The House Natural Resources Committee has passed a package of permitting legislation, which includes reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act meant to speed up the deployment of infrastructure.

The main bills, including the SPEED Act (H.R. 4776), had bipartisan co-sponsors. Committee Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jared Goldman (D-Maine) cosponsored the SPEED Act, which cleared the committee 28-15.

“The committee took an important bipartisan step toward lowering energy prices for hardworking Americans and building critical projects,” Westerman said in a Nov. 20 statement. “The increasing demand for electricity and critical minerals is fueling new investments, and federal permitting laws must keep up. The SPEED Act eliminates bureaucratic delays that hinder projects and restores NEPA to its original purpose.”

The bipartisan support for NEPA reform is a victory for government efficiency, economic growth and lower energy bills, he added.

The SPEED Act seeks to speed up the processing time for permits at agencies and limit opposing litigation to parties directly affected by projects. It requires lawsuits to be filed within 150 days of a permit being issued.

Golden introduced an amendment, which was approved by the committee unanimously, that would block the executive branch from revoking permits for projects once they have been approved.

“Both parties have agreed on this problem for years, and today’s support from the committee gives me hope that Congress is finally ready to take the win,” Golden said. “I’m grateful to Chairman Westerman for his commitment to earning bipartisan support for our bill, and I’m ready to get this passed on the House floor.”

Golden and Republicans said presidents of both parties have used their authority to pull permits for projects that were underway. While that will not be possible should the package become part of a broader bill that passes Congress, many Democrats said it was not enough.

Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) said during the mark-up hearing Nov. 20 that he was happy Golden’s amendment passed, noting that his state has faced the issue with the Revolution Wind project. (See Judge Lifts BOEM’s Stop-work Order on Revolution Wind.)

“All across the country, from solar projects in Nevada to onshore wind in Idaho, the Trump administration is indiscriminately canceling projects that have already been fully permitted and approved, showing that they care more about culture wars than lowering costs for Americans,” he said.

Magaziner submitted an amendment that would have made the language Golden submitted retroactive to Jan. 20, 2025, covering all the projects the administration has blocked since taking office.

“If we do not adopt my amendment, not only will clean energy projects already being held up by the administration not be covered, but also any other projects that they decide to block from now until final passage of the bill,” Magaziner said.

The amendment was not agreed to, meaning the prohibition against yanking approved permits would go into effect only when the SPEED Act becomes law.

The desire to address the Trump administration’s actions against clean energy projects goes well beyond Democrats on the committee: The 104-member Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, the 116-member New Democrat Coalition and the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus released a joint statement saying it was a pre-requisite for any permitting package.

“Ensuring that clean energy projects are treated fairly and can move forward where appropriate is the prerequisite for serious, practical negotiations on a reform package capable of meeting the nation’s energy needs,” the statement said. “Additionally, to be comfortable with any sort of agreement, we need to be able to trust that this administration is going to follow the law that we write.”

The committee opposition to the SPEED Act came from Democrats, with ranking member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) saying the bill effectively guts NEPA.

“This bill is so extreme that there’s simply nothing left in a meaningful way of NEPA if this were to become law,” Huffman said. “Now, Democrats are very interested in working constructively in problem solving. We would love to have a meaningful conversation, but it has to start with ending the war on clean energy, which this bill does not do in any significant way.”

Several other bills cleared the committee, including the ePermit Act (H.R. 4503) from Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.). The bill codifies how federal agencies should implement electronic permitting systems.

“The ePermit Act moves us toward a modern, efficient, fully digital permitting system that will cut red tape, and today’s passage brings us one step closer to delivering results faster,” Peters said. “As energy costs continue to rise across the country, it’s important we meet the growing demand for electrification, data centers and clean-tech manufacturing.”

Peters has backed reforms to how electric transmission is sited, which is under the Energy & Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction. That is one of the other committees, in addition to the Senate, working on permitting legislation. (See Bipartisan Transmission Permitting Reform Bill Introduced in House.)

ITC Holdings is one of hundreds of firms and interest groups that endorsed the SPEED Act. RTO Insider interviewed its director of federal affairs, Devin McMackin, on the prospects for legislation passing the full Congress in 2025.

“The real limit on when things can get done this Congress is as we get closer to the midterms,” McMackin said. “So, there will come a point when, certainly it will be harder to make a bipartisan deal. But I think there’s time now for Congress to do that, and it’ll depend on a lot of things. But we are cautiously optimistic that there’s a window of time right now that kind of goes into the beginning part of next year where something could actually get done.”

The SPEED Act would help the major transmission upgrades being planned in the MISO and SPP, he added.

“I think it’s reasonable to foresee that there are some number of these projects, especially the greenfield ones, that are going to need to traverse some sort of federal land or some sort of protected area,” McMackin said. “And then that, of course, triggers federal reviews under NEPA and other environmental laws, and the potential for there to be litigation, because there usually is whenever there’s sort of federal permitting processes happening.”

The SPEED Act does not render NEPA toothless environmentally. Rather, it provides better clarity for how agencies can review projects and places limits on litigation.

“Litigation is kind of the thing that can really hold up projects when you have sort of injunctions and starts and stops and things like that, and that can also really raise the cost of projects, which we’re very conscious about as well,” McMackin said.

The American Clean Power Association also supported the SPEED Act. CEO Jason Grumet said it would create key milestones throughout the permitting process that provide greater certainty for developers.

“The SPEED Act reforms are necessary to develop all forms of American energy infrastructure enabling a comprehensive response to soaring energy demand,” Grumet said in a statement. “Absent these improvements and additional efforts to support pipeline and transmission infrastructure, energy prices will spike and system reliability will be threatened.”

The Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Union of Concerned Scientists all signed onto a letter, along with about 100 other environmental groups from around the country, in opposition to the SPEED Act.

“The urgency many feel to accelerate this buildout [of better transportation systems, more affordable housing, semiconductor fabrication facilities, transmission lines, renewable energy and more] is well founded, but the SPEED Act takes exactly the wrong approach,” the letter said. “We cannot simply deregulate our way to a smarter, more efficient permitting system. Stripping away safeguards does not create better processes or stronger projects. It only invites more mistakes, conflict and harmful development.”