CCL’s Fair Permitting Certainty and Key Messages
Presidents from both political parties have taken steps to interfere with the permitting of certain types of energy infrastructure that they oppose. These executive actions create uncertainty that inhibits the development of new energy sources in the United States. For this reason, ensuring fair permitting certainty is a key aspect of permitting reform that enjoys bipartisan support. Join CCL's VP of Government Affairs Jenn Tyler and Research Manager Dana Nuccitelli to learn about how Congress can ensure certainty in a permitting reform package, and key messages for congressional offices.
/topics/outreach-important-stakeholders
Why Permitting Certainty Matters
Building energy infrastructure in the United States requires years of planning, permitting, and investment. Developers — whether building wind farms, solar arrays, pipelines, or transmission lines — commit enormous resources to projects long before the first shovel goes in the ground. That investment only makes sense if the rules stay consistent long enough for the project to actually get built.
Right now, they don't. And that's a problem for everyone.
Permitting has become politically unstable. Each administration has used the permitting process to block projects it opposes, regardless of whether those projects followed the rules and earned their approvals. The result is a system where a permit is no longer a reliable green light — it's a provisional approval that can be revoked whenever political winds shift.
Key Insight
Most new power infrastructure being built today is cheap, clean energy. That means executive permitting interference is now a bigger threat to low-carbon technologies than to fossil fuels. Ensuring that approved clean energy projects can actually move forward is not just a procedural concern. It's a climate imperative.
What Certainty Looks Like — and Why It's Been Missing
Both Parties Have Contributed to the Problem
Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used permitting authority to stop projects they opposed. That's what makes fair permitting certainty a genuinely bipartisan concern.
The Biden administration blocked or paused a significant number of fossil fuel projects:
- Revoked the Keystone XL pipeline permit
- Canceled Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil and gas leases
- Paused liquified natural gas export terminal permits
- Banned new Powder River Basin coal permits
- Banned most new offshore oil and gas leasing
The Trump administration then moved against clean energy projects:
- Stopped already-permitted offshore wind projects
- Required that solar and onshore wind project permits receive approval from the Secretary of Interior
You may have strong views about whether any of these specific decisions were correct on the merits. But the pattern itself — using executive authority to override permits based on political preference rather than legal processes — creates a system that can't be trusted by investors, workers, or communities.
What Certainty Actually Means
Permitting certainty doesn't mean every project gets approved. It means that when a project follows the rules and earns a permit, that permit means something. Specifically:
Predictable — The criteria for permitting decisions are clear and applied consistently, so developers know what to expect.
Consistent — Decisions aren't reversed when administrations change, absent genuine legal cause.
Timely — Agencies make decisions within established timeframes, rather than letting applications sit indefinitely.
As Senator Shelley Moore Capito put it: "Without Congressional action, we will continue to see the pattern of the last two decades. Each new administration will reverse the policies of the last, eroding trust of American businesses and workers and ensuring we cannot plan or build for either the present or for our future."
Senator Martin Heinrich framed the goal this way: "We have to figure out a way to insert more certainty for both sides and for traditional and new clean generation. Like, how do we make it about whether you check the actual boxes that are relevant to the permit, and you insulate it from the politics?"
Why This Has Become Central to Permitting Reform Negotiations
Permitting certainty isn't a side issue in current negotiations — it's become a hinge point. Senate Democrats walked away from permitting talks in late 2025 after the Trump administration moved against offshore wind projects. Talks resumed in early 2026, and the question of how to protect permitted projects from political interference had been elevated to a central priority.
Without a credible certainty mechanism, it's very hard to build the bipartisan coalition needed to pass any comprehensive permitting reform.
Bipartisan Support for Certainty
Members of Congress from both parties have said the permitting system needs to be technology-neutral and treat all projects equally. This is one of the areas in permitting reform where genuine bipartisan alignment exists — not because both sides agree on energy policy, but because both sides have watched the other use permitting as a political weapon, and both sides want protection from that.
Two bills with bipartisan co-sponsors are especially relevant:
CERTAIN Act (H.R. 8308) — Introduced by Representatives Peters (D-CA) and Evans (R-CO). CCL has provided feedback on this legislation.
FREEDOM Act (H.R. 7329) — Introduced by Representatives Harder (D-CA) and Lawler (R-NY).
Both bills reflect the same core principle: if a project follows the rules and earns a permit, it should be able to move forward — and that protection should apply equally to all types of energy infrastructure.
Fair Permitting Provisions
The specific policy mechanisms being advanced cluster around three principles: predictability, timeliness, and consistency with accountability.
Predictability
Protect approved permits — Establish that agencies may not suspend permits or operations except in extreme circumstances, such as under a court order or a documented contractual breach.
One-shot deficiency review — Limit agencies to identifying deficiencies in a permit application only once. This avoids the potential of raising new objections sequentially, creating significant delays.
Timeliness
Firm deadlines and milestones — Set clear timelines for agency action at each stage of the environmental review process, with consequences for missing them.
Third-party contractor option — When agencies miss deadlines, allow project sponsors to hire approved third-party contractors to complete permitting work. This creates a practical backstop when agency capacity falls short.
Agency capacity assessment — Require agencies to evaluate and address their own permitting capacity. Delays often stem from resource constraints; fixing those constraints is part of fixing the system.
Consistency and Accountability
Strengthen CEQ oversight — Empower the Council on Environmental Quality to issue relevant guidance and direct dispute resolution between agencies and applicants.
Expedited judicial review — Provide a faster path to challenge agency delays or wrongful permit revocations. If an agency acts improperly, there should be a timely legal remedy.
Detailed written notice — Require agencies to provide detailed, written justification before taking any adverse action on a permit.
Compensation for unsupported adverse actions — Provide financial compensation when an agency takes action against a project without clear evidentiary support. This creates accountability for arbitrary decisions.
Key Messages on These Reforms
For Republican Offices (and Bipartisan Conversations)
Certainty provisions have broad appeal with Republican offices because they protect against executive overreach and create stable rules for investment. Lead with:
- Certainty = stable rules for investment — Businesses, workers, and communities need to know the rules won't change on them after they've followed the process.
- Projects shouldn't be stopped after approval — If a project earns a permit by following the rules, it should be able to move forward.
- Protection from executive overreach — The permitting system shouldn't be a tool for any administration to block projects it opposes on political grounds.
- Supports economic growth — Certainty enables the buildout of all kinds of energy infrastructure, which drives jobs, investment, and energy security.
- Simple fairness — If you follow the rules, the rules shouldn't change on you.
Avoid: Leading with climate, focusing solely on clean energy, or using anti-fossil fuel messaging. The certainty argument is strongest when it's framed as technology-neutral and protective of all investment.
For Democratic Offices
Democratic Members need to hear certainty framed as essential infrastructure for the clean energy transition — not a concession to fossil fuel interests.
- Certainty = getting clean energy built — Approved clean energy projects must be able to move forward, regardless of who is in the White House.
- Protect clean energy from political interference — The current administration's moves against offshore wind and solar demonstrate exactly why statutory protections matter.
- Necessary to meet climate goals — We cannot meet our climate goals if clean energy projects can be approved and still not get built.
- Urgency, not just principle — Every project that stalls is a real delay in the clean energy transition.
Avoid: Referring to certainty protections as applying equally to all energy types (even if true — that framing can confuse the message for this audience). Also avoid framing certainty as primarily about speeding things up; for Democrats, the emphasis should be on preserving environmental review while ensuring predictability and efficiency.
Ready to Test Your Understanding?
Complete the knowledge check to reinforce these concepts and earn credit for this training.
Start Knowledge Check
Why is permitting certainty considered a bipartisan issue?
- Both parties agree that clean energy should be built faster
- Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used permitting authority to stop projects they opposed, creating instability that affects all energy investment
- Republicans and Democrats have always agreed on energy policy
- Certainty is only relevant for fossil fuel projects
Both the Biden and Trump administrations used permitting authority to block projects they opposed — fossil fuel projects under Biden, clean energy projects under Trump. This pattern of political interference has created bipartisan concern about the reliability of the permitting system.
What are the three core attributes of permitting certainty?
- Speed, cost reduction, and deregulation
- Predictability, consistency, and timeliness
- Federal authority, state flexibility, and judicial oversight
- Environmental review, community engagement, and public comment
Fair permitting certainty means the process is predictable (clear, consistent criteria), consistent (decisions aren't reversed when administrations change without legal cause), and timely (agencies act within established timeframes).
What does the "one-shot deficiency review" provision do?
- Allows agencies to review permit applications as many times as needed
- Limits agencies to identifying deficiencies in a permit application only once, preventing sequential objections from delaying projects indefinitely
- Requires applicants to resubmit applications after any deficiency
- Eliminates the environmental review process for smaller projects
Limiting agencies to a single identification of deficiencies prevents the current practice of raising new objections sequentially — a tactic that can delay projects for years without ever triggering a final decision.
Why is this issue especially important for clean energy right now?
- Clean energy projects are easier to permit than fossil fuel projects
- Most new power infrastructure being built today is clean energy, so executive permitting interference is now a bigger threat to low-carbon technologies than to fossil fuels
- The current administration supports clean energy permitting
- Clean energy projects don't require permits
Because most new power infrastructure being built today is cheap, clean energy, executive interference with permitting — regardless of which party is in power — is now a bigger threat to the clean energy transition than to fossil fuels. Statutory protections matter most when they protect what's actually being built.
When talking to a Democratic Member of Congress about permitting certainty, what should you avoid?
- Connecting certainty to clean energy deployment
- Noting that approved projects must be able to move forward
- Leading with the idea that certainty protections apply equally to all types of energy
- Emphasizing the need to meet climate goals
With Democratic offices, avoid leading with the technology-neutral framing — even if it's technically accurate. The most resonant message for Democrats focuses on protecting clean energy from political interference and meeting climate goals. Referring to certainty as applying to all energy types can muddy that message.
Skip ahead to the following section(s):
- (0:00) Intro & Agenda
- (1:40) Permitting Certainty Importance
- (14:03) Fair Permitting Provisions
- (22:24) Key Messages
- (29:41) Concluding Thoughts
- Jennifer Tyler
- Dana Nuccitelli
Presentation Slides: https://cclusa.org/fair-permitting-slides
To skip ahead to a specific section go to the time indicated in parenthesis.
Intro & Agenda
(from beginning)
ExxonMobil's Statements
(7:00)
Shell's Statements
(22:30)
Team OIL Projects
(40:19)
- Liz Fisher
- Bill Bray
- Jeff Neuman
Download this episode (right click and save).
Find the episode on CCL’s iTunes channel.
Instructions for printing this page on CCL Community.