Bipartisan Permitting Deal Passes House, Senate Up Next with Speed Bumps Ahead

Despite last-minute changes threatening to undo long-sought bipartisan support for H.R.4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, the House passed the bill with rare bipartisan support. The bill, introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) would reform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and shorten- the judicial review process.

On Dec. 18, the House voted 221-196 to pass the bill with support from Reps. Jim Costa (D-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Don Davis (D-NC), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Jared Golden (D-ME), Tony Gonzalez (D-TX), Adam Gray (D-CA), John Mannion (D-NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA) and Marc Veasey (D-TX). Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) was the lone Republican to vote against the bill. “We got 11 Democrats, even after all the theatrics,” Chairman Westerman told reporters after the vote. “We said our goal was to have a bipartisan permitting bill in the Senate before the end of the year and we did it. We’ve sent them a really good piece of legislation.”

By “theatrics,” Chairman Westerman is referring to the partisan battle that took place just days before the bill reached the House floor for a vote. As passed by the committee, the bill included a provision to guarantee “permit certainty” aimed at limiting any administration’s power to revoke an otherwise approved project. Specifically, the language stated that a federal agency may not “rescind, withdraw, amend, alter, or otherwise render ineffective any environmental document completed under this Act” unless a court has ordered the agency to do so or the applicant has agreed in writing to such “recission, withdrawal, amendment or alteration.”

On Dec. 15, the House Rules Committee convened a meeting to establish debate parameters for the SPEED Act. Members considered more than 30 amendments, including three from House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-MD), Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) and Chris Smith (R-NJ) that sought to undo the House Natural Resources Committee’s permit certainty language. The trio proposed Amendment No. 8, which would strike the permitting certainty language in its entirety; Amendment No. 9, which would make it so the bill’s provisions do not apply to offshore wind energy; and Amendment No.10, which would ensure expedited permitting under the SPEED Act would not apply to agency actions on projects reopened or reconsidered between Jan. 20, 2025, and the bill’s enactment.

Republican Rules Committee members appeased anti-offshore conservatives, allowing the full House to vote on the three amendments. To reporters after the meeting, Rep. Harris threatened to block the SPEED Act on the House floor if the bill maintained the permit certainty language, alleging there were enough detractors. “If it comes down with the … amendment still attached, it’s going to have a bad day tomorrow.”

On Dec. 16, the full House passed the rule outlining the bill’s debate parameters, However, concerned that Rep. Harris and the Freedom Caucus had enough lawmakers to sink the bill, the House Rules Committee amended the SPEED Act’s underlying text to include Amendment No. 10, which would limit applicability to agency actions from the start of the Trump administration through the date the bill is enacted.

Following this, the American Clean Power Association withdrew its support, with CEO Jason Grumet calling Rep. Harris’ language a “poison pill amendment.” Grumet added that “the Harris amendment … injects permit uncertainty, and creates a pathway for fully permitted projects to be canceled even after the Act’s passage.”

Two days later, the House passed this version of the bill.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it will require 60 votes to overcome the filibuster and pass. Chairman Westerman has already spoken with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) about the difficult path ahead. Chairwoman Capito, whose committee has jurisdiction over the bill, has supported the House’s inclusion of permit certainty language and thinks her committee can advance it.

Despite the chairwoman’s support, passage of the bill passed by the House remains challenging for supporters. On Dec. 22, Ranking Members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) issued a joint statement threatening to end permitting talks altogether following the Trump administration’s decision to halt the construction of the five major offshore wind projects: Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind 1. “The illegal attacks on fully permitted renewable energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume,” the senators said, “There is no path to permitting reform if this administration refuses to follow the law.” The administration cited “national security risks” as the reason for stopping the projects, claiming that the movement of the wind turbines creates radar interference called “clutter,” which “obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.”

In addition to permit certainty demands, Senate Democrats remain concerned that the SPEED Act fails to address transmission infrastructure development, especially as data centers drive rising electricity demand. Democratic leaders are said to be looking at last year’s Energy Permitting Reform Act, which offered several changes to transmission siting policy, as a starting point for permitting reform negotiations.

With midterm elections due in 2026, Senate action will be even more difficult as the calendar favors electoral activities in states and limits the time available for consideration of permitting reform legislation in Washington, D.C.

The SPEED Act is not the only measure the House passed related to energy policy and permitting. During their two final weeks in session for 2025, they also passed the:

• H.R. 1366 – Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (Sponsored by Rep. Amodei) by a vote of 219-198
  • Would provide certainty for domestic hard rock mining operators by codifying certain regulatory practices and legal interpretation regarding use, occupancy and operations on public lands.
• H.R. 3616 – Reliable Power Act (Sponsored by Rep. Balderson) by a vote of 225-203
  • Would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to coordinate with any federal agency seeking to finalize a regulation that could negatively impact electric power reliability.
• H.R. 3632 – Power Plant Reliability Act of 2025 (Sponsored by Rep. Griffith) by a vote of 222-202
  • Would change availability of tools for states and grid operators to contest the closure of power plants in neighboring states if there is an impact to reliability.

Even after this tranche of bills passed by the House, House lawmakers continue to work on additional legislative proposals on these matters. On Dec. 19, Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA), Gabe Evans (R-CO), Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) and Andrew Garbarino (R-NY) released a discussion draft that aims to strengthen language restricting the executive branch’s authority to revoke, alter or stall energy project permits. The CERTAIN Act would provide deadlines, timelines and milestones for federal agencies to act on permits through different environmental laws, for all types of projects. The bipartisan proposal would also provide opportunities to hold agencies accountable in court for missing deadlines and review milestones. It would require federal agencies to provide public notice of when they are delaying a permit and provide evidence of why the delay is necessary.

As permitting reform continues to move on Capitol Hill, energy industry stakeholders should be prepared for more rumored and realistic changes to the bills under consideration. The SPEED Act and related legislative efforts underscore the growing importance of proactive engagement in Washington as securing regulatory certainty and accelerating project development timelines draw bipartisan support. These reforms could unlock significant investment potential or interfere with development strategies, depending on final policy decisions. Our team can help anticipate legislative shifts, build strategic relationships and position infrastructure projects for success in this rapidly changing environment.

---

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE HOUSE-PASSED SPEED ACT. THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT OR IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE AS TO AN ISSUE, PLEASE CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS LISTED OR YOUR REGULAR BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP ATTORNEY. THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED ADVERTISING IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.