By Paul J. Gessing

Federal legislation known as the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED Act) would make needed improvements to America's antiquated federal permitting system for energy projects. While Sen. Heinrich and the Rio Grande Foundation may not agree on exactly what types of projects need to be improved, we all agree that current laws make it overly difficult to unleash America's considerable energy resources of all kinds.

This bipartisan bill, HB 4776, passed the US House back in December. Permitting reform presents a generational opportunity to deliver higher wages and real affordability for working families while providing the energy resources necessary to grow our economy.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is at the heart of the issue. Passed in 1969, NEPA used to require federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of any new government construction project. But five decades of bureaucratic mission creep and agenda-driven lawsuits have twisted the original, sensible law into a black hole of costly red tape.

The SunZia transmission line, strongly supported by Sen. Heinrich, is a great example of a project hindered by NEPA overreach. The project, first proposed in the mid-2000s, did not receive full approval via NEPA until 2015, and despite securing rights of way and funding, it faced years of additional legal, tribal, and cultural review before construction finally began in 2023.

So, we're not just talking about coal plants and fossil fuel projects being delayed.

In fact, a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute called "Bureaucracy Blocks Green Progress: 9 Ideas for Democratic Permitting Reform" makes the following case for Democrats to act:

"There is a strong case that Democrats have much to gain by engaging in the permitting debate. Permitting reform cannot be a rollback of environmental safeguards. Instead, it is an opportunity to find bipartisan compromise and advance core Democratic priorities: accelerating the clean energy transition, modernizing infrastructure, making energy more affordable, lowering costs for families, and strengthening resilience against climate threats."

Again, Heinrich and I may not agree on the urgency of the energy transition or exactly which projects (both traditional and renewable) are truly urgent and necessary, but we can all agree that we can do a better job of balancing environmental concerns with economic ones.

In fact, that Progressive Policy Institute report further noted that "permitting delays have cost the United States more than $100 billion in lost investment, delayed 150,000 jobs, and led to hundreds of millions of tons of additional carbon emissions this decade. With electricity demand expected to rise sharply due to AI, manufacturing growth, and electrification, the need for a modernized permitting framework has never been more urgent."

Consider that the average NEPA Environmental Impact Statement from 2013 to 2018 totaled 575 pages and took nearly five years to complete. A quarter of them took six years or more. These delays cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars.

And even when reviews do get completed, approved projects face a gauntlet of expensive, time-consuming lawsuits. NEPA is the nation's most litigated and frivolously litigated environmental statute. According to research by the Breakthrough Institute, it takes an average of more than four years to resolve legal challenges after publication of NEPA environmental review documents.

The truth is that America needs more energy infrastructure of all kinds. We also need to balance environmental protection with reasonable timelines and the economic cost of delays. The SPEED Act does a great job of balancing these competing interests. Sen. Heinrich should support it.

Paul Gessing is president of the Rio Grande Foundation, an Albuquerque-based think tank focused on the importance of individual freedom, limited government and economic opportunity.