Understanding the Local Permitting Maze: A Guide for Energy & Infrastructure Projects

When it comes to project permitting for energy and infrastructure development projects, federal and state permits often get a lot of attention.

While these may encounter variations and complexities in their own right, the processes are generally well established and understood.

But the real curveballs often come at the local level. 

In this article, we’ll understand how things can get unpredictable with local permitting – and how early preparation can make or break a project.

Why One Size Doesn’t Fit All

Even if two projects are identical in scale, technology, and design, placing them in different jurisdictions can yield vastly different permitting experiences. 

A solar developer might assume that because a similar project sailed through approvals in one county, the same will happen in another. That’s a costly assumption.

For instance, consider a developer building two 50 MW solar projects in two counties – let’s call them county A and county B. 

In County A, a comprehensive solar ordinance exists. The permitting process is clearly outlined, and the zoning administrator is familiar with renewable projects.

But in County B, there’s no ordinance for solar at all. Instead, officials try to interpret the project under outdated agricultural or utility land use codes. The developer in County B faces months of ambiguity, debate, and additional hearings – and all while the clock ticks on project timelines and financial agreements.

The takeaway? Even when the project scope is the same, the permitting path rarely is.

Know the Ordinance Before You Make Contact

The first step in engaging any local permitting authority isn’t scheduling a meeting – it’s understanding their ordinance. Deeply.

Coming into an initial conversation without knowing what’s written into the local code or regulations can be a frustrating experience for the officials.

If project teams ask basic questions for which the answers have been clearly laid out in the public documents, it reveals a lack of preparation and puts a strain on the relationship from day one.

On the other hand, thoroughly reviewing the ordinance can offer helpful clarity – or bring forth ambiguity that needs to be addressed head-on.

Interpret the Gaps, Before Someone Else Does

If a township has a clear solar ordinance, it’s easier to map out requirements.

However, when an ordinance doesn’t explicitly account for a project type – say, wind or battery storage – there’s considerable room for interpretation. And who leads that interpretation matters.

Approaching the agency with thoughtful suggestions about how the project could be treated under existing definitions can go a long way. For example, suggesting that a battery storage facility aligns closely with how a utility substation is treated under local regulations can give decision-makers a useful starting point.

By helping officials see how a project could reasonably fit into their framework, developers avoid putting the entire burden of interpretation on the other side – and can potentially steer the conversation toward a more favorable outcome.

Think About the People, Not Just the Entity

Permits don’t get issued by agencies or entities; they get issued by the people who form these entities.

Whether they’re zoning administrators, township supervisors, or planning commission members – these individuals are often constrained by limited time, competing priorities, and community pressures.

Therefore, recognizing the human element of permitting is crucial.

Being responsive and anticipating the challenges of the agency staff can make the difference between a smooth permitting process and a combative one.

Also, many local boards and commissions are made up of elected officials. That means they’re accountable to their communities, and public sentiment can heavily influence their decisions.

Therefore, fielding public feedback can be a stressful process, particularly in tight-knit communities where opposition can be vocal and personal.

Helping local officials anticipate what residents might object to (e.g., visual impacts, traffic, noise, etc.) and addressing those concerns early on can reduce friction later. 

It is a golden opportunity for developers to position themselves as a helpful partner, not just a petitioner.

And when the time comes for a decision, those small, early efforts can translate into smoother approvals.

However, it’s important to understand that all this doesn’t fully de-risk the permitting process. 

An agency’s position can shift due to community pressure, internal disagreements, or public hearing dynamics. 

Decisions often go before planning commissions or township boards, which means multiple individuals, each with their own perspectives and priorities, will weigh in. Split votes, last-minute objections, or unexpected interpretations can still derail even the best-laid plans.

Navigating local permitting is less about eliminating all risk and more about shrinking the margin of uncertainty.

Know Who – And How – to Approach

While local regulations play a critical role in permitting, it is also affected by the people interpreting and enforcing those rules.

Some ordinances recommend – but do not require – pre-application meetings. Even when not mentioned, these meetings are almost always worth pursuing.

Knowing who to talk to, and when, is a critical part of navigating this process.

Generally, individuals such as township engineers and zoning officers treat the permitting process as a technical responsibility. Their personal views rarely play a role.  

If approached thoughtfully, with helpful knowledge and ideas, they’re often willing to engage early on. This can not only make their job easier but also give developers valuable direction on how a commission or board might respond, what concerns are likely to surface, and what to prepare for.

On the other hand, planning commission members and township supervisors often operate in a more public context. 

Their decisions may be influenced by prior project experiences, prevailing community sentiment, or even personal beliefs. In some cases, a past negative experience with a different developer can color their view of a new proposal, even if the two projects are unrelated.

Moreover, in many jurisdictions, pre-application discussions with them, especially in groups, can raise procedural concerns. Developers should be especially mindful not to put these individuals in uncomfortable or procedurally improper positions.

That’s why it’s typically more effective to initiate early conversations with agency staff rather than elected officials. 

Final Thoughts

Local permitting is an intricate process driven by regulations, interpretation, and human judgment. 

Even well-prepared projects can face unexpected turns when local ordinances are unclear, agency perspectives vary, or public sentiment shifts. 

That’s why early, informed, and respectful engagement with the right stakeholders matters just as much as technical feasibility and compliance. This way, developers can reduce uncertainty and increase the odds of success. 

There may not be a guaranteed formula of success when it comes to local permitting, but there is certainly a smarter way to approach it.