How Congress can still enact meaningful, bipartisan permitting reform

Originally published: February 11, 2026

Introduction

Despite the House’s passage of the promising SPEED Act and PERMIT Act late last year, permitting reform is now stalled in the Senate after Democrats suspended negotiations in response to the Trump administration’s stop-work order for five offshore wind projects (which have since been overturned).

While it’s understandable that Democrat Senators are upset about the executive’s open-ended authority to overturn permits, this ultimately means these Senators should be that much more motivated to pass aggressive, tech-neutral permitting reform—including permitting certainty.

The best way forward for permitting is for Senate Republicans to agree to stronger permitting certainty in exchange for Senate Democrats supporting comprehensive, tech-neutral permitting reform—which benefits every type of project, with no subsidies for solar/wind transmission.

Here’s a roadmap for how Republicans and Democrats can still come together to pass comprehensive, tech-neutral reform.

Summary

Congress can still enact meaningful permitting reform if Senate Republicans agree to stronger permitting certainty for approved projects in exchange for Senate Democrats supporting comprehensive, tech-neutral reform—starting with the House-passed SPEED and PERMIT Acts.

1. America’s future depends on Congress passing meaningful permitting reform

   Meaningful permitting reform is an absolute requirement for America’s future prosperity, competitiveness, and security...yet there is a big risk Congress will fail to pass it.

2. Meaningful reform needs to be tech-neutral and comprehensive

   Meaningful permitting reform is challenging because it requires rejecting tech-favoritism in favor of tech-neutrality, and superficiality in favor of comprehensiveness.

3. The House-passed SPEED and PERMIT Acts are a strong start to meaningful permitting reform

   SPEED dramatically reduces delays from project-wrecking NEPA reviews. PERMIT stops states from abusing CWA to veto safe projects for political reasons.

4. Additional opportunities for tech-neutral, comprehensive reform

   The House can send the Senate an even more comprehensive permitting package by passing the ESA Amendments Act of 2025 and targeted Clean Air Act reforms.

5. Using “permitting certainty” to negotiate the best possible reforms

   Republicans should be willing to compromise with Democrats on “permitting certainty” (e.g., the FREEDOM Act) in exchange for other reforms, since permitting certainty is itself a pro-freedom reform.

6. Avoiding the danger of subsidizing wind/solar transmission

   Elected officials should not agree to any specific language on permitting electric transmission lines, which forces new costs on ratepayers, usually to subsidize wind and solar, unless it ensures the lowest possible cost of reliable electricity for ratepayers.

1: America’s future depends on Congress passing meaningful permitting reform

Meaningful permitting reform is an absolute requirement for America’s future prosperity, competitiveness, and security...yet there is a big risk Congress will fail to pass it

• One of the most important political questions in the next few months for American energy, our economy, and our security is: will Congress finally enact meaningful permitting reform?

• From natural gas plants to pipelines to nuclear power plants to electric transmission lines to battery factories to solar farms, every form of energy is crippled by America’s onerous and endless permitting process.

• It’s not just energy that our permitting system cripples. Railroads, highways, chip factories, seaports, landfills, and wildfire-prevention projects are routinely delayed or canceled by federal permitting. An estimated $1.1 to $1.5 trillion in total capital is tied up in federal permitting processes.¹

• Both parties say they recognize the urgency of meaningful permitting reform. But there is extreme doubt about whether any permitting package will pass, let alone one that will actually shave years off projects and make America a great place to build again.

2: Meaningful reform needs to be tech-neutral and comprehensive

Meaningful permitting reform is challenging because it requires rejecting tech-favoritism in favor of tech-neutrality, and superficiality in favor of comprehensiveness

• In order to pass meaningful permitting reform, Republicans and Democrats need to overcome the two tendencies that prevented reform in the past and continue to threaten it right now: tech-favoritism and superficiality.

• Obstacle – Tech-favoritism: Many want easier permitting, but only for their preferred projects, and often with special favoritism on top of that—while they’re willing to burden non-preferred projects with onerous permitting. This prevents reform by creating endless fights about preferences and punishments.

• Certain Democrats are happy to make it difficult to permit oil and gas projects, such as power plants and refineries and pipelines, but they want fast permitting for wind and solar projects—and subsidies for wind, solar, and the new electric transmission lines they require. Certain Republicans are happy to make it difficult to permit wind and solar projects, but want fast permitting for oil and gas projects.

• Solution – Tech-neutrality: The only moral and practical approach to permitting reform is to make it technology-neutral. All technologies should be held to the same standards of permitting, whether safety or environmental quality. Those who (rightly) object to subsidized projects should cut the subsidies, not ruin permitting.

• Obstacle – Superficiality: Many want to do something about permitting, but end up doing something superficial because they fear controversy and demonization if they tackle the fundamental reforms needed to reform legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the Clean Water Act.

• Solution – Comprehensiveness: Both parties need to declare that America’s permitting system is a disaster that requires deep, comprehensive changes to existing legislation, but that these changes can be made without reducing (and sometimes improving) environmental quality. E.g., NEPA hampers permitting of wildfire protection measures.

• So long as enough politicians are unwilling to overcome tech favoritism and superficiality, our permitting system will be a disaster, and the future of our prosperity, competitiveness, and security will be in doubt as China and others build quickly while we continue to handicap ourselves with special interest policies.

3: The House-passed SPEED and PERMIT Acts are a strong start to meaningful permitting reform

The SPEED Act, which passed the House on December 18, 2025, dramatically reduces delays from project-wrecking NEPA reviews, above all by preventing their extension via frivolous litigation

• SPEED requires a reasonable, not unlimited, scope of review—saving months or years of useless paperwork for crucial projects like pipelines, LNG export terminals, and refineries. E.g., under NEPA’s traditional, unlimited scope of review, the Uinta Basin oil rail line required a 3600-page environmental review even though it was only 88 miles!²

• SPEED avoids duplicative reviews—saving months or years of unnecessary reviews for projects, such as pipelines and highways, that have already been reviewed for NEPA or by states. E.g., currently, a project that already spent years completing environmental analysis for California law must repeat essentially the same analysis for NEPA.³

• SPEED reduces the number of frivolous lawsuits—avoiding hundreds of politically driven lawsuits per year for major projects like pipelines and electric transmission lines over paperwork issues. E.g., under NEPA’s current litigation regime, the Mountain Valley Pipeline was sued again and again over alleged paperwork issues in its NEPA review.⁴

• SPEED reduces the delaying power of lawsuits—saving years of unnecessary delays and protecting hundreds of billions in capital expenditures for pipelines, power lines, roads, and mines. E.g., under NEPA’s current litigation regime, Mountain Valley took 10 years from proposal to completion since it stopped for years at a time during lawsuits.⁵

• SPEED protects and even improves environmental quality. The SPEED Act doesn’t change the substance of environmental law, but it does allow environmental improvement to happen more quickly. E.g., today’s onerous NEPA reviews are often used to stop wildfire countermeasures such as controlled burns or brush-clearing.⁶

• Myth: The technology-neutral SPEED Act will benefit heavily subsidized projects (e.g., wind and solar) more than it will benefit cost-effective projects (e.g., oil and gas).

  Truth: It will benefit cost-effective projects—e.g., offshore oil and gas, pipelines, mining—much more since many subsidies are disappearing soon, and since SPEED doesn’t change the government’s authorities against actually unlawful projects.

  The SPEED Act is co-sponsored by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR-4) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME-2).

The PERMIT Act, which passed the House on December 11, 2025, stops states from abusing the Clean Water Act (CWA) to veto safe projects for political reasons, and sets clear water emissions standards that give projects certainty

• PERMIT removes states’ power to veto projects for political reasons—avoiding unjust, late-stage cancellations of major projects like pipelines, hydro dams, and LNG terminals. E.g., using states’ current veto power, Oregon denied the certification for the Jordan Cove LNG export terminal even though it passed all federal safety standards.⁷

• PERMIT will unlock natural gas pipelines needed to lower costs and meet AI demand. E.g., the Constitution pipeline, transporting much-needed gas from PA to NY, has been sabotaged by New York state, which demanded more and more additional information for what should have been routine stream crossings under a §404 permit.⁸

• PERMIT removes the EPA’s power to veto projects for political reasons—avoiding rare but highly destructive early- and late-stage cancellations of major energy, mining, and infrastructure projects. E.g., under EPA’s current sweeping veto authority, EPA preemptively denied a key §404 permit for the Pebble Mine project in Alaska in 2023.⁹

• PERMIT requires water-quality-based permitting requirements to be clear, achievable, and predictable—making it easier for power plants, mines, and chemical factories to comply with their permits. E.g., under today’s standards, agencies can deny permits for alleged water “degradation” without ever giving projects discharge limits to design around.

• PERMIT helps ensure pollution controls are realistically achievable, not just technologically possible—providing certainty for long-term investments in industries like energy production, manufacturing, and municipal water systems. E.g., under today’s rules, regulators can require power plants to eliminate trace pollutants to near-zero levels using treatment systems that are still experimental.

• The PERMIT Act is co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA-10) and Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO-6).

5: Additional opportunities for comprehensive reform

Congress can get permitting reform done by starting with SPEED and PERMIT and negotiating for even more comprehensive reform, while still rejecting tech-favoritism

• Advocates of all forms of energy support tech-neutral, comprehensive permitting reform. For example, the SPEED Act is supported by trade associations from the oil-and-gas-focused American Petroleum Institute to the solar-and-wind-focused American Council on Renewable Energy.¹⁰

• The SPEED Act’s fixes of NEPA benefit all forms of energy and infrastructure —from current Republican focuses (e.g., oil and gas pipelines) to current Democrat focuses (e.g., electric transmission lines) to substantially bipartisan focuses (e.g., nuclear plants, mines, and roads).

• The PERMIT Act’s fixes of the Clean Water Act benefit all forms of energy and infrastructure—e.g., not just oil and gas (currently more of a Republican focus), but also electric transmission infrastructure (currently more of a Democrat focus).

• Therefore, no major “concessions” should be needed to satisfy Democrats or Republicans—only improvements to tech-neutral permitting.

The ESA Amendments Act of 2025, which is awaiting a House floor vote, is a common-sense reform of the Endangered Species Act that meaningfully reduces irrational restrictions on all types of energy and industrial development

• The ESA Amendments Act¹¹ requires evidence-based, not speculative, “threatened” species listings—ending restrictions on development for the sake of species that are not actually at risk. E.g., under today’s standards, major restrictions on Alaskan oil and gas development were triggered when the polar bear was listed as “threatened” in 2008, despite having a stable population, based on far-off climate projections.

• The ESA Amendments Act requires a common-sense definition of “habitat” —ending restrictions on development for the sake of species that don’t depend on the area for their sustenance. E.g., under today’s nonsensical definition, FWS designated 1,544 acres of Louisiana timberland as “critical habitat” for the dusky gopher frog, even though the frog had not been there since 1965.

• The ESA Amendments Act stops “endangered” species restrictions from being automatically extended to “threatened” species—ending the most severe development restrictions for the sake of species that are not at risk of extinction. E.g., in 2014 the lesser prairie chicken being listed as “threatened” triggered major energy and industrial restrictions on millions of acres of private land in the Great Plains.

• The ESA Amendments Act excludes ESA “incidental take” permits from NEPA review, saving months of unnecessary delay for a wide variety of projects. E.g., today, solar and wind projects must complete NEPA reviews on top of other environmental reviews just to obtain “incidental take” permits for unintentional impacts on birds and bats.

• The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 is sponsored by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR-4).

A suite of proposed Clean Air Act reforms, which are awaiting votes in the House or the Senate, meaningfully streamline permitting for power plants and industrial facilities

• The CLEAR Act (H.R. 4218)¹² requires air standards to be based on attainability and economic feasibility, and extends the air standards review cycle to 10 years. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA-1).

• The FENCES Act (H.R. 6409)¹³ prevents areas from failing air standard requirements due to emissions coming from outside the US. This bill is sponsored by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11).

• The FIRE Act (H.R. 6387)¹⁴ prevents states from being penalized for pollution caused by wildfire-prevention work. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO-8).

• The Fair Enforcement Act (S. 3049)¹⁵ prevents anti-development activists from abusing CAA to block crucial projects through “citizen suits.” This bill is sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).

• The Clean Air and Building Infrastructure Improvement Act (H.R. 4214)¹⁶ requires EPA to publish clear rules to accompany any new air quality standard. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA-12).

• The Air Permitting Improvements to Protect National Security Act (H.R. 6373)¹⁷ prevents CAA from blocking projects critical to national security, including semiconductor manufacturing funded under the CHIPS Act. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL-6).

The FAIR Act, which has been introduced in the House, is a positive, tech-neutral reform of transmission permitting

• The FAIR Act (H. R. 6336)¹⁸ stops states from being forced to pay for interstate power lines built to serve other states’ “renewable” energy policies. This bill is sponsored by Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-ND).

6: Using “permitting certainty” to negotiate the best possible reforms

Senate Republicans should be willing to compromise with Senate Democrats on “permitting certainty” (e.g., the FREEDOM Act) in exchange for other permitting reforms since “permitting certainty” is itself a pro-freedom reform

• Many Democrats in the House and Senate have said that a major priority of theirs is more “permitting certainty” for already approved projects. Pro-freedom Republicans should see this as a huge opportunity, since it amounts to Democrats offering to adopt additional pro-freedom reforms in exchange for pro-freedom reforms.

• “Permitting certainty” should be a bipartisan priority, and would have prevented many of the Biden-era abuses against fossil fuel and mining projects. For example, in 2021 the Biden Administration retroactively suspended the oil and gas leases previously granted in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. In 2022 it canceled leases for the Twin Metals project in Minnesota.

• The genesis of the permitting certainty opportunity is the House Freedom Caucus’s push for wind/solar subsidy cuts during reconciliation. That push led to both more cuts than would have otherwise happened—and, because the cuts were incomplete, an agreement by the admin to use its permitting authority to fight against subsidized projects.

• The Trump administration pulling permits from wind/solar projects woke up Democrat supporters of those projects to the problems with today’s easy-to-delay-and-oppose permit system—which Republicans were acutely aware of when Biden used them to oppose natural gas and mining projects.

• Republicans should eagerly agree to some form of permitting certainty in exchange for passing the SPEED and PERMIT Acts, as well as other reforms to fix permitting under the Clean Air Act (today a major obstacle to electricity growth) or the Endangered Species Act (today a major obstacle to potentially any project).

• The bipartisan FREEDOM Act (H.R. 7329)¹⁹, which significantly limits permit delays and revocations at each stage of the permitting process, is a great option for permitting certainty reform. This bill is led by Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA), and co-sponsored by Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY), Rep. Don Bacon (R-NY), Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), Rep. Adam Gray (D-CA), and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI).

• Myth: Opponents of subsidies should support unpredictable and lengthy permitting for subsidized projects.

  Truth: Subsidized wind and solar projects should be reduced by opposing subsidies,not by permitting punishments, and the recent OBBB cuts will rightly stop many subsidized projects—including offshore wind, which is uneconomic without subsidies.

7: Avoiding the danger of subsidizing wind/solar-favoring transmission

Elected officials should be extremely wary of new language facilitating the permitting of electric transmission line building by electric monopolies, since this forces costs on ratepayers and is easily abused by monopolies and wind/solar developers

• Behind the legitimate demand for permitting certainty, the number one negotiating demand by many Democrats and some Republicans is “permitting reform” that is specifically focused on electric transmission. This sounds innocuous but if not handled correctly is an absolute subsidy disaster for our economy and grid.

• Easing transmission permitting is dangerous because ratepayers are forced to pay for it. With most forms of permitting, we simply want the government to make it easier to do safely, because the project operator is a private company who takes full responsibility for the cost and cannot force consumers to pay for their mistakes. With transmission permitting, permitting lines are part of the electric monopoly system that forces its costs on consumers.

• Powerful companies are incentivized to overbuild transmission. Transmission permitting is particularly dangerous to unleash without oversight because two forms of powerful companies are heavily incentivized to do it or advocate for it unnecessarily and inefficiently: monopoly utilities and wind/solar developers.

• Monopolies get a guaranteed profit for building transmission in proportion to the cost of building transmission. Wind/solar developers can collect far more subsidies, because new transmission allows them to link wind and solar farms to demand centers that are usually far away from them and they can socialize the costs of excessive transmission buildouts throughout the local grid system.

• Long-distance transmission-building doesn’t usually make sense, because—absent bad regulations— the cheapest way to build reliable power is usually to do so with local, reliable power plants. Building transmission does not make economic sense to connect unreliable, faraway wind/solar supply to demand centers, since this “cheaper” unreliable power is more expensive when you add up the full system costs of ensuring reliability.

• The vast majority of the transmission proposals thus far amount to large subsidies for wind and solar developers and thus should be rejected in tech-neutral permitting reform. This includes the last Senate’s (not passed) Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (S.4753)²⁰ and the various Democrat proposals on the table.

• If the transmission-subsidizing proposals pass, they’ll make our electricity price problems much worse. Note that one of the top two contributors to rising electricity prices over the past two decades has been rising transmission costs²¹—which thanks to bad policy occurred even when demand was flat and objective new transmission needs were modest.

Transmission-specific language is legitimate and positive if it optimizes for the lowest price of reliable power to consumers, not wind/solar-favoring criteria such as unreliable “wholesale” cost or “congestion relief”

• Tech-neutral reforms already include transmission, so there is no imperative to include transmission-specific legislation. E.g., the SPEED Act helps transmission projects, which are among the types of projects most affected by NEPA litigation.²²

• Transmission language should not be off the table in permitting reform, since today’s legislation is far from perfect. But the language needs to be worded very carefully to ensure that as much as possible it leads to cost-effective transmission that is paid for by the right people and entities.

• Transmission does make sense when there is a somewhat distant source of reliable power that is considerably cheaper and/or more plentiful than local power. Sometimes transmission makes sense due to political reasons, usually irrational, that prevent low-cost and plentiful local power that could otherwise exist. (In this case the preferable solution is to fix the bad policies.)

• Transmission permitting should have strict criteria to ensure it optimizes for lowest cost and sufficient availability of reliable electricity for ratepayers. It’s important that the cost and availability analysis be done for ratepayers because then that factors in the full system cost of any decision.

• Transmission permitting must reject popular criteria that favor transmission to accommodate unreliable wind/solar, such as “wholesale cost” (which measures the cost of unreliable wind/solar electricity vs. the full cost of making it reliable for ratepayers) or “congestion relief” (code for: wind/solar developers want their erratic, spiky power to be absorbed however unnecessary and faraway).

• Transmission permitting must have fair cost allocation, so the consumers who actually benefit from new transmission through lower retail electricity bills and/or great availability should pay for it. Fortunately, the House has an excellent bill for this already: Julie Fedorchak’s FAIR Act.²³

Conclusion: Republicans and Democrats should converge on permitting reform that is tech-neutral, as comprehensive as possible, and only adds language on electric transmission if it is carefully tailored to actually lower cost instead of enriching monopolies and subsidy-seekers at taxpayer and ratepayer expense

Michelle Hung, Steffen Henne, and Daniil Gorbatenko contributed to this piece.

References