The energy transition in the United States is facing a significant and challenging obstacle: permitting delays. While the technology and funding for clean energy projects are advancing rapidly, the bottlenecks in permitting processes create substantial roadblocks for energy infrastructure development. From transmission lines to wind farms and pipelines, these delays hinder progress in delivering affordable, reliable, and clean energy.
This article explores the roots of these permitting challenges, the current regulatory landscape, and potential paths forward. Drawing insights from two leading energy law experts, James Coleman and David Adelman, we examine what’s slowing progress and how stakeholders, particularly those in mission-critical industries such as utilities, data centers, and infrastructure development, can address these barriers.
The United States is at a crossroads in its energy transition. While the country has made significant progress in embracing renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal, the infrastructure needed to transport and deliver this energy remains inadequate. Unlike traditional energy sources such as coal and oil, which are relatively easy to store and transport, renewable energy requires significant infrastructure investment in the form of transmission lines and pipelines.
Permitting is the process through which projects gain approval from various regulatory bodies to proceed with construction and implementation. Federal, state, and local authorities often have overlapping or conflicting requirements, resulting in delays. These delays not only increase costs but also discourage investment in critical infrastructure.
For example, building long-distance transmission lines to connect renewable energy sources to population centers requires approvals from multiple jurisdictions. Each state or federal agency involved can effectively veto a project, creating a complicated web of regulatory hurdles.
The challenges are immense. Studies suggest the U.S. may need to double or even triple its transmission capacity to meet clean energy goals. However, the current rate of building new transmission infrastructure is far below what’s required. In fact, power line construction has declined in recent years, despite growing demand for renewable energy. Without reform, these delays could undercut efforts to decarbonize the energy system, leaving the U.S. reliant on older, dirtier energy sources.
One of the most contentious aspects of permitting reform is the balance of authority between federal and state governments. Historically, federal agencies have played a major role in approving interstate energy projects like natural gas pipelines, while states have handled approval for oil pipelines and transmission lines. However, this system has evolved into a scenario where both federal and state authorities can veto projects, creating significant uncertainty for developers.
Federal permitting processes, governed by laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), are designed to ensure environmental protections are considered in project planning. However, these processes can introduce delays. NEPA reviews can take years to complete, particularly for large projects requiring Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Even after receiving federal approval, state agencies can use other laws, such as the Clean Water Act, to block projects.
State and local governments often have legitimate concerns about the environmental and social impacts of energy projects. For example, a transmission line that primarily benefits another state may face opposition from communities that bear the construction burden but see little benefit. Balancing these interests with the national need for energy infrastructure is a complex challenge.
The central question in the permitting reform debate is whether it's possible to streamline the process while maintaining essential environmental safeguards. Critics argue that existing regulations like NEPA and the Endangered Species Act create unnecessary delays. However, studies show that only a small percentage of projects are significantly delayed due to litigation under these laws.
NEPA is often criticized as a barrier to development, but the reality is more nuanced. Most federal actions are categorically excluded from full NEPA reviews, and only a small number of projects proceed to a full EIS. Additionally, only about 7% of NEPA-related lawsuits result in injunctions that delay projects. These statistics suggest that the permitting bottleneck is not solely due to NEPA but a broader issue of overlapping regulations and inadequate coordination among agencies.
Experts like David Adelman highlight the importance of maintaining environmental protections during permitting. For example, streamlined processes under NEPA already exist, such as categorical exclusions and environmental assessments, which cover most federal decisions. However, for large-scale projects, comprehensive reviews remain necessary to ensure long-term sustainability.
Given the scale of the challenge, no single solution will resolve the permitting bottleneck. Instead, a multi-faceted approach is needed, addressing federal, state, and local processes. Here are some potential paths forward:
Granting the federal government more authority to approve interstate projects could simplify the permitting process. However, safeguards must be implemented to prevent arbitrary decision-making by future administrations, which could oscillate between favoring fossil fuels and clean energy based on political agendas.
Programs like FAST-41, created to streamline federal permitting processes, show promise. By improving communication and accountability among agencies, this approach can reduce delays without sacrificing environmental protections.
Permitting delays are often the result of understaffed and underfunded regulatory agencies. Providing adequate resources for environmental reviews and permitting processes can speed up approvals while maintaining rigorous standards.
Utilities and project developers should actively engage with regulators to share expertise and identify bottlenecks. Collaborative efforts can lead to practical solutions that benefit both industry and the public.
Creating standardized timelines and processes for permitting can reduce uncertainty for developers. For example, guaranteeing that permitting decisions are made within a set timeframe could encourage investment in large-scale infrastructure projects.
Utilities play a crucial role in addressing permitting challenges. With their extensive experience in project development, utilities are uniquely positioned to advocate for reforms that balance environmental protections with the need for efficient infrastructure buildout. Additionally, utilities can support research and pilot programs to test new permitting models, such as "permitting as a right" for certain projects.
Utilities also have a vested interest in ensuring regulatory stability. Arbitrary changes in permitting policies create uncertainty, discouraging investment in long-term projects. By advocating for consistent, non-arbitrary policies, utilities can help create a more predictable environment for energy infrastructure development.
The clean energy transition hinges on our ability to modernize and expand energy infrastructure. While permitting reform is a complex and often contentious issue, it is essential for meeting the nation’s energy and climate goals. By addressing regulatory hurdles, enhancing collaboration, and ensuring consistency, stakeholders can create a permitting system that is both efficient and environmentally responsible. With utilities and policymakers leading the charge, the U.S. can move closer to a future of clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
Source: "An energy permitting showdown: Two experts debate how fast is too fast" - Energy Central, YouTube, Jan 21, 2026 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNEJLyOrjRE
