It’s Electric! Permitting Reform Gains Steam in Congress

Permitting reform for energy projects and related infrastructure has been the bipartisan, bicameral white whale of policy for a very long time. Despite broad support for the idea, agreeing on how to actually reform the permitting process has stumped lawmakers. The 119th Congress has continued along this path, with committee leadership from both parties and chambers calling attention to permitting reform and articulating the need for additional actions to speed up timelines and reduce costs for projects. In the span of 10 months, lawmakers have introduced multiple legislative proposals aimed at shortening permitting timelines and reducing the frequency of litigation. Concurrently, the courts and the Trump administration have taken their own actions to redefine the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This alert outlines the current state-of-play in permitting reform efforts across the three branches of the federal government.

First, A Look Back

Permitting reform was on the “to-do” list for Congress when, on Dec. 21, 2024, during the lame duck session of Congress and the Biden administration, Congress passed a stopgap measure to fund the government for three months to avoid a shutdown. Yet, permitting reform provisions did not make it into the legislation passed into law.

For many lawmakers, the failure to reach a compromise deal to accelerate infrastructure development was a missed opportunity—especially as the Democratic Caucus had seemingly grown more receptive to permitting reform after hearing of delays of projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). No one possibly felt this disappointment more than outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (I-WV), who introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 and spent nearly two years pushing it through the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In a pointed statement following the stopgap vote, Sen. Manchin emphasized the continued importance of permitting reform, and suggested these efforts would resume in 2025. “Meaningful permitting reform will continue … next year and cannot be done by executive action alone,” he wrote.

Before the near-finish-line failure of the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, there were two major efforts to update the federal permitting system; the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015, which created the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council among other things; and, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which extended the FAST Act and introduced statutory deadlines for environmental reviews among other things.

Most recently, on July 4, President Donald Trump signed H.R.1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, into law. The bill added Section 112 to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), allowing a project sponsor to pay 125% of the costs associated with developing an environmental review document. If the project sponsor elects to pay this fee, the action agency must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in one year and an environmental assessment (EA) in 180 days. In an earlier version of the bill, the provision would have exempt the expedited EA and EIS from judicial review. The Senate parliamentarian removed this exemption from the final reconciliation bill after determining it did not comply with the Byrd Rule. In addition, like Sen. Manchin’s Energy Permitting Reform Act, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandates new oil and gas lease sales across federal lands and waters.

Recent Legislative Actions

Various permitting measures have been introduced in this Congress, and more proposals may be forthcoming.

House

The House Energy and Commerce Committee and House Natural Resources Committee have both been actively moving legislation aimed at permitting reform. Below are a few of the major initiatives pending before these committees.

• SPEED Act: On July 25, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) introduced H.R.4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act. Among its most significant changes, the SPEED Act would codify NEPA as a “purely procedural statute” and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (Seven County), by requiring federal agencies to only consider effects that are “proximately caused by” the immediate project or action. The bill would add grants to the list of actions that do not automatically trigger National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and prohibit a federal agency from withdrawing any environmental document completed under NEPA unless a court so orders, thereby stopping future administrations from rescinding environmental documents promulgated under prior ones. Regarding judicial review, the SPEED Act would restrict courts from determining a final agency action violates NEPA unless the agency clearly “abused its substantial discretion in complying with” the law and would have reached a different result absent of this abuse of “substantial discretion.”
  
  Further, the bill would prohibit a court from substituting its judgment “for that of the agency regarding the environmental effects of a proposed agency action” and amend the steps courts must take to remand such action. Specifically, the SPEED Act would mandate that a court may only remand a final agency action if it provides specific instruction and a reasonable deadline—no longer than 180 days—to correct deficiencies. Remanded actions may remain in effect during this period.
  
  Additionally, the bill would require parties to file legal challenges within 150 days of the final agency action’s publication and would prohibit parties from contesting the establishment of a categorical exclusion. Lastly, Chairman Westerman’s bill would require parties appealing a court ruling to do so within 60 days, with courts required to rule on appeal within 180 days. On Sept. 10, the House Natural Resources Committee held a legislative hearing to receive testimony on the bill. The committee intends to mark up the bill as soon as this month.
  
• SPEED and Reliability Act: On Sept. 26, Reps. Andy Barr (R-KY) and Scott Peters (D-CA) reintroduced H.R.5600, the Streamlining Powerlines Essential to Electric Demand (SPEED) and Reliability Act. The bill aims to expedite the siting and permitting of electric transmission lines by amending the Federal Power Act, the primary statute governing the wholesale transmission and sale of electric power.
  
  Currently, both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are required to conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for the same proposed transmission line under the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) designation process. The SPEED and Reliability Act would remove this duplicative process, requiring that only FERC conduct an environmental review.
  
  Further, the bill would allow FERC to issue a construction permit for individual transmission lines that are designated to be in the national interest, reduce grid congestion and improve reliability without having to undergo NEPA review. The bill was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee for further consideration.
  
• Cheap Energy Act: On Sept. 24, Reps. Sean Casten (D-IL) and Mike Levin (D-CA), cochairs of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, released draft text for a bill titled the Cheap Energy Act. The lawmakers describe the draft as a “consumer-focused approach” to U.S. energy policy that ensures “cheap, reliable, and clean energy.” It includes language that would repeal the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s provisions eliminating or phasing out energy tax credits, while establishing a new investment tax credit to cover 30% of the cost of new transmission lines, modified existing lines and related property.
  
  The bill would also codify processes for offshore wind leasing and prohibit the Department of the Interior from instating additional levels of review for solar and wind projects. The discussion draft aims to strengthen and build out additional transmission lines as it would authorize more than $2 billion to address the shortage of electricity transformers and complementary grid security technologies, and provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with exclusive siting authority for national interest transmission lines. The bill also intends to expedite the hiring of agency permitting staff and would direct the Council on Environmental Quality to create an online portal for permits that require review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Reps. Levin and Casten hope to introduce formal legislation reflecting this language in early 2026.
  
• House Problem Solvers Caucus Framework: On Sept. 18, the Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers seeking bipartisan consensus on key political issues, unveiled its new Permitting Reform Framework.
  
  Like the SPEED and Reliability Act, the Cheap Energy Act and the Energy Permitting Reform Act, this framework would expedite the NIETC designation process as it allows for simultaneous state and federal environmental reviews. It would create categorical exclusions for simple updates to existing transmission infrastructure and pipelines, remove the need for a presidential permit when permitting cross-border linear infrastructure, and eliminate the duplicative need for a line-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review pursuant to Section 368 corridors. It would also ensure that judicial standing for litigating projects is limited to parties who submitted detailed comments during public review and establish a one-year statute of limitations for litigation against most projects.
  
  Lastly, it would direct federal agencies to replace their current paper system with a centralized cloud-based platform for all permitting processes. Reps. Gabe Evans (R-CO) and Scott Peters (D-CA), who lead the caucus’ Permitting, Energy and Environment Working Group, along with Cochairs Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY), hope to translate the framework into legislation later this Congress.
  
• ePermit Act: On July 17, Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD) introduced H.R.4503, the ePermit Act, legislation to complement the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. The bill would establish a framework for federal agencies to implement a digital permitting system for energy projects undergoing environmental reviews. It would also create federal data and taxonomy standards, and a governmentwide permitting database to enable better coordination across the federal permitting landscape. Like the SPEED Act, this bill also received testimony during a recent House Natural Resources Committee hearing and awaits further consideration.

Senate

Both Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Mike Lee (R-UT) have recently made statements demonstrating continued interest in working on permitting reform. Most recently, Chairman Lee stated “It’s time for NEPA reform” in a social media post. Below are a few of the pending proposals before their committees.

• CLEAR Waters Act: On July 23, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) introduced S.2421, the Clarifying Legal Exclusions Around Regulated (CLEAR) Waters Act. This bill, which is cosponsored by six other Senate Republicans, would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide exclusions for the term “navigable waters.” This bill attempts to clarify that certain water systems shall not be included under the definition of navigable waters under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, including components of waste treatment systems, groundwater and ephemeral features that flow only in direct response to precipitation. The bill would also allow for additional considerations depending on the determination of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and chief of engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

• Small Projects Expedited Execution and Delivery (SPEED) Act: On May 22, Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced S.1894, the Small Projects Expedited Execution and Delivery (SPEED) Act. This bill would amend the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) to double the threshold of federal funding under which a project may still qualify for a categorical exclusion due to limited federal involvement. Specifically, the bill would allow projects receiving up to $12 million in federal funds—or have a total estimated cost of up to $70 million—to remain eligible for categorical exclusions. Sen. Lummis’ bill remains in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for further consideration.

• Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearing Act: On May 14, Sens. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) introduced S.1757, the Efficient Nuclear Licensing Hearings Act. This bipartisan bill would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for more efficient hearings on nuclear facility construction applications. Specifically, the bill would remove the requirement for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hold a public hearing during the nuclear licensing process if an affected party does not contest the approval. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

• Interactive Federal Review Act: On April 10, Sens. Lummis and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) introduced S.1430, the Interactive Federal Review Act. This bipartisan bill would improve the environmental review process for highway projects through the use of interactive, digital, cloud-based platforms and digital twins. It would mandate the Department of Transportation (DOT) to select 10 federal-aid highway projects to demonstrate the use of these platforms and models in conducting the environmental impact analysis and community engagement processes that NEPA requires. The bill remains in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee where it awaits further review.

• Primacy Certainty Act of 2025: On July 29, Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) introduced S.2505, the Primacy Certainty Act of 2025. This bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify the timelines and provide certainty and transparency for making a decision on the approval or disapproval of a state underground injection control program. It would mandate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rule on state applications to regulate Class VI injection wells within 180 days. If not, the application automatically takes effect after 210 days if the state already enforces a similar regulatory program. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

• MAPWaters Act of 2025: On July 31, Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Angus King (I-VT) introduced S.2637, the Modernizing Access to our Public (MAP) Waters Act of 2025. The bill would provide for the standardization, consolidation and publication of data related to public outdoor recreation use of federal waterways among federal land and water management agencies. Specifically, it would direct the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt interagency standards for data collection and dissemination of geospatial data relating to public outdoor recreational access of federal waterways and federal fishing restrictions. The bill was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

• Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act: On July 23, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Andy Kim (D-NJ) introduced S.2390, the Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act. This bill would reclassify certain activities by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as it relates to housing as necessary administrative actions to allow for certain activities to be streamlined. It would also call for additional categorical exclusions if a proposed housing-related activity does not materially alter environmental conditions and does not materially exceed the original scope of the project. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

• Necessary Environmental Exemptions for Defense Act: On July 9, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced S.2226, the Necessary Environmental Exemptions for Defense Act. This bill would allow for certain activities from the Defense Department to be exempt from requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, if the secretary of defense certifies they are directly related to countering the threat of the Chinese Communist Party. The bill was referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Court Actions

These legislative efforts come as court rulings have reshaped the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) authorities. The section below provides an overview of the relevant court actions changing or shaping the permitting review process.

As summarized in our July 18, 2025, Client Alert, on Nov. 12, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, held that CEQ lacks the authority to issue binding regulations governing federal agencies’ implementation of NEPA. Specifically, the D.C. Circuit found that there is no statutory language suggesting that Congress empowered CEQ to issue binding rules and act as a regulatory agency. It contended that CEQ’s legal authority is, for all practical purposes, identical to the duties Congress assigned to the Council of Economic Advisors, another consultative agency within the Executive Office of the President. Historically, CEQ stated its rulemaking authority originated not from legislation, but from Executive Order 11991, issued by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. Executive Order 11991 replaced more than 70 different sets of agency regulations across the executive branch and helped create CEQ’s framework, recognizing its authority to advise the president on environmental issues and NEPA implementation. To this, the D.C. Circuit held that executive orders cannot give an agency rulemaking authority, only statutes can.

Months later, on May 29, the Supreme Court, in Seven County, unanimously held that NEPA reviews do not require federal agencies to evaluate environmental impacts beyond the immediate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. This case concerned the U.S. Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) decision to approve an application to construct an 88-mile railroad line after performing a NEPA review. The D.C. Circuit held that STB violated NEPA by failing to sufficiently consider the reasonably foreseeable effects increased upstream crude oil production and downstream refining operations could have on the environment, given the railway would facilitate this activity. The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit in a strongly worded opinion emphasizing that agencies, when conducting NEPA review, are not considering other “future or geographically separate projects that may be built as a result.”

Agency Actions

Concurrently, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions to facilitate permitting reform. The section below provides an overview of the recent executive actions on permitting reform.

Following the ruling in Marin Audubon Society, which held that CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations were ultra vires, President Donald Trump’s Day One Executive Order 14154 directed CEQ to eliminate its NEPA regulations. The order also revoked President Jimmy Carter’s Executive Order 11991. On Feb. 25, CEQ issued an Interim Final Rule rescinding its NEPA regulations. The final rule went into effect on April 11.

Consistent with Executive Order 14154, federal agencies must revise or establish NEPA implementing procedures that expedite permitting approvals. Executive Order 14154 also directed CEQ to provide guidance on implementing NEPA to expedite these processes. On Feb. 19, CEQ issued interim guidance calling on agencies to revise their NEPA procedures to align with Executive Order 14154 and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA).

As explained in our June 2, 2024, client alert, the FRA made the following changes to NEPA:

1. Included new definitions for “major federal action”; 2) Limited NEPA analysis to the “reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the proposed agency action”; 3) Allowed agencies to rely on a final programmatic environmental document for five years without additional review so long as there are no new circumstances or information that impact the analysis; 4) Set into statute a 75-page limit for EAs and 150-page limit for most EISs. However, the FRA allows EISs to reach 300 pages if the project is extraordinarily complex; 5) Required agencies to complete EAs within one year and EISs within two years; and 6) Permitted agencies to adopt categorical exclusions listed in another agency’s NEPA procedures after meeting certain conditions.

On Sept. 29, CEQ updated its guidance to federal agencies concerning their implementation of NEPA. The new guidance asks that agencies continue to update NEPA implementing procedures to reflect Executive Order 14154 and the FRA, as well as the statutory changes that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Seven County, both of which came after CEQ issued its initial guidance.

In this updated guidance, CEQ is also providing agencies with an agency procedures template to assist them in preparing or revising their NEPA procedures. CEQ says the template is not mandatory or binding but is instead meant to provide clarity and technical assistance to agencies as they develop or update their respective guidelines. The template is organized as a Federal Register notice and offers agencies the ability to promulgate their NEPA implementing procedures for publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In July, departments of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Defense and Transportation, among others, issued updated procedures to reflect recent changes to NEPA outside of the CFR in the form of guidance or a handbook. According to CEQ’s new guidance, while agencies are free to choose their own unique approaches when they are promulgating their updated NEPA procedures, they must still consult with CEQ and submit to them required documentation for review.

Next Steps

Achieving permitting reform in this Congress is possible but will require compromise and significant stakeholder pressure. The bills outlined above are an indication that lawmakers are interested in working across the aisle on reforming the permitting process for energy and related infrastructure projects. Additionally, several large trade organizations have already called upon congressional leadership to pass permitting reform, including the Edison Electric Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber of Commerce. The pathways to moving any or all of these ideas are not limited to energy projects as Congress may look to reforming the process for permitting broader projects, including roads and bridges through the required reauthorization of the Surface Transportation bill currently moving through the legislative process.

The most significant changes are likely to come from regulatory agencies, at least in the short term. It remains uncertain exactly how much permitting timelines will accelerate under the new procedures already put in place by the Trump administration, but it is generally expected that these changes will significantly expedite the process. More executive actions like the one that established the National Energy Dominance Council aimed at coordinating agency action on permitting can be expected.

Brownstein will continue to closely monitor the regulatory landscape and evaluate the implications of these revisions for the energy and environmental sectors. CEQ’s February guidance directed agencies to complete updates to their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations by Feb. 19, 2026. In the meantime, Brownstein’s Energy and Natural Resources team is uniquely positioned to answer any questions, advocate before relevant congressional committees for helpful reforms or help navigate your project through the permitting process.

For more insight into the history of both parties’ efforts to achieve permitting reform, please listen to the latest episode in Brownstein’s podcast series titled “I have a Permit: Project Approval Changes in the Second Trump Administration.”

---

THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING PERMITTING REFROM EFFORTS. 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.