Proposed changes to federal environmental reviews for energy and infrastructure projects under House legislation known as the SPEED Act would reduce regulatory burdens and create more certainty for project sponsors, experts told this publication. However, the legislation lacks measures to address some of the most stubborn challenges to building out interstate transmission capacity, experts said.

Meanwhile, despite its bipartisan backing, opposition from Democrats to the bill’s stark curtailment of legal avenues for public opposition to potentially harmful projects could pose challenges to the legislation in the Senate as currently written, experts said.

Taking aim at NEPA

The SPEED, or Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development, Act advanced out of the House Natural Resources Committee on 20 November and is expected to receive a floor vote by the end of the year.

The legislation, introduced in the House in July 2025 by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), would limit the scope of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), significantly shorten the statute of limitations for challenges to NEPA decisions, provide guidance for which federal actions require review, under the law, and set time limits for courts to resolve legal challenges to permitting proposals.

Christopher Guith, senior vice president for the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, told this news service that the legislation’s measures to simplify the NEPA process would make it easier to build energy and transmission projects. The “energy source neutral” legislation, he said, aims to address regulatory challenges to development of both conventional and renewable energy projects.

“There’s been a growing consensus on both sides of the aisle that the system is broken, and it needs reform,” he said.

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has also come out in support of the legislation, saying it would remove roadblocks to developing energy projects.

“Durable, bipartisan permitting reforms that provide project certainty and speed up energy infrastructure build-out will help to keep the lights on and reduce electricity costs,” Ray Long, CEO of ACORE said in a statement.

But, while changes to NEPA reviews proposed under SPEED would eliminate some regulatory burdens for the energy sector, experts also noted the legislation leaves some of the most stubborn hurdles for interstate energy transmission development untouched.

The lack of sufficient grid capacity and long-distance transmission infrastructure is among the biggest constraints on developing new generation resources, particularly for renewables, industry watchers say. But the SPEED Act would do little to resolve challenges created by the multiple layers of bureaucratic jurisdiction that make permitting of interstate infrastructure projects a daunting task. Nor does it address questions about cost allocation that have also served as a major stumbling block for transmission.

Gretchen Kershaw, COO for energy consultancy Grid Strategies said the SPEED Act would reduce some challenges to transmission deployment. But she said the legislation doesn’t reduce the need for reforms to cost allocation, long-term planning, and interstate permitting for transmission projects.

“We hope to see a comprehensive package out of Congress that addresses the barriers to building the transmission we need. This includes reforms to NEPA and judicial review like have been put forth in the SPEED Act, but such reforms will not move the needle alone. Congress needs to address the three Ps that are holding up transmission if we are going to see real progress: planning, paying, and permitting,” Kershaw said.

Room for negotiation

A winding legislative process still lies ahead for permitting reform. And that includes a closely divided Senate, in which any permitting bill will need to win 60 votes to pass the chamber. That could ultimately open the door to a more expansive permitting package during the current term, Guith said.

Guith said he expects Senate Democrats to use their leverage in the upper chamber to demand changes to the Federal Power Act (FPA) that would more directly address the “three Ps” for transmission laid out by Kershaw.

Democrats, as a condition for any deal on permitting, will also likely seek protections against some of the tactics employed by the Trump administration against renewable energy projects, particularly efforts to rescind permits that were previously awarded to offshore wind projects, and rescissions of loan guarantees for clean energy and climate initiatives, he said, noting that some language protecting existing permits was added into the SPEED Act during markup of the bill.

Although the bill boasts bipartisan sponsorship, with California Democrat Jared Goldman joining Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Arkansas) and several other House Democrats as co-sponsors, the legislation has received significant pushback from the Democratic side of the aisle. Goldman and fellow Californian Adam Gray were the only two Democrats to vote the bill out of committee.

The committee’s top-ranking Democrat, California Rep. Jared Huffman, warned during the 20 November markup hearing that the legislation would gut environmental review under NEPA, effectively lock members of the public out of permitting decisions, and eliminate legal recourse from communities negatively impacted by infrastructure projects.

“The bill goes way too far in constraining environmental reviews, in eliminating, in some cases, transparency and public input,” Huffman said.

Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club have also voiced opposition to the legislation.

What’s in the bill?

The SPEED Act would limit the scope of federal activity that triggers an environmental assessment or review under NEPA. Under the legislation, agencies would be instructed to consider only the immediate environmental impacts of federal action when considering whether NEPA review is required for the given action.

The legislation would also cut the statute of limitations for challenges to NEPA-related permitting decisions to 150 days from the current six years for energy and infrastructure projects, and the current two years for transportation projects.

The legislation would also eliminate standing to challenge NEPA-related permitting decisions in federal court for any individual or entity that didn’t first express their concerns during an open comment period prior to the relevant decision.

The bill would also impose a series of deadlines for court action on lawsuits challenging NEPA decisions. Collectively, the timelines prescribed under the bill would require a federal court to issue a final decision on NEPA lawsuits within 240 days of first filing, and an appellate decision (if relevant) within another 240 days.