Navigating Roadblocks:

Why Energy Projects Stall

There’s an old saying: when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It’s a reminder that people tend to approach problems based on their own expertise, sometimes to their own detriment. Nowhere is this more evident than in energy and infrastructure development, where professionals from different disciplines each believe they hold the master key to success—only to find themselves at an impasse when reality doesn’t cooperate.

Regulatory lawyers think every obstacle can be overcome through formal adjudication. PR professionals believe they can “message” their way out of opposition. Lobbyists assume that the right political influence will smooth the way. Engineers, true to their discipline, see everything as an engineering problem, one that can be solved with better design, better materials, or better technical arguments. And political fixers—the problem-solvers of last resort—believe that every challenge has a backchannel deal waiting to be made.

But the reality is that energy and infrastructure projects don’t fail because of a single roadblock, nor are they won by a single discipline. Success requires a holistic strategy because strategic chokepoints can emerge anywhere—at the permitting level, in legislation, in public opinion, or within stakeholder engagement. And when the wrong tool is used for the job, projects stall, costs skyrocket, and in many cases, they never get built at all.

The Limits of Legal Strategy

Regulatory lawyers tend to believe that if a project meets the statutory and regulatory requirements, it will inevitably be permitted. This is wishful thinking. While legal compliance is essential, it is not sufficient. Permitting is as much a political and public process as it is a legal one.

The failure of projects like the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Keystone XL illustrate this point. In both cases, proponents spent years battling in court, assuming that if they could clear the legal hurdles, they would ultimately prevail. Instead, they faced well-organized opposition that used political pressure, media campaigns, and regulatory delay tactics to grind the projects to a halt. By the time all the legal arguments were exhausted, the projects were either politically toxic or financially untenable.

PR Alone Can’t Overcome Structural Opposition

On the other side of the spectrum, public relations professionals believe that messaging can overcome opposition. While shaping public perception is crucial, PR without meaningful engagement is just noise. The energy industry has learned this the hard way.

The Cape Wind project in Massachusetts is a classic example. Proponents spent years touting its benefits through messaging campaigns. But the opposition, led by well-connected local elites, didn’t care about the glossy brochures or carefully crafted talking points. They used legal, political, and public pressure to stall the project indefinitely. Cape Wind became a case study in how failing to engage the right stakeholders early can sink even the best-marketed project.

Lobbying Can’t Fix Everything

Many lobbyists believe that legislative backing can clear any roadblock. It certainly helps, but politics is fickle, and laws alone don’t always translate into built infrastructure.

Consider the Mountain Valley Pipeline. After years of legal battles, Congress included language in the 2023 debt ceiling deal to expedite its completion. Many assumed that with congressional approval, the fight was over. But opposition groups immediately shifted tactics, pressuring regulatory agencies, filing new lawsuits, and turning public opinion against the project. Even with political backing, the pipeline still faced uncertainty, proving that legislative fixes are not silver bullets.

Engineers and the “Engineering Problem” Fallacy

Engineers play a critical role in energy development, but many approach problems as though better design or technology will overcome any obstacle. They often underestimate political, regulatory, and social resistance.

Take the case of California’s high-speed rail project. Engineers presented detailed plans on route efficiency, environmental considerations, and cost estimates. But what they failed to anticipate was the sheer level of political and local opposition. Landowners fought against eminent domain, legislators balked at the escalating price tag, and environmental groups split over the project’s impact. No amount of technical brilliance could solve these issues, because they weren’t engineering problems—they were political and public engagement problems.

The Fixer’s Dilemma

Political fixers—often seasoned operatives with deep networks—believe that every problem has a backchannel solution. And while relationships matter, this mindset can lead to short-term victories that unravel in the long run.

A prime example is the energy sector’s approach to offshore wind permitting in the U.S. The Biden administration has pushed hard to streamline approvals, and political deal-making has helped fast-track several projects. But opposition has now shifted to local levels, where town boards, fishing communities, and environmental activists wield influence that Washington can’t override. Deals made at the federal level are proving ineffective at overcoming local resistance.

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach is the Only Path to Success

Energy and infrastructure projects don’t succeed because of a single expertise—they succeed when multiple strategies align.

? Regulatory Strategy: Legal compliance must be paired with proactive engagement with regulators and an understanding of political risks.

? Public Engagement: PR should be more than just messaging—it must involve real, early, and sustained stakeholder dialogue.

? Political Strategy: Legislative support matters, but it must be coupled with a realistic assessment of opposition forces and alternative chokepoints.

? Engineering and Execution: Technical challenges must be solved, but engineers must also account for political, financial, and social realities.

? Adaptive Strategy: The best teams pivot when needed. If a project faces a legal roadblock, throwing more lawyers at it won’t help—perhaps the real solution is stakeholder negotiation or political engagement.

Conclusion

In energy and infrastructure development, no single expertise holds all the answers. The projects that succeed are those led by teams that recognize where resistance is most likely to emerge and apply the right combination of tools to overcome it.

Being a hammer isn’t enough. Some problems require a scalpel. Others require a bridge-builder. The future of energy and infrastructure belongs to those who understand when to use each.

###