America seems to have lost its knack for building, mainly due to a complicated permitting process that delays projects for years—or even prevents them from happening altogether. However, a new bill might change this, potentially allowing the U.S. to finally construct some much-needed energy infrastructure that could help lower prices.
This current gridlock in progress was glaringly highlighted this year when the conflict in Iran disrupted tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, leading oil prices to surge from around $70 to roughly $100 per barrel in just weeks. Consequently, gas prices at the pump soared, along with costs for natural gas, fertilizer, electricity, and other essentials.
Although America has managed to handle the supply shock better than many other countries—thanks largely to our shale production—the buffer is thinner than it should be. Every halted well, pipeline, port, and power line represents a missing shock absorber in U.S. infrastructure. Energy security equates to national security; a country unable to build cannot ensure its own safety.
The bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, introduced on September 30 by Senate committee leaders, intends to address the permitting deadlock through straightforward reform. It proposes a one-year timeline for environmental assessments and a two-year timeline for comprehensive impact statements. It also shortens the time for opponents to file lawsuits to 150 days instead of six years.
Additionally, the bill seeks to refine Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, preventing states from blocking pipelines on unrelated grounds to water quality. It allows projects to advance even while agencies resolve identified paperwork issues, and it safeguards permits from being rescinded by future administrations. This could be the most significant permitting reform in over a generation.
This change is urgently necessary. For instance, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which transports natural gas for 300 miles from West Virginia to southern Virginia, endured a nine-year permitting process. The National Environmental Policy Act has become the most litigated environmental legislation in the nation, with Section 401 often misused by some states as a tool to veto any interstate pipeline proposals.
This is occurring at a time when electricity demand is anticipated to increase by 25% by 2030, driven by new factories, data centers, and electric vehicle charging stations coming online. While the current bill makes significant strides in reforming the permitting process, there’s still room for improvement—particularly in expanding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authority to determine where interstate transmission lines should be located.
At the moment, states dictate the paths for most power lines, while FERC possesses only a limited “backstop” authority, applicable only in corridors designated by the Energy Department—an entity that has not yet created any such corridors. The legislation removes this step, allowing FERC to permit lines of 230 kilovolts or more directly, provided they meet public interest, consumer benefit, and reliability criteria.
Expediting the construction of beneficial transmission lines is commendable, but the fundamental issue lies in who bears the costs. The bill stipulates that expenses for lines approved by FERC must be distributed to customers “roughly commensurate” with the benefits they receive, ensuring that those receiving no or minimal benefits aren’t charged, which seems quite fair.
However, the definition of “benefits” can be determined by regional grid operators using their own models and assumptions, which may stretch the truth at times.
There are precedents for this. In 2024, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), covering 15 states from Louisiana to North Dakota, endorsed a $22 billion project for high-voltage lines designed mainly to help states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan meet their renewable energy targets with distant wind and solar resources. Because these lines were viewed as “multi-value” projects, the expenses were distributed regionally.
Regulatory bodies from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Montana—states devoid of renewable energy mandates—complained to FERC, arguing that the claimed benefits were exaggerated and the arrangement unfairly allowed states with ambitious “green” goals to pass their higher transmission costs onto neighbors with differing preferences. MISO’s independent market monitor has also raised similar issues.
Now, picture granting FERC the authority to sanction such lines despite state objections. Households in red states that opted out of expensive and inefficient solar and wind mandates could find the costs of blue-state mandates reflected in their electricity bills.
The One Big Beautiful Bill correctly phased out the open-ended tax credits for wind and solar from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. It would be unfortunate if permitting reform ended up quietly reintroducing that subsidy through utility pricing, where it’s less visible and harder to repeal.
Fortunately, there are straightforward fixes to safeguard families. Congress can more accurately define “benefits” to encompass reliability improvements, congestion relief, and quantifiable savings for paying customers—rather than aligning with another state’s policy mandates. Furthermore, these benefit claims can undergo independent market-monitor scrutiny before FERC gives its approval.
This doesn’t necessitate eliminating the bill’s core provisions. Americans would gain significantly if Congress adopted a mend-it-don’t-end-it approach to ensure genuine energy dominance without bogus gimmicks that risk reviving subsidies that voters have already rejected.
