February 2026 Vol. 81 No. 2
Features
Inside Infrastructure: Significant recent action means future of permit reform lies in the Senate
By Eben M. Wyman, Wyman Associates
(UI) — Permitting reform remains a critical topic in the energy and construction industries, affecting the pace and feasibility of major infrastructure projects ranging from, natural gas and oil pipelines, to broadband expansion, to water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, and more.
Securing project permits takes too long, costs too much and creates uncertainty that delays projects and raises prices. While permit reform has long been the top priority in the energy and construction industries and their Republican allies in Congress, in recent years both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to major reforms now that renewable energy projects are also suffering from outdated permitting processes.
Federal permitting refers to the legal and procedural requirements that must be satisfied before large infrastructure projects can proceed. These requirements are grounded in statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and others. The process typically involves multiple federal agencies, state government and tribal authorities, each with its own mandates and review criteria. Environmental impact assessments, public comment periods and interagency consultations are all elements of the permitting process.
For many projects, obtaining a federal permit is the most time-consuming and costly step, often requiring years of analysis and negotiation. The complexity of the process is heightened by overlapping jurisdictional requirements and if/how there is a need to address cumulative, indirect and speculative environmental impacts associated with a given project.
While these safeguards are intended to protect the environment and public health, they can also create uncertainty for project developers, investors and communities relying on new infrastructure. Delays resulting from lengthy reviews and litigation increase project costs, discourage investment and postpone the delivery of critical services. In sectors such as energy and construction, permitting bottlenecks are well-known as major obstacles to meeting national goals for modernization, resiliency and economic competitiveness.
Now that this has become a bipartisan issue, the debate over permitting reform has intensified, and policymakers and industry stakeholders seek to balance timely project approvals with robust safeguards for environmental and community interests.
Let’s look at what’s in play.
While progress has been made, we seem to be in a better position right now than ever to achieve comprehensive reform. Two key pieces of legislation – the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act and the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act – were approved by the House of Representatives late last year but still face hurdles in the Senate. At the same time, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken recent regulatory action aimed at modernizing how states and tribes exercise permitting authority under the Clean Water Act Section 401 (CWA Sec. 401).
SPEED Act
The SPEED Act (HR 4776), introduced in July 2025 by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Representative Jared Golden (D-Maine), represents a bipartisan effort to modernize NEPA-related permitting. The PERMIT Act (HR 3898) seeks to streamline reviews for infrastructure projects and clarify agency responsibilities under the CWA. Together, these bills address concerns about inefficiency and uncertainty in the permitting process, aiming to accelerate project delivery, while maintaining core environmental protections.
The SPEED Act stands out as a major proposal to revise NEPA – the foundational statute governing environmental reviews for federal actions. NEPA requires agencies to assess the environmental impacts of significant projects, which often triggers comprehensive studies and extensive public input. While NEPA’s goals are widely supported, the outdated process has become increasingly complex, sometimes resulting in prolonged delays lasting multiple years.
The SPEED Act seeks to address these challenges through targeted reforms. The main objectives include:
- Scope: Agencies would be required to only evaluate environmental impacts that have a reasonably close causal relationship to the project, excluding speculative or non-proximate effects.
- Setting clear deadlines: the bill establishes firm timelines for environmental reviews and requires agencies to determine application completeness within 60 days.
- Reforming judicial review: the SPEED Act would prevent federal agencies from rescinding or altering completed environmental documents unless ordered by a court or agreed to in writing by the applicant. The bill would also shorten the statute of limitations for NEPA legal challenges to 150 days.
- Reducing duplication: the SPEED Act allows federal agencies to rely on environmental reviews previously completed under other federal or state laws if they serve a similar function to NEPA.
- Providing project certainty: the bill prohibits federal agencies from withdrawing or rescinding completed environmental documents for political reasons unless a court order is issued.
By streamlining the scope and focus of NEPA reviews, the SPEED Act aims to reduce duplication, shorten timelines and provide greater certainty for project sponsors.
The SPEED Act’s approach is rooted in the principle that permitting reviews should be proportionate and targeted. Agencies would be required to focus on direct impacts, ensuring that resources are devoted to analyzing the most-relevant environmental issues. Projects with overlapping review requirements would benefit from consolidated processes, avoiding redundant studies and conflicting recommendations.
Redefining “major federal action” is another core element. By clarifying which actions trigger NEPA, the SPEED Act seeks to prevent minor or routine activities from being caught in lengthy review processes, freeing up the EPA’s capacity to address larger, more significant projects.
If enacted, the SPEED Act and related reforms could have far-reaching implications for infrastructure development in the United States. Supporters argue that more efficient permitting would accelerate construction timelines, lower costs and enhance the nation’s ability to respond to urgent needs such as energy security, housing affordability and climate adaptation.
Critics, especially in the ‘environmental community,’ caution that narrowing review scopes would reduce oversight, potentially leading to unforeseen environmental harms or diminished public input. They emphasize the importance of maintaining rigorous standards and ensuring that affected communities have meaningful opportunities to participate in decision-making.
The balance between speed and scrutiny is central to this debate. While permitting reform promises economic benefits and faster project delivery, it also raises questions about the adequacy of environmental protections and the role of public engagement in shaping infrastructure outcomes.
PERMIT Act
The PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) is a stand-alone permitting reform bill focusing on federal environmental permitting related to state water quality standards. It was passed by the House in December 2025 and moved to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for further consideration.
The legislation would address two sections of the CWA. Sec. 401, which allows states to participate in the certification process to ensure that project applications are consistent with state water quality standards. All too often, certain states use this authority to delay and even terminate critical projects for political reasons, not to ensure water quality.
The PERMIT Act would clarify that states may only consider water quality impacts, not broader climate or land-use issues. It would also impose firm deadlines for state action on CWA Sec. 401 certifications. Importantly, the bill would prevent repeated requests for additional information, in order to ‘run out the clock’ on the permitting process, which occurs regularly.
Unfortunately, the goal is often not related to water quality, but to frustrate project owners to the extent where they pull the plug on important projects. In short, the PERMIT Act would make it much harder for some states to use CWA Sec. 401 authority as a de facto veto unrelated to water quality.
The bill would also address Sec. 404 of the CWA, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States," including wetlands, to protect aquatic resources. The legislation would streamline the authority of the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ authority related to permitting for dredge-and-fill activities. The PERMIT Act would also expand eligibility for general permits in lieu of individual permits, which will lead to expedited approvals for construction, energy and other infrastructure projects involving wetlands, streams and other waterways.
The PERMIT Act would change the definition of “navigable waters” to exclude certain features like waste treatment systems, ephemeral streams, groundwater and prior converted cropland. This will narrow what waters fall under federal jurisdiction. The bill would also clarify and streamline water quality certification processes, including limiting litigation timelines.
Finally, this bill would require better coordination between EPA, the Army Corps and state agencies, which will set clearer expectations for permit completeness and agency responses.
Despite bipartisan support in the House, permitting reform bills such as the SPEED Act and PERMIT Act face uncertain prospects in the Senate. Political dynamics are shaped by differing priorities among lawmakers, regional interests and advocacy groups. Some senators advocate for stronger safeguards and broader stakeholder engagement, while others prioritize swift approvals and regulatory certainty.
The debate is further complicated by external factors, including legal challenges, changing environmental conditions and the evolving needs of states and industries. Achieving consensus on permitting reform requires negotiation and compromise, with both sides seeking to protect their core interests.
Nevertheless, the continued advancement of reform bills and regulatory actions indicates growing momentum for change. The involvement of both parties suggests that permitting reform is not merely a partisan issue but a national concern with wide-ranging implications.
Modernizing CWA Sec. 401
Alongside legislative efforts, EPA has pursued regulatory reforms to update how states and tribes exercise permitting authority under CWA Sec. 401. In January of this year, the EPA proposed new rules intended to clarify timelines, responsibilities, and the scope of review for water quality certifications. These changes are designed to ensure that state and tribal authorities can act more efficiently, reducing unnecessary delays while maintaining their ability to protect local water resources.
EPA’s modernization efforts reflect a broader trend toward regulatory streamlining, responding to stakeholder feedback for many years about the need for clearer guidance and more predictable outcomes. The interplay between legislative and regulatory actions underscores the complicated nature of permitting reform, involving both statutory changes and administrative improvements.
Outlook
Permitting reform is at a crossroads, with legislative and regulatory initiatives poised to reshape how infrastructure projects are reviewed and approved in the United States. The SPEED Act and PERMIT Act offer pathways to greater efficiency, while EPA modernization efforts demonstrate the role of administrative agencies in driving change. The challenge for policymakers is to craft solutions that balance economic development with environmental stewardship and public input. Although we have seen similar legislation advance in the past, we are in a better position than ever to make significant progress on this issue.
As the Senate considers pending bills and the EPA continues to refine its regulations under the CWA, the future of permitting reform remains uncertain – but promising. Success will depend on sustained bipartisan engagement, clear policy objectives and ongoing dialogue among stakeholders. Ultimately, the goal is to create a permitting system that supports innovation, protects the environment and empowers communities, which will require attention and commitment from all stakeholders.
Permitting reform remains one of the most consequential and contentious policy areas in Washington, with outcomes likely to shape federal infrastructure development and environmental protections for years to come. As both legislative negotiations and EPA rulemaking advance in 2026, stakeholders across industry, government and environmental communities are closely watching how balance is reached between speed, certainty and conservation. Many industry supporters of reforming the permitting process believe we are now in a stronger position to see meaningful permit reform policy enacted into law.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Eben Wyman is a veteran advocate for key underground utility and pipeline associations. He can be contacted at eben@wymanassociates.net.
Comments