Housing tenants access to reliable, high-speed, low-cost internet, making a real difference in their day-to-day lives. Now, this partnership with Rogers is expanding to include affordable 5G wireless plans that will empower even more of our tenants to connect, learn and thrive. On behalf of the programs and partnerships team here at TCHC, we are very grateful.”   Fahad Yousuf, Acting Manager, Strategic Service Partnerships, Toronto Community Housing in Ontario

“The Rogers Connected for Success wireless program means Thrive participants can stay connected to community services, and when facing a crisis such as homelessness, intimate partner violence, or a medical emergency, they now have a means to connect to the appropriate supports. Having access to affordable mobile services will improve social connections, access to supports, and increase safety for so many people we support.” Angela Crockwell, Executive Director at Thrive in Newfoundland

About Rogers Communications Inc.  

Rogers is Canada’s leading wireless, cable and media company that provides connectivity and entertainment to Canadian consumers and businesses across the country. Rogers shares are publicly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: RCI.A and RCI.B) and on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: RCI). For more information, please visit: rogers.com or investors.rogers.com. 

For more information:

[email protected] 1-844-226-1338 

Ford scales back Michigan battery plant, restarts construction

Ford logo is pictured at the 2019 Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA) in Frankfurt, Germany September 10, 2019. REUTERS/Wolfgang Rattay/File Photo/File Photo Acquire Licensing Rights

DETROIT, Nov 21 (Reuters) - Ford Motor (F.N) will scale back the investment, capacity and the number of jobs planned for an electric-vehicle (EV) battery plant in Michigan that has drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers for its use of technology supplied by Chinese battery maker CATL (300750.SZ) , the automaker said on Tuesday.

Ford said it would restart construction of the factory near Marshall, Michigan, after being paused two months ago.

The No. 2 U.S. automaker plans to start producing low-cost lithium-iron batteries by 2026 based on technology licensed from CATL. Ford will own the factory, and has agreed to give the United Auto Workers the opportunity to organize the plant's workers without a vote.

The company's ties with CATL have drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers, who oppose the country's EV subsidies flowing to a Chinese entity.

Representative Mike Gallagher, a Republican who chairs House committee on China, said on Tuesday Ford's reported decision was disappointing.

"The American people deserve better from an iconic U.S. company that receives massive taxpayer subsidies. Ford needs to call off this unethical deal for good," Gallagher said.

Ford is pushing for the U.S. Treasury Department to approve lithium-iron, or LFP, batteries made at the Michigan factory to qualify for Inflation Reduction Act EV subsidies. Ford is already using imported LFP batteries in its Mustang Mach-E electric SUV.

"We are confident in terms of IRA benefits," Ford spokesman Mark Truby told reporters in a teleconference on Tuesday.

A Treasury spokeswoman did not comment.

Ford said it was scaling back its original plans to spend $3.5 billion to make the Blue Oval Battery Park Michigan big enough to produce 35 gigawatt hours of batteries annually and employ about 2,500 people.

Ford now plans to cut the Michigan battery plant's capacity to 20 gigawatt hours and reduce hiring to 1,700 jobs.

Rival General Motors (GM.N) has also slowed investment in new EV capacity for North America as rising interest rates have slowed the growth in demand. GM said on Tuesday it will hold a call on Nov. 29 to brief investors on its outlook .

Ford shares fell 1.5% while GM closed down 2.2% and Stellantis (STLAM.MI) dropped 2.1% in New York trading on Tuesday.

The Detroit Three automakers all face higher labor costs in the U.S. under newly ratified contracts with the United Auto Workers.

Ford's capital investment will be reduced as well, Truby said, without giving an exact figure. He indicated the total investment will be proportional to the 40% reduction in capacity. That indicates a new price tag of about $2 billion.

Ford said in October that it would cut future EV investments overall by $12 billion compared with previous plans. The company has previously postponed construction of a battery factory in Kentucky and another in Turkey.

Reporting by Joe White in Detroit; additional reporting by David Shepardson in Washington Editing by Anil D'Silva, Matthew Lewis and Marguerita Choy

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Thomson Reuters

Joe White is a global automotive correspondent for Reuters, based in Detroit. Joe covers a wide range of auto and transport industry subjects, writes The Auto File, a three-times weekly newsletter about the global auto industry. Joe joined Reuters in January 2015 as the transportation editor leading coverage of planes, trains and automobiles, and later became global automotive editor. Previously, he served as the global automotive editor of the Wall Street Journal, where he oversaw coverage of the auto industry and ran the Detroit bureau. Joe is co-author (with Paul Ingrassia) of Comeback: The Fall and Rise of the American Automobile Industry, and he and Paul shared the Pulitzer Prize for beat reporting in 1993.

S.Korean EV battery maker SK On seeks $3.1 bln in pre-IPO funding - newspaper

More from Reuters

Siemens Gamesa's turnaround plan underwhelms, shares fall

Struggling wind turbine maker Siemens Gamesa said on Tuesday it would cut costs and capacity on its long path towards profit, sending shares in parent Siemens Energy sharply lower as investors had hoped for more radical steps.

Reusable packaging could cut emissions from plastics by up to 69% -study

Canada tax rule curbs Airbnb deductions to ease rental shortage

GM to hold Nov. 29 business update after UAW contract deal

Russian Agricultural Bank files lawsuit against JP Morgan

• Main content

Make America Build Again

My totally radical, completely sure-fire plan to blanket the country with affordable homes and clean energy and mass transit — fast

Anne-Marie Griger's job is to build big things — fields of solar panels that can power a city, forests of wind turbines as tall as sequoias. But to do it, she has to start small. 

As a director of development for RES Group, one the world's largest privately-held builders of renewable-energy facilities, Griger has to figure out where, exactly, to put all the stuff we need to save us from a climate catastrophe. By some counts, that'll require 210,000 square miles of wind turbines and 15,000 square miles of solar panels. But they can't go just anywhere. The locations have to be windy enough for wind, or flat enough for solar. There needs to be a transmission line to connect to the power grid, so they can't be in the middle of nowhere. And finally, whoever owns the land has to agree to having a big energy project in their backyard.

Which, it turns out, is a huge problem.

In the vast empty spaces out West, odds are the land is owned by the federal government. That means a whole bunch of headaches. The National Environmental Policy Act and a dozen other federal laws set the rules for land use, and the paperwork — you wouldn't believe it. But if Griger tries to avoid federal permits by looking at private land, she has to navigate a ninja-warrior obstacle course of state and local rules, each with its own demands for setbacks and sightlines and time-consuming environmental studies. And even if all the individual landowners agree to host the project on their properties — in return for, say, a generous lease of $1 million a year for 30 years — getting a county permit still requires a public meeting. The bigger the project, the more likely the meeting will be a total shitshow.

"The most common people to show up are the adjacent landowners," Griger says. They always have concerns. Maybe she can make some changes to appease them. Or maybe she can cut them a check. But these days, Griger has found, a shocking number of locals aren't open to compromise. They're just dead set against seeing long rows of solar panels or power-line gantries next to their land, lined up like picket defenses against Godzilla. "Some people will be philosophically opposed to renewable energy," Griger says. "They think it's an Obama conspiracy. They think it's crazy, unproven technology. Other people say, 'I'm not opposed to renewable energy, I just think this is the wrong spot.' People always think their spot is unique."

Now bear in mind, when Griger builds something, she's paying the people near it for the privilege. And her projects don't leak toxic goo. They fight climate change, stabilize the energy grid, and power our lights and our phones and all the other things we demand from modern life. Yet it can be almost impossible to get them built. If the paperwork isn't approved, if the environmental studies turn up something endangered, if the meetings and lawsuits go on forever, then the project gets too expensive. If it doesn't pencil out, it doesn't happen.

"It makes me frustrated," Griger says. "Any time I tell someone that I develop renewable energy, they're always like, 'Oh, that's so cool.' And I say, 'Well, you're not at the public meeting where people are screaming at me that I'm going to give their kid cancer.'" 

How did it come to this? This is the country that crisscrossed a continent with railroads, and then with highways. We cut a canal across Panama, dammed the Colorado to power the West, invented the skyscraper, and created the modern assembly line. We built Golden Gate bridges, sent rockets to the moon, put space stations into orbit, blanketed the Earth with a digital information network. Megaprojects are, like, our thing!

Except they aren't. For the past 50 years, we've been coasting. Without a massive national effort, our collapsing infrastructure — everything from power grids to sewers — will deprive us of $10 trillion in economic growth. We've deferred $157 billion in maintenance on decaying dams, and 220,000 bridges need fixing or replacing, at a cost of $319 billion. We face a shortage of more than 4 million homes, creating a crisis of homelessness and exacerbating income inequality. America is the sixth-most-expensive place in the world to build subways and trolleys. California has spent 15 years trying to build a 500-mile high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco, now expected to cost $128 billion, quadruple the original estimate. In that same amount of time, China has built 23,500 miles of high-speed rail.

Our crisis of inaction threatens to cripple the economy beyond repair, condemn millions to poverty, and worsen the death toll from global warming. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires, heat waves — the bills from two centuries of burning fossil fuels are coming due. The solutions will cost trillions of dollars and require a pace of building unseen in America since World War II. To zero out carbon emissions, we need to build 100 gigawatts of new generating capacity — the equivalent of 100 nuclear power plants — every year until 2050. Yet at this moment of existential necessity, we're paralyzed. An offshore wind farm just broke ground after more than 20 years of bureaucratic dithering. If you want to supply America's homes and offices with clean energy, get in line: The average wait time to get a new project connected to the nation's mishmash of electrical grids is five years. Perhaps the single most pressing question we face today is: How do we make America build again?

Looking for answers, I talked to dozens of developers, economists, lawyers, policymakers, and researchers who work on infrastructure and megaprojects. I wanted to see whether there's a single, overarching way we can break through the complex logjam of idiocy and inertia that's preventing us from building all the housing and wind farms and chip factories and power lines we so desperately need. And I came away convinced that there is, in fact, a solution. 

It's just not the one I expected to find. Or one I ever thought I'd agree with. 

It's not really about the money. A megaproject, by definition, costs a metric shit ton of dollars to build. Let's say you wanted a 35-story spherical concert venue that could hold 20,000 people and have an exterior covered in 580,000 square feet of programmable LEDs. Well, that'll run you $2.3 billion. But if there are customers, there are investors — even with interest rates going up. As of September, you could go see U2 in that Sphere, if that's your thing.

Right now, money is on the table. The federal government has passed a bunch of laws — the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act — that amount to more than $2 trillion of tax credits and grants to get America building again. But all those new projects are going to run headfirst into the same slow-moving bureaucracy that has always hamstrung major works — large or small, good or evil. Taking federal money means going through the federal permitting process that Griger and other developers hate. That's why the hot topic in Washington right now is " permitting reform ." 

To a certain kind of policy wonk, permitting looks like an eminently solvable problem. If the accumulated bureaucratic cruft of the past 50 years has become too onerous, just scrape it off. Sometimes, that alone is enough to get things moving. Take the Pinedale, Wyoming, field office of the Bureau of Land Management, which encompasses Grand Teton National Park. From 2016 to 2019, researchers found, BLM field offices took between 106 and 220 days, on average, to process permits for oil and gas drilling. Pinedale's average : just 49 days. How? They used environmental studies they had already drawn up for previous projects to streamline the process, speeding up their analysis of how each new permit would impact a specific site. They were, in other words, efficient .

A team of researchers who studied the Forest Service found lots of other ways to speed up the permitting process. Setting hard deadlines for responses to applications helped, as did simple stuff like putting all the required permits in the right sequence. Having more people to handle all the paperwork would help — tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act is $1 billion for more "staff resources," to get the bureaucracy humming at a higher frequency. And better communication between agencies and applicants can make a huge difference. "Just doing that, you're moving permit times down from five years to two years," says Jamie Pleune, a law professor at the University of Utah who was part of the team that crunched the Forest Service data.

Washington is bursting with proposed reforms like this. Every ambitious politician, big-brained academic, and think tank worth its dark money has produced their very own white paper arguing for ways to tweak the rules. The massive engineering firm AECOM says it's all about policies to foster new engineering talent . The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies says we need nationwide zoning reform to build affordable housing. The Brookings Institution recommends transferring oversight for the permitting of offshore wind farms to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an agency I did not know existed until just before I typed this sentence. Even the White House has gotten into the act. After permitting screwups threatened to monkey-wrench President Joe Biden's building agenda, a senior administration official tells me that streamlining the permitting process is now a top priority.

What gets in the way of most projects isn't bureaucrats in Washington or environmental activists. It's pissed-off locals.

There's just one problem with all these proposals: They're Band-Aids for boo-boos, not a cure for what ails us. The reality is, only a tiny handful of megaprojects get slowed down by federal regulations. A not-yet-published analysis of nearly 2,000 wind and solar projects found that 95% of them either dodged all federal regulation or got streamlined review. Only 50 of the projects were challenged in federal court on environmental grounds. "That's a very different understanding of things than is commonly portrayed in the debate over permitting reform," says David Adelman, an environmental-law professor at the University of Texas who led the research. "For this class of projects, federal environmental laws are more the exception."

To get America building, we need to understand what actually gets in the way of most projects. It isn't bureaucrats in Washington, or counties with strict height limits on buildings, or environmental activists chaining themselves to pipelines. It's pissed-off locals, who don't want stuff — any stuff — built in their backyards.

One way America is exceptional is that, for better or worse, we believe landowners should have the final word on what happens to their land — or even, for that matter, the land next to their land. So we essentially allow any property owners who happen to be in the vicinity to have the final word on who can build what, and where. One researcher described this to me as a "veto gate." I call it vigilante enforcement.

Wealthy landowners on Nantucket who are worried about the view from their summer homes have delayed wind-turbine projects off the coast of New England for nearly two decades. Native American tribes have sued to prevent construction of solar panels in the Mojave Desert . Lawsuits filed by cities and landowners have blocked the bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco . New housing in almost every city faces constant legal challenges over density , shadows , or plain old vibes .

David Spence, a professor of energy law at the University of Texas who studies permitting and regulation, wanted to figure out who opposes which kinds of project. His database of more than 200 fossil-fuel and renewable-energy projects — and what more than 400 local and national environmental groups said about them — shows that national groups like Greenpeace or the Natural Resources Defense Council consistently fight the harmful stuff, like oil wells and fracking. But state and local groups made no such distinction. They mobilized against everything — including wind farms and transmission lines. And they usually did it by making bogus claims about health risks.

"If I don't want my viewshed interrupted by a wind farm, and I'm not getting a job or anything I see as a tangible benefit, why not say no?" Spence says. "Once you see it as something you're opposed to, you start to grab onto these other arguments that aren't logical or are not supported by science."

Sometimes people fight the projects we need, from wind farms and power lines to high-speed railways, under the auspices of federal environmental laws — the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act. But a lot of other rules, federal and local, are also environmental regulations at their core. Siting rules dictate where you can put solar panels and wind turbines, and how far they have to be set back from other developments. Local zoning laws, from the outset, were superficially designed to give city dwellers access to open space, clean water, and homes free of disease and pests . Look close enough at any building regulation and you'll find a green agenda buried beneath all the red tape.

I want to be clear here: We need laws that protect the environment. Without them we'd have dams in the Grand Canyon, no Yellowstone National Park, skies of smoke, rivers of sludge, cats and dogs living together, etc. They're what keep hog farms from putting giant pools of waste wherever they want. They're what closed the ozone hole, stopped acid rain, and might yet hold off the worst effects of the climate crisis.

But the problem is that these well-intentioned laws are designed, intrinsically, to say no — especially to human constructs like factories and cities. It says so right there at the top of the granddaddy of all environmental regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act. The biggest threats to the environment, NEPA states, are things like "high-density urbanization" and "industrial expansion" and "new expanding technological advances."

And there's the rub. Those things are also good. What sounded like environmental threats back when NEPA was signed into law in 1970 — Technology! Cities with lots of people! — are now the very things we need to save a world wracked by climate disasters and economic instability. What's more, the old environmental laws designed to protect nice clean "nature" from dirty old "technology" are now being used to shut down projects that pose no threat to the environment. Early this year, a state appeals court sided with a handful of Berkeley residents who sued to block proposed housing for 1,100 students at the University of California. Their grounds? That the state's Environmental Quality Act protected them from the noise pollution all those college kids would cause. In August, irate residents in Los Angeles used the Berkeley precedent to block housing for the University of Southern California.

Or take wind turbines. According to one study , opposition to wind farms comes not from longtime residents of rural areas, but from newcomers who moved to the countryside for the beauty of the surroundings. These people "may not only be wealthier, but perhaps also more likely to work from home than long-term residents and commuters," so they get cranky about how the wind turbines will ruin the views from their home offices. And those who are retired or semiretired "may also have more time to attend public meetings and the resources necessary to participate in online opposition efforts."

The point is, the broad environmental regulatory framework we put in place to fight pollution a half century ago has become a weapon of self-interest. "No nukes" and "save the whales" mutated from rallying cries to protect the Earth against rapacious development into a machine for saying no to change — even necessary change.

"No nukes" and "save the whales" mutated from rallying cries to protect the Earth into a machine for saying no to change — even necessary change.

"Before we had the National Environmental Policy Act, we were in a situation where we were not doing enough environmental consideration before we built things," says James Coleman, a professor of energy law at Southern Methodist University. "We have probably moved to the other side of the spectrum. Since NEPA passed in 1970, we've basically been running down our existing infrastructure."

If we want to get America building again, we can't just tinker around with "permitting reform" or faster paperwork. The moment demands a bigger, more sweeping fix. It has to take into account essential new priorities, cut across warring jurisdictions, and move projects forward with the appropriate urgency. To construct the stuff we need to actually save the environment, we have to do something unthinkable. We have to demolish our existing environmental laws — top to bottom, federal to local — and replace them with something better.

Let's think about what a new environmental law would look like, if we set out to craft one for the age of climate change and income inequality and homelessness. Call it the National Ecosystems Conservation Act.

NECA would continue to vigorously safeguard the environment against pollution and degradation. It would protect grand open spaces and the creatures that live in them from abuse. It would prevent and punish dangerous pollution, especially in vulnerable communities and vulnerable places. Proposals for new projects would still have to show that they aren't harmful. This isn't some version of the utterly insane Republican plan reported to be in the works in case the GOP wins the presidency next year , which aims to kill any Biden program that contains the slightest whiff of carbon reduction and replace anyone who worked on them with oil-friendly apparatchiks. That would be bad.

But NECA would start by requiring policymakers, right from the start, to define the kinds of projects that are actually beneficial for the environment, and prioritize building the things that make that happen. Freeways, oil wells, incinerators, slaughterhouses? Put them through the regulatory wringer. Solar panels, power lines, more efficient urban housing? Take a hard look, but do everything you can to get them up and running, pronto.

Next, NECA would recognize that every project we cook up, no matter how much it might benefit the economy or the environment, is going to do some sort of harm. We already do this all the time — putting a price on an eagle, or the Badlands, or a kid dying of cancer. We even put a number on it. It's called the Value of a Statistical Life . If redesigning the guardrail on a freeway on-ramp costs more than the value of the lives it will save, it probably won't get built.

Right now, if the harm outweighs the good, we just shut down the project. Our current environmental laws turn everything into a yes-no equation. NECA would green-light projects that cause harm — provided that they mitigate that harm elsewhere. If you're building a wind farm, say, you acknowledge that it's going to kill some number of birds and bats. But instead of that being grounds for richy-rich neighbors to shut down the project, NECA would mandate that developers spend money somewhere else to cut down on the world's overall bird and bat deaths. The wind-farm developers, say, could be required to help reduce the global plague of outdoor feral and pet cats , which kill as many as 4 billion birds and 22 billion small mammals every year. Sure, you'll kill a few birds and bats with your wind turbines. But you'll more than make up for it by saving millions in other locations.

NECA would also limit the power of courts to review individual projects. Right now, courts have way too much power in determining how environmental laws get implemented. For clean-energy projects, they often wind up deciding to do something called a "hard-look review," which pretty much grinds everything to a halt. "If you read the National Environmental Protection Act, you would never guess that this is a statute that requires 10 years of study before you can build a bridge or a power line," says Coleman, the law professor. "That was more or less made up by the courts." NECA would take authority over project review away from the courts and lay out more explicitly what's required in an environmental review or a project approval. Permitting can't be bureaucratic improvisation.  

Finally, and perhaps most important, NECA would limit the ability of locals to tank projects, and increase federal authority over essential infrastructure that crosses hundreds or even thousands of local and state jurisdictions. The new law would allow — mandate, even — public participation and comment. But it would set strict time limits on how long the back-and-forth can go on. Once everyone's had their say, and their concerns have been evaluated and either rejected or incorporated into the plan , the project would be allowed to move forward. 

That's how we wound up with cellphones. Back in the days of Motorola flip phones, when local residents tried to use environmental laws to stop telecommunications companies from erecting a nationwide network of cell towers, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Cities and states were free to determine the aesthetics of cellular towers. People could make them look like a palm tree or whatever. But they couldn't just prohibit them, or file lawsuits based on wacky scientific claims about electromagnetic fields causing brain cancer. 

Did it work? Tell you what, I'll do a TikTok about it. DM me after you watch it! I'm on Signal.

Conservatives are likely to cry "states' rights" at the idea of giving the feds more power over infrastructure projects. But I didn't hear them griping about empowering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to preempt state and local opposition to natural-gas pipelines. FERC doesn't just plop gas pipes anywhere; it's still required to consult with state and local authorities about the best places to put them. But in the end, FERC gets to say yes or no. The feds need to have the same power over other infrastructure projects that cross multiple jurisdictions — especially the stuff that's essential to modernize the grid and help prevent a climate catastrophe.

Danielle Stokes, a professor of environmental and property law at the University of Richmond, has written about the need to centralize the approval process for vital infrastructure — a school of thought known as renewable-energy federalism . "Until there is some sort of federal agreement on rapid deployment of renewable energy, or high-speed rail, or electric vehicle charging stations — it's increasingly difficult to have systems that in the aggregate will effect change," she says. Federal preemption, she acknowledges, should be a "drop-dead trump card" for moving projects forward. "But it's necessary when you have the evidence."

I didn't come up with the idea of giving the feds more authority to push through climate projects; it was actually on the table in the debt-limit deal that Congress passed in the spring. It didn't make it in. Nobody wants a transmission line running above their homes, and oil and gas money has no interest in making it easier to build them . To them I say, tough luck. Better to see a power line than not have a planet.

A new federal regulatory regime won't solve everything. For one thing, NECA couldn't fix every state and local rule that's standing in the way of progress. But it could preempt some of the ones that are the most absurdly obstructionist. Take housing, which is shaped mostly by zoning rules at the local level. NECA could prevent irate neighbors from saying no to new housing on environmental grounds, or from suing over ridiculous claims. That's how the feds used the Telecommunications Act to clear the way for cell towers. And that's what California just did when it passed a law explicitly barring opponents from using state environmental rules about "noise pollution" to block new housing, as they did at UC Berkeley and USC.

Look, I understand why the prospect of overhauling our hard-won environmental laws might feel like sacrilege to anyone who cares about the Earth. I myself grew up in a save-the-whales, no-nukes, recycle-your-aluminum-cans sort of home. But it was also a Star Trek house; I still think well-regulated technology can save the world.

And I'm far from a lone voice in the wilderness here. A few environmental big shots have come out swinging on the need for a new regulatory regime. Bill McKibben, a sort of patron saint of the environmental movement, wrote an article in Mother Jones earlier this year called " Yes in Our Backyards ," calling for old-school tree huggers to embrace massive electrification infrastructure. "Maybe we could gaze up at wind turbines on the ridge and take pleasure in seeing the breeze made visible," McKibben writes. "And in seeing ourselves taking responsibility for something we need — energy — instead of pawning the costs off on poorer people somewhere else, or on the people who will come after us."

Late last year, the longtime environmental lawyer Michael Gerrard — faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University — banged the same shoe on the same table. In an article called "A Time for Triage," he argued that the current crisis was great enough to put aside some old ecological bugbears. "There are some models of laws that have achieved speedy approvals for certain kinds of projects," he writes, citing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among others. "Whatever it is, I believe we need to move forward in this fashion, and not just plod along with business-as-usual environmental regulation toward a world of killing heat and mass human migration and species extinction."

Still, lots of Democrats and progressives find themselves split on this stuff, philosophically. The old environmentalists, the ones most likely to donate money to a cause or a political campaign, grew up in the preservationist tradition. "When you talk to people who are very involved in the environmental movement, things like high-speed rail aren't necessarily uncontroversial," says Coleman, the energy law professor. "On the left there's really two positions. One is, let's achieve this — we need to make it easier to build new infrastructure to have cleaner energy sources and cleaner options. And the other idea is, let's just use less energy."

Two things can be true! We should absolutely find ways to reduce our impact on the Earth and on one another. But we built our way into this problem, with our car-based economy and our determination to burn fossil fuels every time we want to toast a slice of bread. So I have to believe we can build our way out of it. And it makes no sense to allow local residents (most of them wealthy and white) to use environmental laws to block projects that will give other people (most of them poor and people of color) stuff like affordable housing and a way to get to work in the morning. Some state governments and environmental groups, in fact, are so fed up with all the environmental NIMBYism that they've stopped participating in lawsuits against new housing.

"We have strayed from the path of 'purity' on that," says David Pettit, a senior attorney in the climate and clean-energy program at the famously litigious Natural Resources Defense Council. "We feel that building housing is so important that some changes have to be made."

We can't let local residents (most of them wealthy and white) block projects that give other people (most of them poor and people of color) stuff like affordable housing.

The truth is, our entire framework of environmental regulation has always been kind of elitist. It was based from the start on a misguided idea of nature — a sense that the environment is some other, removed place that retains a sublime quality where people can encounter God, as long as nobody touches it. That view is fine for the people with the financial wherewithal and free time to journey there, preferably with glamping-quality gear. "Only when we had a middle class with leisure time to spend in the great outdoors was when we had legislative support to get NEPA," says Spence, the professor of energy law. "Mostly, it's a relatively wealthy persons' movement, and you see that in the composition of environmental organizations." It's long past time we uproot the racist and classist assumptions that underlie our modern environmental regulations. Demolishing the old rules would not only spur the rapid and widespread building we need to protect the planet — it would take into account the needs of everyone. 

The good news is, revamping our environmental regulations will work. In some places, it already has. Look at what happened recently in New York. After nearly two decades of coastal communities fighting the construction of offshore wind farms, the state finally passed a law limiting the range of grounds for opposition. Now five wind projects are in the works. In Florida, meanwhile, the high-speed-rail company Brightline has built a mini-network of trains across the state, and it has another one in the works connecting Southern California to Las Vegas, simply by making use of existing, already-permitted rail lines. If we use our heads — as well as our existing infrastructure — we can find ways to build big.

And we don't have to worry that changing environmental regulations will open the door for a lot of dirty, planet-polluting industries. Sure, Republicans and their petrochemical allies would love to get more natural-gas pipelines into the pipeline. But the fact is, the economy will no longer support those kinds of projects. Coal power isn't coming back, solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, and almost all the energy projects in the overstuffed queue to connect to the national grid are renewables rather than oil and gas. The war's over; now we just have to win the peace.

Calling for an overhaul of environmental protections remains something of a political third rail. But on background, many policy wonks and policymakers I spoke with are quick to admit that the current system doesn't work. They know we need to change it. They just aren't sure we can muster the political will to make it happen, even though it's supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. 

I'm not claiming it'll be easy. The idea that we can protect the environment while continuing to feed our seemingly insatiable consumerist appetites in some even-handed equitable fashion is as pie-eyed as a "Star Trek" episode. Every decision we make about the "environment" is also a statement about who gets what. When an environmental regulation determines where, or whether, a factory can be built, it becomes economic policy. When environmental laws allow the continued operation of petrochemical refineries in the poorest communities in the poorest states, but disallow the construction of wind turbines off the richest beaches in the richest states, it becomes social policy. When a permitting process determines who will have jobs, or whether a city vulnerable to killer heat waves can have consistent electrical power, it becomes a social and economic determinant.

"These are deep questions of democracy and the administrative state," says Zachary Liscow, a former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget who now teaches at Yale Law School. "Any of these infrastructure projects are a combination of two things — technical things that are very hard for the public to understand, but also deeply political choices about balancing development versus the environment and weighing the interests of different communities. Where do we want to lodge that authority?"

Right now, the answer to those questions is being held hostage, for the most part, by local interest groups. That's who's deciding our future. The problem is too big to leave to every high-horse property owner who feels like tilting at windmills. Our solutions have to be big, too. Global warming and the global economy didn't merge environmental rules with economic policy; they were never separate to begin with. But pretending that they are, and that environmental regulations are only about protecting nature from human greed, is why we don't build big anymore. And if we don't change course, it's going to get us all killed.

Adam Rogers is a senior correspondent at Insider.

About Discourse Stories

Through our Discourse journalism, Insider seeks to explore and illuminate the day’s most fascinating issues and ideas. Our writers provide thought-provoking perspectives, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise. Read more Discourse stories here .