Building Bridges: Finding Common Ground on Permitting Reform

American Affairs Journal

By Alan Armstrong and Scott Peters

We serve in different chambers of Congress, belong to different political parties, and represent different parts of the country—from the energy-producing plains of Oklahoma to the coastal innovation hubs of Southern California. Yet we find ourselves in firm agreement on one of the most pressing problems facing our nation: America has lost its ability to build.

Whether we are trying to produce more American energy, construct transmission lines, power the artificial intelligence revolution, strengthen manufacturing, develop critical minerals, or build affordable housing, projects are being choked by a permitting system that too often rewards delay instead of results. No longer simply an environmental or energy issue, it is an affordability problem, an economic competitiveness problem, and increasingly a national security problem. America cannot lead the industries of the future if we cannot build the infrastructure those industries require.

We come to this issue from different perspectives, but we share substantial common ground about what is broken—and what Congress can do about it.

Start with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Over decades, this fundamentally procedural law has evolved from a “look before you leap” process into a sprawling bureaucratic maze producing years of review and litigation. Yet this increasing complexity does not always come with commensurate improvements in environmental outcomes. There are laws in place that govern the emission of particulates in the air and that regulate how to deal with endangered species. We can and should continue to have strong enforcement of those laws, but we have to ensure that procedural delays don’t kill good projects on the vine.

In California and many other Western states, public land management projects are the most frequent targets of NEPA litigation, accounting for 37 percent of cases. Almost half of those land-management cases challenge federal agencies’ forest management projects, which are badly needed to prevent wildfires.1 On appeal, these agencies eventually win about 79 percent of forest management cases and about 80 percent of cases across all categories of NEPA litigation.2 The ten most active organizations litigating against these projects won only 23 percent of cases, but their lawsuits added an average of 3.7 years to each project’s implementation.3

In cases like these, litigation does not protect against destructive development but unnecessarily delays environmental protections that the courts eventually allow. Time-sensitive forest management is a stark example of the larger problem. The broken permitting process blocks not only environmentally beneficial land management but also the infrastructure and technologies needed to conserve resources and reduce environmental harms.

Congress itself acknowledges this dysfunction. When lawmakers decide something urgently needs to be built—from affordable housing to critical infrastructure—we waive or streamline NEPA requirements without making fundamental reforms to the law. That is an admission that the underlying process needs modernization. Congress should fix the system rather than constantly invent exceptions to it.

We also agree that permitting reform cannot devolve into a partisan slugging match over “transmission versus pipelines.” We want a win for all linear infrastructure. To power modern manufacturing and AI without increasing costs, we must dramatically expand grid capacity. We also need pipelines to deliver reliable and affordable energy to the areas that need it most.

New England highlights the vulnerabilities of our current system. Due to a severe lack of natural gas pipeline capacity, families and businesses are often forced to burn high-emitting fuel oil for heat and power. Meanwhile, a staggering 2,600 gigawatts of energy—95 percent of it from non-emitting sources—remains trapped in the interconnection queue because we lack the grid capacity to bring it online.5 Both bottlenecks contribute to rising utility bills across the country

A sensible permitting system should not play favorites—nor should Congress, nor any president. We must make it faster and cheaper to build the infrastructure needed to deliver every molecule of gas and every electron of electricity to the American people that need it.

Meaningful reform requires clear, enforceable timelines tied to objective milestones, paired with litigation boundaries that provide certainty once a project is legally permitted. Courts or administrative shifts should not be able to rewrite the rules midconstruction and pull the plug on projects that followed the law.

Congress also needs deadlines that work in practice. Permitting time limits can’t speed up the process if federal agencies decide when to start the timer. Agencies should promptly determine whether an application is complete, identify deficiencies with specificity, and provide a clear path to cure them. Otherwise, a project can be delayed indefinitely because an agency refuses to issue the notice that starts the clock.

This is one of the reasons why it is nearly impossible at the federal level to site, permit, and build large transmission lines at the pace and scale the nation demands. In fairness, it is also extremely difficult to get through the permitting regime for multistate transmission projects where the federal government isn’t involved. For a single multistate project, developers often need to secure permits from every state—and in some cases every county within a state—to build.

It is in our national interest to build the infrastructure we need to compete with nations like China. That means that the federal government needs to take a stronger hand, in collaboration with state partners, to make sure we can keep the lights on. The stakes extend well beyond retail electricity: America’s ability to produce semiconductors, manufacture defense equipment, and secure critical mineral supplies depends on infrastructure that allows those industries to break ground, expand production, and compete globally.

Permitting reform would help connect domestic mines, steel mills, aluminum smelters, and advanced factories with the reliable power and transportation networks they need—lowering production costs and strengthening the supply chains behind everything from naval vessels to fighter jets. Faster, more predictable approvals would also give companies greater confidence to invest here, turning American resources and innovation into American production. That means more of the materials and technologies essential to our economy and defense made at home, with less dependence on foreign suppliers and less exposure to disruption or coercion.

The principles of reform are not partisan: rigorous review, clear rules and pathways to accountability, reasonable deadlines, and confidence that final decisions will remain final without burdensome litigation.

Legitimate disagreements over energy and environmental policy may continue across the aisle, but they should not obscure the remarkable consensus that now exists around fixing the process itself.

We have a rare bipartisan window of alignment to solve this. We already agree on enough to get started. If Congress fails to act, we will fail to deliver for the American people. The market is begging to build. It is time for Congress to stop standing in our own way and get America building again.