On September 22, 2025, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle issued a memo directing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to change how it prioritizes reviews of permit applications. The guidance applies to projects requiring Section 404 (wetlands) and Section 10 (navigable waters) permits, and could affect all types of energy development.
The memo instructs USACE to prioritize projects with:
The guidance does not define how energy density should be measured. We were informed by USACE Headquarters that they plan to use data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and project-specific submissions to calculate “generation per acre.” They also indicated that energy sources with higher output per acre, such as nuclear, coal, and natural gas, are expected to rank higher than wind or solar. But it’s not that clear-cut.
Consider that the highest output wind turbines available can generate 26 MW over a small land footprint, which is much denser than solar, for instance. But a typical wind project may involve dozens or even hundreds of turbines placed far apart over thousands of acres, so the vast amount of land the project spans may dilute the energy density advantage of a high-output turbine.
Or consider a nuclear power plant. The energy density of the actual reactor is incredibly high. However, most of the land a nuclear plant typically occupies is not the reactor, but rather everything from maintenance and storage facilities to laydown areas and parking lots. If the acreage of these areas were factored in, the energy density of nuclear plants would fall significantly.
The guidance also mentions “whether [the project] would displace more reliable energy sources” as a consideration in prioritizing projects. There are two issues to unpack in this statement.
First, the determination of reliability is open to interpretation. For instance, one could argue that solar is the most reliable technology in that it requires no supply chain inputs which could be disrupted (unlike coal, natural gas, or uranium), nor any people to operate a solar plant. But solar is not “reliable” in the sense that it cannot provide energy 24/7 like coal or nuclear, or produce energy on demand like a gas peaker plant or battery storage project.
Second, the word “displace” adds a confusing layer of complexity. It is unlikely that projects of two generation technologies would be suitable for the same site location, so it is unlikely that one would displace another. One exception might be large brownfield sites, particularly former coal and nuclear plants, which may be suitable for a variety of project types.
This consideration of “whether [a project] would denigrate the aesthetics of America’s natural landscape” is the most subjective of all. It is hard to imagine how someone would find a coal plant aesthetically pleasing in any environment. But it’s tricky with other sources. For instance, solar might have an advantage because arrays are low to the ground. Small modular reactors may not have much visual impact, though traditional large reactors can be seen from miles away.
Ultimately, of course, aesthetic impacts are in the eyes of the residents or visitors to project areas, and unfortunately USACE would most likely not take community opinions into account.
It is unclear how the guidance outlined in the memo will affect project reviews in the real world. We reached out to contacts from USACE Headquarters and 14 different districts across the country and received responses from five of them. A few insights:
Overall, the responses provide some insight into how USACE may apply the new prioritization framework, but many details remain unclear. For now, it does not appear that the guidance will cause significant project delays, though additional clarification from USACE leadership will be needed to fully understand its impact on future reviews.
Also note that there are relatively few nuclear, coal, or even natural gas projects in development right now. Even if those were prioritized above solar and wind projects, it may not delay solar or wind project reviews by much.
Although the memo raises new considerations, developers should not expect major delays or denials as a result. The biggest impact should come in how USACE prioritizes its review queue, not in how it evaluates projects. For most renewables, thoughtful site design and efficient land use remain the best ways to keep permitting timelines predictable, along with avoiding impacts that would require the permits in the first place. Transect will continue engaging with agencies and will report on what these policy changes mean for project planning.