{"id":326038,"date":"2025-07-23T13:07:57","date_gmt":"2025-07-23T13:07:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bowman.com\/?post_type=news&p=326038"},"modified":"2025-07-23T13:07:57","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T13:07:57","slug":"project-planning-gets-a-reality-check-after-obbb","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/bowman.com\/news\/project-planning-gets-a-reality-check-after-obbb","title":{"rendered":"Project Planning Gets a Reality Check After OBBB"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Mike Schutz, director of renewables & power delivery<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Renewable developers are facing a hard truth following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act<\/a> (OBBB): federal policy is now putting a hard stop on the momentum built under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The window is now narrow for projects to receive tax credits, and it\u2019s already reshaping how teams are approaching development strategy and resourcing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the engineering consulting world, we\u2019re seeing developers rethink their portfolios as a result\u2014revaluating what moves forward, where they need to pump the brakes and what pivots entirely. Many are shifting toward early-stage development or standalone battery storage<\/a>, which remains relatively unaffected by the bill. The common thread is a move away from all-in execution and toward measured decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a closer look at how the OBBB is reshaping development priorities and what steps developers can take to adapt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rebuilding backlogs, not breaking ground<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For projects that can\u2019t realistically meet the 2027 deadline, developers are focusing on early-stage progress. That means securing land, running environmental<\/a> studies, completing survey<\/a> work and maybe initiating preliminary engineering<\/a>. It\u2019s not speculative, it\u2019s strategic preparation. These projects aren\u2019t shelved; they\u2019re just queued and being positioned for future activation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why? Because if the guidelines shift again, those projects will be among the few that are ready to go. Treating this time as a backlog-building opportunity is more practical than burning capital chasing tight timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quality vs. schedule<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Some of the subtler risks of the OBBB is the temptation to reduce the scope or compromise design to meet the tightened schedule. With deadlines driving decision-making, it\u2019s tempting to rush projects into construction<\/a> with minimal due diligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The concern isn\u2019t hypothetical. The renewable energy industry<\/a> is still maturing, and that variability in experience can influence how thoroughly long-term risks are evaluated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Design and construction shortcuts made to save time today can affect project economics for decades. And that tradeoff needs to be weighed carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why 2027 is closer than it looks<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The typical constraints of renewable development haven\u2019t gone anywhere. If anything, they\u2019re more disruptive under the pressure of new deadlines. And the most difficult part? Much of the policy and guidance is still undefined. Because of that, there are a few areas that will impede progress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Permitting<\/strong>
Federal permitting, particularly for wetlands, wildlife and coastal areas, remains a significant question mark. Agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers<\/a> have offered limited clarity on how they’ll handle renewable projects post-OBBB. State and local processes remain active, but delays are growing. Early engagement remains the most effective way to manage risk. Developers that wait to involve jurisdictional experts often find themselves reacting to problems they could have planned for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Procurement<\/strong>
The bill includes provisions that disincentivize the use of components from certain foreign entities. That\u2019s raised costs and complexity for solar developers reliant on equipment manufactured in outside of the United States. Safe harboring has become more appealing, but its rules are still being clarified. It\u2019s one more reason developers need to plan their procurement timelines in parallel with permitting, not after.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interconnection<\/strong>
While developers work through ISOs and RTOs, final decisions rest with federal regulators\u2014and post-OBBB, it\u2019s not clear how that oversight will change. This ambiguity makes grid-tied solar<\/a> especially vulnerable to delays. For now, most teams are monitoring the situation, but they\u2019ll need to stay ready to pivot once implementation guidelines becomes more concrete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Betting on BESS<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) are unaffected by the OBBB’s changes to federal tax incentives. As a result, we\u2019re seeing increased activity around storage projects, especially from smaller developers who may not have the capital or appetite to push large-scale solar or hybrid projects under compressed timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Storage also offers some logistical advantages: fewer permitting challenges, smaller footprints and, in many regions, clearer interconnection pathways. Interconnection queues and permitting complexity still exist for some storage projects, especially hybrids. But for now, BESS represents a more navigable option in a climate full of uncertainty. Developers looking to maintain momentum without overcommitting to longer timelines are seeing storage as a logical pivot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A structured approach is the way forward<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Given all this, developers are reevaluating their portfolios based on actual feasibility\u2014not hope. Drawing from experience navigating policy-driven market shifts, a practical way to bring structure to that process is to group projects into three categories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n