Understanding the Permitting Reform Landscape

---

Why Permitting Reform Now?

Permitting reform has emerged as one of the largest remaining climate levers — and if done right, it can unlock as much climate benefit as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). For CCL volunteers, that makes it a top engagement priority.

Several factors make this the right moment:

• It's necessary for the emissions reductions we need. Science-based climate targets require deploying clean energy at a scale and speed that the current permitting system cannot support.
• Our unique voice can really help. CCL's nonpartisan, relationship-based approach is especially well-suited to the bipartisan conversations this topic requires.
• It's well-suited to our strengths. CCL's model of constituent-to-Congress engagement is exactly what moves Members of Congress on complex policy questions.
• The research from trusted messengers is compelling. Credible data from sources across the political spectrum supports the case for reform.
• Bipartisan interest likely creates durable policy. Unlike purely partisan legislation, bipartisan permitting reforms are more likely to be long-lasting because both parties have buy-in.

Key insight: Permitting reform is now one of the largest remaining climate levers — and if done right, it can unlock as much climate benefit as the IRA. This is not a secondary priority. It's the central climate opportunity of this Congress.

---

Overview of the Politics

Recent History

Permitting reform has traditionally been a Republican priority, framed around reducing government red tape and improving energy security. But that has been changing. Bipartisan legislation — including the 2021 Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act and the 2023 debt ceiling negotiations — has already made incremental improvements to permitting processes.

The clearest sign of the policy's momentum: the Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA), an extremely robust bipartisan effort, nearly passed at the end of the last Congress. Members essentially ran out of time, not political will. That positions the current Congress well for follow-through.

Permitting Scrambles Traditional Alliances

Permitting reform is unusual in that it doesn't split cleanly along partisan lines. It splits along theories of change.

• Groups whose strategy relies on using permitting processes and lawsuits to slow and stop fossil fuel infrastructure are least likely to support reform — regardless of their ideology.
• Environmental groups have historically been among the most frequent opponents of all types of energy infrastructure projects, including clean energy.
• The underlying research on the climate benefits of permitting reform is so compelling that it has split environmental and climate groups, with many prominent voices now supporting reform.

Key Insight: Support or opposition to permitting reform depends more on theory of change than on ideology. CCL's approach is to evaluate whether a given reform package is a net benefit for the climate, and to engage accordingly, regardless of who else is on which side.

Strange Bedfellows

Both clean energy companies and fossil fuel companies support permitting reform — every company wants efficient permitting for their projects. This creates unusual coalitions. The key question CCL always asks is whether a given permitting reform bill will be a net benefit to clean energy and the climate.

The Energy Permitting Reform Act drew support from a remarkably broad coalition including environmental organizations, clean energy trade associations, labor unions, and business groups — reflecting the wide recognition that the current system isn't working for anyone trying to build anything.

Parties' Permitting Priorities

• Republicans view permitting reform through a lens of reducing government red tape, ensuring that laws and regulations are used only for their intended purpose, and advancing affordability and energy security. Permitting reform is typically consistent with 'all of the above' energy policy and 'energy dominance' framing.
• Democrats are primarily motivated by the need to build clean energy faster to address the climate crisis, and by affordability concerns. They want to protect legacy environmental laws and meaningful community engagement. Many also worry that the Trump administration won't abide by any deal and will continue blocking clean energy regardless.

Key Messaging Tie-Ins

Across both parties, these frames tend to resonate when discussing permitting reform:

• Affordability — cheaper electricity through better grid access
• Energy security — reducing dependence on foreign energy and unreliable supply chains
• Geopolitical strength — America's ability to compete and lead on energy
• Competitiveness — attracting manufacturing and data center investment
• Jobs — construction, manufacturing, and long-term energy sector employment
• Red tape — removing bureaucratic obstacles to getting things built

---

Challenges to Be Addressed

Naming the Tension

Honest engagement on permitting reform requires acknowledging a real tension: the same environmental review processes that have protected communities and ecosystems from harmful development are now frequently delaying the clean energy infrastructure we urgently need.

Some environmental groups oppose permitting reform and are forming new coalitions to resist it. For many environmental and climate advocates — and many Democratic Members of Congress — the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is sacrosanct. There is also a legitimate concern that any permitting reform package will also benefit fossil fuel projects, not just clean energy.

CCL's approach is to evaluate reforms based on whether they are a net benefit for the climate — supporting changes that reduce climate pollution while maintaining meaningful environmental review and community engagement.

Key Concepts Requiring Compromise

The most contested issues in permitting reform negotiations include:

• NEPA and judicial reforms — Including changes to environmental review timelines, lawsuit statutes of limitations, and how courts handle energy cases
• Electrical transmission lines — Especially federal backstop permitting authority and regional/interregional transmission planning requirements
• Community engagement — How to ensure meaningful local input without creating permanent veto points that can block needed projects
• Clean Water Act Section 401 — State authority to veto projects crossing their territory, which has been used against fossil fuel projects and could be used to stop transmission lines
• Critical minerals mining — Mine permitting timelines that are far longer in the U.S. than in peer countries, creating supply chain vulnerabilities for the clean energy transition
• Other specific energy technologies — Including offshore wind, onshore wind, solar on federal lands, geothermal, and nuclear power

---

Data from Trusted Messengers

Most Energy Projects Waiting to Connect Are Clean

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory data shows that the overwhelming majority of energy projects currently in the interconnection queue — waiting to connect to the grid — are clean energy projects: solar, wind, and battery storage.

Most New Power Generation Is Clean

In 2025, U.S. power demand grew by approximately 2.6% — the largest increase in years, driven by data centers, electrification, and manufacturing. Over 90% of new U.S. power capacity added in 2025 came from clean sources. Clean energy isn't a niche — it's the dominant source of new power in America.

Texas as a Preview

Texas offers a glimpse at what faster grid buildout can look like. The state has built an extraordinary amount of wind and solar capacity in part because it’s easier to permit and build stuff there. Texas now has more installed wind capacity than any other state and is a leader in solar as well. A national permitting system that worked more like Texas's best practices could dramatically accelerate the clean energy transition.

The Climate Pollution Numbers

RMI analyzed the Energy Permitting Reform Act alongside FERC Order 1920 and estimated that transmission permitting reforms alone could avoid approximately 6.5 billion tons of CO₂ equivalent cumulatively through 2050.

Policy	Estimated Avoided Emissions
Original IRA	~6–7 billion tons
IRA (preserved post-OBBBA)	~1–2 billion tons
Transmission permitting reform	~6.5 billion tons

The climate impact of permitting reform is the equivalent of restoring the IRA, and then some. This makes it the defining climate policy opportunity of the current Congress.

---

Bipartisan Validators

One of the most useful things CCL volunteers can bring to a lobby meeting is evidence that permitting reform has credible, bipartisan support — not just from industry, but from lawmakers and thought leaders across the political spectrum.

"We should make federal permitting faster and more efficient, all while incentivizing project developers to engage with stakeholders early on in the process." — Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

"There's no question that we need both permitting reform and a kind of change in our attitude around this stuff." — Bill McKibben, climate author and activist

"We all agree, permitting reform needs to be done, and I think we can get it across the finish line." — Sen. John Curtis (R-UT)

Bipartisan Legislative Proposals

Formal bipartisan proposals reinforce that this is not a partisan issue:

• Problem Solvers Caucus framework — A bipartisan House group has advanced a permitting reform framework that includes provisions on transmission line designation, interregional transmission planning, and grid-enhancing technologies.
• National Governors Association letter — 13 governors from across the political spectrum have written to Congress calling for action on energy permitting reform, reflecting the reality that states feel the bottleneck acutely.

---

CCL's Role and Next Steps

Why CCL Is Well-Positioned

CCL's nonpartisan, relationship-based model of advocacy is especially well-suited to permitting reform. This is a topic where the most effective conversations are ones grounded in local context, economic benefits, and shared values — not partisan framing. CCL volunteers have exactly those conversations.

CCL's approach is to evaluate permitting reforms on whether they are a net benefit for the climate. We support changes that accelerate clean energy deployment while maintaining strong environmental review and meaningful community engagement. We're not locked into any particular legislative vehicle — we're focused on outcomes.

CCL's Four Permitting Priorities

• Transmission Reform — Expanding the grid to unlock clean energy's potential (the single highest-impact permitting priority for the climate)
• Build Faster — Reforming NEPA and judicial processes to speed up clean energy permitting
• Fair Permitting Certainty — Ensuring that approved projects can actually be built, regardless of which party is in the White House
• Community Engagement — Ensuring local voices are meaningfully included in permitting decisions