This piece was initially published for The National Interest.

America needs faster, smarter permitting reform to build the energy infrastructure required for growth, reliability, and national security. 

The United States is the most energy-rich nation on earth. We have motivated capital, human ingenuity, a wide range of resources, and innovative technologies. With unprecedented energy demand needed in the next few years, the United States needs more power generation, more pipelines, and transmission lines. 

Yet, we have a broken permitting system that makes it increasingly difficult to build all types of energy infrastructure. A solar farm canceled by litigation over desert tortoises, even after extensive mitigation efforts were made. A $100 billion semiconductor fab held up by six plaintiffs. An $8 billion natural gas pipeline abandoned after seven years of legal battles, even after winning at the Supreme Court. A light rail line seven years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget because two plaintiffs claimed a special bond with a shrimp-like creature that doesn’t even live near their homes.

The permitting system has devolved into a weapon for a small number of litigious activists to kill or delay projects that communities want, regulators have approved, and the economy needs. For reform to provide more certainty for energy development and establish more efficient processes, Congress needs to offer a statute-by-statute fix that comprehensively addresses the challenges projects face. In a new paper at C3 Solutions, we outline the fixes necessary for substantive permitting reform and legislative proposals that should provide the foundation for negotiations. 

Addressing the Procedural Statutes: NEPA, NHPA, and ESA 

One of the overarching problems with several of America’s major environmental statutes is that they are procedural. Whereas certain environmental laws set strict standards for air and water quality, the procedural laws have created open-ended timelines for evaluation, consultation, and, most problematic, litigation. These include: 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When Congress passed NEPA in 1970, the idea was straightforward: before the federal government approves a major project, it should assess the environmental impacts and tell the public. What NEPA has become is something else entirely. Environmental impact statements now routinely run thousands of pages and take a decade to complete. Courts have interpreted the law so broadly that agencies must analyze speculative upstream and downstream effects that have nothing to do with the project itself. Critically, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of NEPA through Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. Even so, more reform is necessary. Currently, anyone can sue at any time, years after a project is approved, with no requirement that they ever participated in the process or that they live anywhere near it. 

The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act would address many of these issues by eliminating redundant NEPA reviews when another federal or state process already covers the same ground. It would narrow the scope of review to effects that are caused by the project. It would require litigants to have participated in the process before they can sue and cut the statute of limitations from six years to 150 days. Critically, it would prevent courts from vacating project approvals over paperwork errors that didn’t change the outcome, ending the practice of litigation-by-technicality that has derailed project after project. 

>>>READ: How The SPEED Act Charts a Path Forward for Permitting

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NHPA’s Section 106 process has stretched far beyond its original intent. What began as a requirement that federal agencies consider impacts on historic properties has evolved into a years-long procedural gauntlet, often running parallel to NEPA and frequently used as a second legal front to challenge projects already approved under other statutes. Section 106 consultations have no defined endpoint. They can extend indefinitely, and the mitigation agreements they produce can be disconnected from genuine preservation.  For instance, a wind developer was required to fund a fitness path to meet its mitigation requirement. Tribal consultation, which serves a vital and legitimate purpose, suffers when the process has no structure, because agencies engage late, superficially, and without accountability.

Reform should establish clear timelines, define the scope of effects to those that are direct and causally related to the project, and encourage early and meaningful tribal engagement rather than last-minute surprises. Fixes would also allow categorical exclusions for routine, low-impact projects so that agency resources are focused where they matter.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA). The reasons to modernize the ESA have long been known and well-established. At its core, the law creates perverse incentives for private landowners. If you have habitat for a listed species on your land, you’re better off destroying it before the government finds out, because listing triggers restrictions that can make land unusable. For instance, studies of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat found that landowners logged timber early, near the birds’ colonies, specifically to prevent nesting and avoid ESA restrictions. The law punished good habitat stewardship and rewarded preemptive destruction.

>>>READ: Stop Spending Billions on Courtroom Battles and Start Saving Species

Creating a system of positive incentives among landowners and species protectors can protect habitats and enable recovery while not paralyzing projects for years in litigation. Reforms, such as those included in the ESA Amendments Act and the ESA Flexibility Act, would prioritize species recovery and state involvement, streamline the consultation process, provide more transparency, and limit litigation to provide more regulatory certainty.

Addressing a Weaponized Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act was designed to protect water quality. Section 401, which lets states certify that federally permitted projects meet water quality standards, was a reasonable federalism provision. It empowers states to have a say over their own waterways. In practice, it has become a tool for states to block projects they oppose for reasons unrelated to protecting water.

States have used Section 401 to raise objections about climate change, noise pollution, and general opposition to fossil fuels, far outside any reasonable interpretation of water quality. The result is that projects with valid federal permits get stuck in limbo indefinitely, with no clear timeline and no defined scope for what states can demand. 

The Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act reins this in. States would still have full authority to protect water quality, but they would not be able to use a water quality certification as a back-door veto for unrelated policy grievances. The bill also prohibits the EPA from issuing retroactive vetoes, which will help provide project certainty after an agency has granted a permit. Importantly, the PERMIT Act would establish clearer timelines and enhance coordination by reducing federal and state overlap in permit applications and agency decision-making. The bill would also extend the duration of certain nationwide permits (for example, those under Section 404) from five to ten years, thereby reducing renewal risk and supporting more stable infrastructure planning.

Modernizing the Clean Air Act for a 21^st Century Economy

America’s air quality improvement is genuinely impressive. Between 1970 and 2020, the six major air pollutants fell 78 percent while the economy more than tripled. However, the statute’s regulatory architecture remains rooted in a 1970s framework that does not align well with today’s energy system, economic realities, or technological capabilities. Modernizing the Clean Air Act (CAA) should not mean weakening its objectives but rather updating its tools to achieve cleaner air more efficiently, with greater flexibility, and at lower cost to consumers and the broader economy. 

Several proposals introduced in the House would provide more regulatory efficiency and flexibility. One notable bill is the Clean Air and Economic Advancement Reform (CLEAR) Act, which grants states and the EPA more flexibility when the agency sets or revises National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The bill would allow the EPA to consider technological feasibility and economic achievability. This marks a shift from the current framework, which the Supreme Court has deemed cannot include cost considerations. It also provides states additional time to develop and implement State Implementation Plans and meet attainment deadlines, especially in areas with persistent nonattainment. The bill would also extend the NAAQS review cycle from every five years to every 10 years, reducing regulatory churn and giving states and regulated entities a more stable planning horizon.

Another prudent reform is the New Source Review Permitting Improvement Act, which clarifies that routine upgrades or operational changes at existing facilities that do not increase emissions do not trigger New Source Review permitting, and removes ambiguity around what counts as a “modification” under the CAA. The bill would ensure that efficiency improvements or emissions-reducing upgrades are not delayed or discouraged by permitting requirements, helping modernize facilities, boost production, and lower emissions. 

>>>READ: End the Penalty on Prescribed Burns

Transmission Reform to Remove Bottlenecks and Improve Reliability

Transmission policy should start with a clear economic goal set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): provide reliable power at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Policymakers and FERC should ensure accountability and transparency so that consumers get value for the infrastructure they fund through their electricity bills. Upgrading existing infrastructure and building new lines can help relieve transmission bottlenecks, reduce interconnection delays, lower costs, and improve grid reliability.  

Transmission infrastructure will benefit from permitting fixes that make the process more efficient, transparent, and less litigious for all energy projects. Reforms in the SPEED Act, the PERMIT Act, the ESA Amendments Act, and the NHPA will benefit all energy developers. 

Furthermore, more efficient interregional planning and transfer capability can lower costs, relieve congestion, and strengthen reliability. Ensuring that states have a leading role in transmission siting with a strengthened federal backstop authority at FERC can further encourage state cooperation.

Congress should also prohibit transmission owners from independently planning projects above 100 kilovolts (kV). Under the current system, utilities can build “local” transmission projects without regional scrutiny, even if these projects are more expensive and less efficient. Transmission planning for anything with regional impact, generally 100 kV and above, should be done through independent, regional processes, not by monopoly utility self-interest. That will ensure that what gets built delivers reliability and the least cost to consumers.

Lastly, Congress should hold FERC accountable for analyzing how to lower the total cost of reliable electricity for consumers. Proper FERC oversight of utility-initiated projects, which typically receive unconditional formula rates, would reduce excess transmission costs. FERC should ensure utilities follow “good utility practice” in the use of advanced transmission technologies and reduce barriers to voluntary transmission expansion, such as merchant high-voltage direct current lines.

Let’s Make a Deal on Permitting Reform

Many of the core protections of America’s major environmental statutes are worth preserving. But decades of regulatory expansion and judicial overreach are stunting innovation, economic growth, and most importantly, harming American energy consumers. Reform isn’t about choosing between economic growth and environmental protection. It’s about building a system that delivers both. The window is open for reform. Congress and the Trump administration should walk through it.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.