CCL Comment on SPEED Act and other stand alone permitting bills.

@Mindy Ahler Thank you for this! I just contacted you about this last night and this is super helpful. That said, I'd like to see CCL put out a slightly more nuanced discussion of some of the provisions in this bill (or others that are attracting a lot of attention right now). Changes to NEPA (either the law or how it is implemented) are likely to be some of the major sticking points that we'll have to overcome in NM to get support for a more comprehensive bill. Aspects of a future bill are extremely hard to discuss in the abstract; the response is likely to be “yes, we agree reform needs to happen, and it all depends on the details of the bill in question.” I feel like if I'd been better versed on the SPEED Act, I could have asked better questions to get feedback on how our Representatives feel about the crucial topic of changes to NEPA.

@Mindy Ahler
Here are some exerpts from the recent Bipartisan Policy Center roundtable discussion of the SPEED Act, whose 40 participant generally agree with the CCL take on the bill. The report includes discussion on 17 components of the Act.

“Participants broadly agreed that the current permitting system for critical energy infrastructure projects is too slow and unpredictable, and that reforms to NEPA and judicial review could meaningfully improve permitting timelines and project certainty. Participants largely supported the overall direction and intent of the SPEED Act, particularly the provisions designed to streamline environmental reviews by setting clearer limits on which environmental effects agencies must study, and to reduce litigation-driven delays. However, there was significant debate over the details, especially concerning the precision of statutory language, the balance between efficiency and environmental oversight, and the degree to which Congress should limit judicial remedies—such as injunctions or vacating permits.”

“To improve the permitting process, roundtable participants agreed on the need to reform NEPA and judicial review. And participants mostly agreed that the SPEED Act’s policy options seek to solve real problems in the current system. Some of these options enjoyed consensus support, but others did not. Most importantly, participants agreed that improvements to NEPA and judicial review are necessary components of a broader permitting reform package that is also likely to include other key policies, such as project certainty and improvements to permitting for transmission and other linear infrastructure.

@Mindy Ahler thanks Mindy!! This is much appreciated as we are in the midst of our lobbying.

@Mindy Ahler
Also SPEED does not address early and meaningful community engagement which I believe still remains one of our criteria for a permitting bill that we would endorse. Correct?

@Mindy Ahler, thanks for the summary. It seems to say that at least some of what's in the SPEED Act is necessary but not sufficient to achieve CCL's goals for permitting reform--which seems consistent with what the Bipartisan Policy Center is saying about the bill, according to the quotes @Bob Blackburn posted.

@Mark Vossler
Not only is HR-4776 weak in its requirements for early community engagement, but it also lacks clear provisions to ensure that communities and tribes are notified when projects are proposed.

@Sara Mason our Gov Affairs team is working on this next week. It's a compliment to us that so many offices are asking for more details of what we do and don't support. Stay tuned.

@Mindy Ahler Thanks for this illuminating discussion. Hopefully this is just the beginning of a more productive process in Congress. Here's what my MoC, Jared Huffman had to say about the SPEED Act as ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee. He does not mince words.

@Peter Joseph thanks for sharing. If Senate Dems are feeling the same it wouldn't look well for passing this bill as it stands even if it clears the house. I know we don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good but I sincerely hope that what we end up getting in the end on permitting reform is far better than SPEED.

Well the Senate is unlikely to take up the SPEED Act for the same reasons CCL has declined to take a position on it, @Mark Vossler @Peter Joseph. That being said, NEPA reforms are going to be part of a comprehensive permitting reform package. And they should be – only 4% of utility scale solar projects are developed on federal lands because the NEPA permitting process is so onerous. If Congressman Huffman dislikes some of the provisions in the SPEED Act, I hope he engages in the permitting reform negotiation process to try to ensure his concerns are adequately addressed.

@Dana Nuccitelli thanks as always for the quick response. Definitely helps in our ongoing discussions with our Congressional offices.

@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks, Dana. When we next meet with Rep. Huffman we will definitely convey exactly this message. His usual response over the many years I've served as liaison has been “Give us the gavel.”

Relatedly, @Peter Joseph @Mark Vossler, Scott Peters and 30 House Democrats sent a letter to Westerman calling the SPEED Act “a huge step forward” but also urging some changes.

We believe it is extremely important to reform the federal permitting process – including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – to better power our economy, protect our environment and lower costs for consumers. The SPEED Act is a huge step forward, and as the bill moves from committee to the House floor, we want to work with you to address certain remaining concerns so that even more Democrats can support the bill.

Specifically, they called for further addressing “an administration’s ability to delay the permitting process across all laws, not just NEPA … Any final permitting bill must ensure that non-fossil energy resources will be treated fairly as it enters and moves through the federal permitting process.” This is the ‘certainty’ concern we've talked about a lot, relating to executive meddling in the permitting process. They also touch on some of the judicial reforms in the bill that I believe Rep. Huffman is also taking issue with.

This is the kind of constructive engagement that we like to see on permitting reform 🤓

@Dana Nuccitelli Thanks, Dana. It's a shame that the administration has so demolished the trust necessary to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. Here's another angle on SPEED, FOFA and other bills from the Breakthrough Institute, which you've likely seen. At least they're talking!

@Peter Joseph Thanks for sharing. I see the evidence that bipartisanship is working on permitting reform based on exactly the bills sited in this article and the healthy conversation generated by the letter Dana sited from Rep. Peters (and others).

That’s part of our job as CCL to continue to praise these MOCs for their bipartisanship and encourage more in our Lobby meetings and in the media - that’s an important part of creating a feeling of safety for our Members of Congress to act.

We know this is not easy - we are choosing to do the hard work. Being part of the High Conflict book study and reading Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind are both helping me recognize the deep polarization in our current society and media - and how easy it is to get sucked into divisive thinking. That's why it's hard work to be bipartisan, but I believe it's the most important thing we are doing. And I continue to choose optimism that we can make a difference.

@Peter Joseph
Thanks for sharing this comprehensive article by Elizabeth McCarthy. I find the Ecomodernist to be a reputable supporter of bipartisan climate and energy policy.

Here is the summary of McCarthy’s article:

“Both parties agree that permitting is too slow and fractured, but they often differ on what fixing it would entail. Republicans want to scale back NEPA and limit lawsuits; Democrats often see those changes as going too far, weakening environmental safeguards and community input. The politics of permitting follow a familiar pattern. It’s easy to tweak the process around the edges, but it’s much harder to change the rules that make it slow in the first place.
On the surface, the ePermit Act appears to fit this pattern. But it should not be misunderstood as a modest reform. It would overhaul the archaic systems of the federal government for implementing NEPA, a vast organizational undertaking. Even still, it probably wouldn’t move as a stand-alone bill. But it could be attached to a must-pass package, possibly the Surface Transportation Board reauthorization, which is due before September 2026.
The Fix Our Forests Act also has a path forward. Its balanced approach to judicial reform shows that it is possible to accelerate projects without delaying environmental review. While passing as a standalone bill could complicate broader reform later, forest permitting is an urgent and achievable step. A large share of NEPA litigation concerns forest management projects. And new research from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory finds that replacing transmission lines and wires after wildfires is one of the most significant factors driving rising energy costs in the American West.
The SPEED Act faces slim odds of reaching cloture in the Senate in its current form. But it has five Democratic co-sponsors and may have the momentum to pass the House. Both Senate committees are drafting their own bill text, which may emerge as wholly new legislation or form the basis for revising SPEED.

@Bob Blackburn et al. More on permitting reform from Heat Map

@Mindy Ahler Yes we really need a primer that has two columns for the SPEED Act and the other piecemeal permitting bill. The columns should reflect the parts of the bills that work for us and those that don't. When we engage with representatives and their staffs, their minds immediately go to these bills when we say “permitting reform.”

In addition to the Emily Pontecorvo article linked above by @Mark Vossler, Heatmap has another piece from Jael Holzman on the SPEED Act today. Specifically about some Senate Dem climate hawk opposition to the bill because it doesn't sufficiently address the ‘certainty’ issue associated with executive meddling in certain types of energy permits.

Both article seem to miss the big picture that the SPEED Act and NEPA reforms are just one part of what we need to see in a comprehensive permitting reform package. The SPEED Act might pass the House because House Republicans generally like it (although some Freedom Caucus members are opposed because it would prevent the Trump administration from revoking existing clean energy permits), but it was never going to pass the Senate as a standalone bill. The SPEED Act or some of its provisions may be included in a comprehensive permitting reform bill, but Congress isn't going to pass piecemeal permitting reform bills, unless perhaps efforts to pass a comprehensive bill fall apart.

While the Heatmap articles include some useful information about the SPEED Act, I think they're missing the forest for the trees because they're lacking the broad overall context of comprehensive permitting reform negotiations. The key take-home here is that a bipartisan permitting reform bill won't get enough votes to pass unless it adequately addresses the executive certainty issue, as CCL staffers have been noting for several months now.

@Dana Nuccitelli I agree 100%. Both articles miss the big picture of what all is needed in permitting reform. Maybe Heat Map needs an opinion piece from a certain Mr. Nuccitelli.

@Mindy Ahler our lobby contact called our attention to yet another bill that will soon hit the House floor. We have our lobby meeting on 12/11, so I will look into this bill and would appreciate any comments from CCL on this legislation. Here is her message:

Also, I wanted to flag that a permitting reform bill will be on the House Floor this week:

H.R. 3898 – PERMIT Act (Sponsored by Rep. Collins / Transportation and Infrastructure Committee)

The PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898), sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) in the 119th Congress (2025-2026), is a bill designed to streamline federal permitting for infrastructure and energy projects by reducing regulatory burdens, creating more certainty, and speeding up reviews under laws like the Clean Water Act. It passed the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee with Republican support, aiming to cut "red tape" and encourage development.

It appears to receive quite a bit of outside support:

https://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408833

Having looked into this bill, calling it the PERMIT Act is a bit of subterfuge. It only addresses the Clean Water Act, perhaps with reasonable changes and perhaps not.

@Lisa Ryers @Sara Mason @Gary Seng

This new post might help address some questions about specific bills on permitting reform. We are not taking a position on any of the individual bills. We appreciate that offices would like to know our opinion on individual bills and we are very happy they are engaging in the conversation, we are instead focused on a comprehensive package as Dana has also mentioned in this full forum string.