Build Faster and Key Messages

Clean energy projects often encounter long, complex permitting steps that slow construction and raise costs. Practical permitting reforms can help ensure that good projects move forward faster while upholding environmental and community protections. Join CCL's VP of Government Affairs Jenn Tyler and Research Manager Dana Nuccitelli to learn about permitting reforms to build clean energy infrastructure faster, associated tensions and compromises, and key messages for congressional offices.

Why Building Faster Matters

Clean energy is ready to scale. The technology exists, costs have dropped dramatically, and demand is rising fast. What's holding us back is how long it takes to actually build things.

Clean energy projects — solar farms, wind arrays, transmission lines, battery storage — must navigate a complex web of environmental reviews, agency approvals, and legal challenges before breaking ground. When these processes drag on for years or even decades, the climate and public health costs are real and measurable. Air pollution causes approximately 250,000 premature deaths per year in the United States, with disadvantaged communities bearing a disproportionate share of that burden. Fossil fuel power plant retirements are already slowing as electricity demand rises. Every year of delay in building new clean energy and transmission is a year of more avoidable pollution.

CCL supports National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and judicial reforms that enable the faster deployment of clean energy and transmission, provide clear and predictable permitting timelines, ensure timely judicial review so projects aren't delayed indefinitely, and maintain strong environmental review and community engagement. The goal is a permitting process that ensures projects are built responsibly and expediently, not one that removes accountability.

The Political Landscape

Naming the Tensions

This topic requires holding two things in mind at once. Environmental review processes like NEPA have played an enormously important role in protecting communities and ecosystems from harmful development. At the same time, those same processes now frequently delay the clean energy and transmission infrastructure we urgently need to address climate change.

The challenge isn't choosing between environmental protection and clean energy — it's designing a permitting system that can deliver both. That tension is real, and honest advocacy requires acknowledging that.

Where Things Stand

For many environmental groups and Democratic Members of Congress, NEPA is nearly sacrosanct. It represents hard-won protection from the harms of unchecked industrial development, and many groups have used lawsuits to stop harmful energy projects. Blue states have also stretched the Clean Water Act to block fossil fuel pipelines and coal terminals — a tool they're understandably reluctant to give up.

For Republicans, NEPA and judicial reform are top priorities in any permitting reform package. They view current review timelines as bureaucratic obstacles to American energy development.

The political path forward runs through a growing number of Democrats who recognize that NEPA reform is necessary for the clean energy transition — not in spite of their climate commitments, but because of them.

NEPA and Judicial Reforms

How NEPA Works

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of projects with a federal nexus — meaning any project that involves federal land, federal permits, or federal funding. That review takes one of three forms:

Categorical Exclusion (CE) — For routine, low-impact projects that have been determined through prior experience to have no significant environmental effects. These move quickly.

Environmental Assessment (EA) — For projects where environmental significance is uncertain. Produces either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a determination that an EIS is required.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — The most comprehensive review, required for major federal actions with significant environmental impacts. These are the most time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Only a modest fraction of projects require an EIS — but those projects are often disproportionately significant. And currently, many of those reviews take far longer than they should.

Missed Opportunities

Consider this: 28% of U.S. land area is managed by the federal government, and much of it overlaps with the nation's best solar and geothermal potential. Yet only 4% of U.S. renewable power is currently generated on federal lands. Cumbersome permitting processes are a major reason those resources sit undeveloped.

Clean Energy is Highly Litigated

Research on clean energy project lawsuits has found that solar, wind, and transmission projects face high rates of litigation — even though these sectors are widely considered critical components of the energy transition. As one study concluded: "Solar, wind, and transmission line projects exhibit high rates of litigation, even though these sectors are widely considered to be critical components of the energy transition away from fossil fuels … Judicial review of NEPA appears to significantly impact infrastructure project development in the U.S." Clean energy projects are being slowed or stopped not just by long reviews, but by extended court battles that can follow.

The 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act: A Starting Point

The 2023 debt ceiling deal included some early NEPA improvements:

• Set time and page limits for Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (1–2 years, 75–300 pages)
• Established lead agency designation to reduce duplication across agencies
• Created an online NEPA permitting portal
• Required a single environmental review document across agencies
• Allowed federal agencies to use other agencies' categorical exclusions

But implementation has been uneven — timelines aren't consistently being met, and more reform is needed.

Leading Reforms Being Considered

Congress is actively debating a range of additional measures:

Shorten lawsuit statute of limitations — The current window to sue over NEPA decisions is 6 years. The leading proposal would reduce it to 5 months. An analysis of 27 clean energy project lawsuits found that all but three were brought within approximately 150 days, suggesting a shorter window would still capture nearly all legitimate legal challenges while eliminating prolonged uncertainty.

Allow correction of NEPA procedural errors — Lets agencies fix technical process errors without restarting the entire review, avoiding unnecessary delays from minor procedural mistakes.

Use prior federal or state environmental reviews — If a project site has already been reviewed, allows those existing analyses to satisfy NEPA requirements rather than starting from scratch.

Limit new evidence after permitting begins — Prevents opponents from introducing new issues late in the process to restart or derail reviews that are already underway.

Limit environmental considerations to direct project impacts — Following the Supreme Court's Seven County Infrastructure Coalition decision, focuses NEPA review on the specific impacts of the project itself, rather than requiring agencies to analyze every downstream impact.

Prioritize energy cases in federal courts — Directs courts to prioritize cases involving energy and mineral projects, reducing the period of legal uncertainty that can freeze construction.

Critical Minerals: A Related Challenge

The clean energy transition requires significantly more critical minerals — the lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel, and other materials that go into clean technologies. But mine permitting in the U.S. already takes 7–10 years, compared to 2–3 years in Canada and Australia.

A 2022 court decision further complicated things by ruling that mines would likely be required to transport waste to private land sites, slowing permitting and increasing the carbon footprint of mining operations. Addressing these bottlenecks is part of building a domestic clean energy supply chain.

It's also worth putting the scale of mineral extraction in perspective: meeting Paris climate targets would require roughly 0.1 billion tons of minerals per year — compared to 8 billion tons of coal and 4 billion tons of crude oil extracted annually today. Wind energy requires approximately 5 times less earth moving and waste than equivalent coal generation. And unlike fossil fuels, minerals can often be recycled and reused.

Clean Water Act Section 401

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act allows states to potentially veto energy infrastructure projects crossing their territory. Blue states have historically used this authority to stop coal terminals and gas pipelines, often on grounds extending beyond water quality — including air pollution or climate impacts.

The Supreme Court's 2023 Sackett v. EPA decision already limited the Clean Water Act's reach, and EPA has begun implementing those changes. This means the Section 401 authority is a less powerful tool than it once was, so any compromise on this provision represents a smaller concession for Democrats than it might have in the past. It's also worth noting that Section 401 authority could be used against transmission lines, not just fossil fuel projects.

Key Messages on These Reforms

For Republican Offices

Republicans are already sold on the need for NEPA and judicial reforms. With these Members, the conversation is less about persuasion and more about demonstrating that CCL shares their goals while advocating for a balanced approach.

Lead with:

• We recognize the genuine need for NEPA and judicial reforms to accelerate energy development
• These reforms need to maintain strong environmental reviews and meaningful community engagement
• Responsible reform is good for clean energy, fossil fuels, transmission, and critical minerals alike

 For Democratic Offices

Many Democratic Members are wary of NEPA and judicial reforms, viewing them as potential rollbacks of hard-won environmental protections. With these Members, the goal is to expand their sense of what's possible — and what's necessary.

Lead with:

• Responsible NEPA and judicial reform is critical to accelerating the clean energy transition, not undermining it
• Being at the table in these negotiations is the best way to ensure reforms maintain strong environmental protections
• The longer clean energy projects sit in review or litigation, the longer we rely on fossil fuels
• Reform doesn't mean removing accountability — it means making the process work as intended

Ready to Test Your Understanding?

Complete the knowledge check to reinforce these concepts and earn credit for this training.

Start Knowledge Check

What is CCL's position on NEPA reform?

• CCL opposes any changes to NEPA as a matter of environmental principle
• CCL supports NEPA reforms that speed up clean energy permitting while maintaining environmental review and community engagement
• CCL supports eliminating NEPA entirely to accelerate construction
• CCL has no position on NEPA

CCL supports NEPA and judicial reforms that enable faster deployment of clean energy and transmission, provide clear timelines, ensure timely judicial review, and — critically — maintain strong environmental review and community engagement throughout.

Why is clean energy so frequently litigated?

• Clean energy projects rarely comply with environmental standards
• NEPA judicial review significantly impacts infrastructure project development, and clean energy projects face high rates of litigation even though they are critical to the energy transition
• Clean energy developers prefer to resolve disputes in court
• Federal agencies intentionally target clean energy projects for enforcement

Research has found that solar, wind, and transmission projects exhibit high rates of litigation, and that judicial review of NEPA significantly impacts project development. These are precisely the projects we need to build faster.

What did the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act do for NEPA?

• Eliminated NEPA for all clean energy projects
• Set EA and EIS time and page limits, established lead agency designation, and created an online permitting portal
• Required all projects to complete a full EIS regardless of impact
• Transferred all NEPA authority to state governments

The 2023 debt ceiling deal included early NEPA improvements: time and page limits for EAs and EISs, lead agency designation, an online permitting portal, a single environmental document requirement, and permission for agencies to use each other's categorical exclusions. Implementation has been uneven.

Why is the proposed 5-month lawsuit window considered reasonable?

• It eliminates all ability to sue over NEPA decisions
• Analysis of 27 clean energy project lawsuits found that all but three were brought within approximately 150 days, so a 5-month window would still capture nearly all legitimate legal challenges
• Five months is the international standard for environmental lawsuits
• It matches the existing EA timeline

An RFF analysis found that all but three of 27 clean energy project lawsuits studied were brought within roughly 150 days. A 5-month window would preserve most legitimate legal challenges while eliminating years of prolonged uncertainty that currently freezes construction.

What is the key message for Democratic offices on NEPA reform?

• NEPA reform is unnecessary because environmental protections are more important than clean energy
• Responsible NEPA and judicial reform is critical to accelerating the clean energy transition, and being part of negotiations ensures strong environmental protections are maintained
• Democrats should oppose any NEPA changes regardless of the details
• NEPA reform is only about fossil fuel development

With Democratic offices, the goal is to reframe NEPA reform as something that supports — rather than undermines — climate goals. Being at the table is the best way to ensure reforms are balanced. The longer clean energy projects sit in review or litigation, the longer we rely on fossil fuels.

Skip ahead to the following section(s):

• (0:00) Intro & Agenda
• (1:53) Why Building Faster is Important
• (8:03) What’s the Political Climate?
• (11:32) NEPA and Judicial Reforms
• (23:41) Other Related Permitting Topics
• (32:01) Key Messages

• Jenn Tyler
• Dana Nuccitelli

Presentation Slides:  https://cclusa.org/build-faster-slides  

Log your training

Instructions for printing this page on CCL Community.