Permitting reform has long been considered a “white whale” in Congress, and passing legislation focused on it would be a significant win for Republicans in both the Senate and House as they face an uphill battle to keep the majority come November. 

Progress was made at the end of last year when the House passed the bipartisan SPEED Act, which would reform a decades-old law that requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of major actions and decisions relevant to their departments, such as permits or licenses required for projects including roads, data centers, and more.  

The bill was passed in December with nearly a dozen Democrats on board. Since then, however, negotiations have been relatively stalled in the Senate.

So, with the congressional majority up in the air, what needs to happen to get permitting reform past the finish line this Congress? 

Securing the votes

One, if not the most important, metric to hit to pass permitting reform during this Congress is to get 60 votes in the Senate. 

While a permitting bill could support certain clean energy initiatives, Democrats have been broadly hesitant to sign on to a bill with Republicans over concerns that the White House would not fairly implement any reforms across technologies. 

Just days after the SPEED Act passed in December, the administration paused the leases for five under-construction offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Coast. 

While all five projects were ultimately granted permission by federal courts to resume construction, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) refused to resume negotiations until they received commitments from the White House.

Their holdout lasted several months until March, when reports revealed that the Interior Department was weighing clearing the permitting pathway for some large solar projects to move forward.

Negotiations have continued since, with advocates confident there are enough Democrats interested in a package. 

“There are definitely the votes to get permitting reform through should the White House and the four corners in the Senate have an agreement in place,” Chris Treanor, executive director of the Partnership to Address Global Emissions, told the Washington Examiner. 

“You know, I think we would get 70 votes, 75 votes in the Senate for permitting reform if Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich signed off on it. But I don’t think — I don’t know that the White House is willing to prioritize a bipartisan solution.” 

That support, however, is on thin ice. 

During the fiscal 2027 budget hearing last month, Sen. Angus King (I-ME) told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum that while he is in favor of passing permitting reform, there would not be any votes in the Senate until the administration provided assurances that agencies would move forward on permits for solar and wind projects. 

“I think we’re kind of in a constantly precarious position that the White House could take actions against wind and solar that are strong enough to derail permanent negotiations,” Xan Fishman, vice president of the Energy Program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told the Washington Examiner. “My hope is that everyone acts in such a way that we can get to yes and come up with a good, reasonable compromise and get something done.”

Fine-tuning the provisions 

In order to streamline the federal permitting process, lawmakers are aiming to tackle the issue from a number of different avenues — further complicating negotiations. 

Many argue the National Environmental Policy Act is at the crux of permitting delays, saying the 55-year-old law has caused decades of additional red tape and legal delays. As a result, judicial review has become a key topic of debate. 

The SPEED Act proposed shortening the statute of limitations for legal challenges against projects subject to environmental reviews from several years to just 150 days.

Some past permitting proposals have suggested more drastic changes to judicial review, limiting timelines to file lawsuits to just 60 days, a cut very few Democrats would likely support. 

Another key aspect under negotiation is provisions related to transmission infrastructure.

Democrats have a clear reason for wanting new and modernized transmission lines across the United States, as thousands of gigawatts worth of solar, storage, and wind capacity are waiting to connect to the broader electric grid. 

Similarly, transmission-related reform could accelerate Republicans’ efforts to build out natural gas pipelines and large load facilities such as data centers.

However, neither party wishes to give the other a “win.” 

“I think it’s very difficult to find common ground on transmission reform asks,” Treanor said. “It’s difficult to ask chairmen and ranking members to develop legislation in order to appease another party or another committee’s asks, as opposed to creating legislation that you yourself truly believe in.” 

A former GOP leadership aide told the Washington Examiner that on transmission, they are expecting Heinrich’s office to take the lead, as he is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As of mid-May, however, they were not aware of any draft proposals being shared between Heinrich and Chairman Mike Lee’s (R-UT) offices. 

Permitting advocates are also skeptical that Democrats will support any package that does not include language that is technology- and project-neutral.

This is a stance that several Republicans in both the House and Senate have come out in support of, as some within the GOP are wary of what actions future Democratic administrations could take against traditional fossil fuels. 

“Each of the policy areas has its own degree of complications, where you want to get the language right,” Fishman said. “It’s the fact that there’s two key committees in the Senate, rather than one, that need to do this is one degree of complication. The fact that you have a White House that is taking actions against certain types of energy sources is another complication.”

Considering the House 

If and when a bill passes the Senate, it’s important to remember that the legislative process doesn’t stop there, as more often than not, the Senate-approved bill differs from the version that passed in the House. 

While often these bills are similar, any new provisions may send waves through the lower chamber, particularly if they clash with certain members’ agendas. 

In the case of permitting reform, there are some concerns that if the Senate comes to an agreement on a package supported by Democratic members and clean energy organizations, some staunch conservatives — such as those in the House Freedom Caucus — may view that as a “win” for renewable energy projects and threaten to withhold their votes. 

Such positioning was used late last year over House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman’s (R-AR) SPEED Act. 

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) initially said he opposed the bill, claiming it would fast-track permitting for wind and solar projects.  

To secure the votes of Roy and other hard-line conservatives, Westerman included a last-minute amendment providing the Trump administration the ability to continue revoking permits for wind and solar projects until the bill is signed into law. Ultimately, the amendment caused major clean energy groups, such as the American Clean Power Association, to pull their support. 

The former GOP leadership aide told the Washington Examiner that the Senate needs to acknowledge there is no longer a given that the House will pass any bill they approve, with members needing to essentially sell the package to their House counterparts. 

As the midterm elections inch closer, they warned that the timeline for debate over new language is rapidly shrinking, saying it’s almost reaching a point where it will be too late.

“I think that the longer it is done behind closed doors, the harder it will be to have a deal that really can get across the finish line,” the former aide said. 

When it should get done 

If you ask most advocates in Washington when Congress should pass permitting reform this year, an answer you’ll likely hear is “yesterday.” 

In late January, Westerman predicted the Senate only had a few months to move legislation forward, given the already tight legislative schedule. 

“The sooner the better,” he told the Washington Examiner at the time. “But I actually think we’ve probably got three or four more months that it could happen in. Some people will say we’ve got two months or less.” 

Around the same time, some Republicans in the Senate expressed hope that a markup hearing would be held on a bill by the spring. Four months later, summer is a more realistic time frame. 

“I very strongly agree with anyone who suggests that we have to do it this summer,” Treanor said. “Once we’re …full-blown post-August recess, it’s hard to imagine there’s any bipartisan compromise, or anywhere where 60 votes will be achieved in the Senate.” 

Treanor pointed out that if Democrats take back the House, history would indicate that the party would be less inclined to move forward on permitting reform legislation if it was primarily written by their Republican counterparts.

“I think it needs to be this summer or wait another decade,” he said. 

However, some advocates have pointed out there is a chance another agreement could be made during a lame-duck session, as more progressive environmentalist groups have come out in support of permitting reform, including the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Many in Washington have their eyes on the offices of the chairs and ranking members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for potential language. 

As of mid-May, no broad draft legislation targeting permitting from those committees had been made public.

PERMITTING REFORM: THE KEY TO UNLOCKING HOUSING AND ENERGY AFFORDABILITY

However, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), who led the effort on permitting alongside former Sen. Joe Manchin in the last Congress, teased earlier this week that he would be introducing legislation soon. 

His office declined to provide additional information when asked, telling the Washington Examiner to “stay tuned.”