The industry will struggle to grow under a permitting regime defined by political caprice.
The industry will struggle to grow under a permitting regime defined by political caprice.
W hen it comes to energy policy, former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump disagree on nearly everything, but they have embraced the same governing instinct: the belief that the White House should be able to decide which forms of energy America is allowed to pursue, as well as who wins and who loses. This approach has produced years of uncertainty, delayed investment, and increasingly strained an energy system already struggling to meet rising demand.
As electricity prices climb and artificial intelligence drives a historic surge in power consumption, the United States cannot afford an energy permitting system that is governed by presidential whim.
Framed as a temporary review, Biden’s 2024 decision to pause approvals for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals was widely understood as an election-year concession to progressive activists opposed to fossil fuel development. The timing could not have been worse: American LNG exports had become increasingly important to global energy security following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while domestic natural gas production was helping reduce emissions both at home and abroad. Even some Democrats and industry-aligned observers warned that the LNG approval pause risked creating unnecessary uncertainty for investors and U.S. allies alike.
Consider, too, the Keystone XL pipeline — an infrastructure project that was ready to carry Canadian oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries — which was canceled by executive order on Biden’s first day in office. The project was not canceled because the permitting process found it wanting, but rather because it had become a symbol for activist opposition.
The Trump administration has committed similar mistakes with the development of renewable energy capabilities. Its cancellation of the Esmeralda 7 solar project in Nevada, a 6.2-gigawatt development that would have powered 2 million homes and stood as the largest solar installation in North America, sent a clear signal to clean energy developers about the reliability of federal permitting on public lands. Despite the completion of a draft environmental review on the way to final approval, the promise of six new gigawatts of energy was called off. Additionally, the administration’s decision to halt offshore wind development, alongside broader restrictions on renewable development across public lands, has injected another layer of instability into America’s energy-investment environment. To compound the matter, these actions effectively halted congressional permitting-reform negotiations.
The two administrations’ motivations may differ, but the underlying problem is the same: The executive branch is once again attempting to pick winners and losers in energy markets based on preferences rather than predictable regulatory processes.
Ultimately, energy infrastructure projects require enormous up-front capital investment and have exceptionally long development timelines. Companies that plan pipelines, export terminals, transmission lines, nuclear facilities, or solar farms make decisions over decades. So when the authority that oversees permitting swings dramatically every four or eight years, the result is absolute paralysis. Investors pull back, projects stall, costs rise. The only result of this quagmire is that America ultimately builds less of everything.
The United States needs a permitting framework capable of balancing two goals simultaneously: maintaining rigorous environmental and safety standards, as well as ensuring projects can actually be completed. What’s more, these two principles should apply equally across all technologies. A serious energy strategy for a serious country recognizes that America’s strength comes from abundance and flexibility, but such a strategy is actively weakened by artificial scarcity imposed by ever-shifting political winds.
What the country lacks today is permitting certainty. Developers should not have to guess whether an approved project will suddenly become politically disfavored after the next inauguration, nor should energy policy hinge entirely on executive actions that are vulnerable to reversal by the next administration.
Congress must intervene in a meaningful and lasting way by pursuing robust permitting reform that limits the ability of future administrations to undermine entire categories of energy infrastructure. Reforming National Environmental Policy Act timelines, judicial review, transmission siting, and the labyrinthine processes surrounding the leasing of federal lands are all clear ways to restore predictability to the system while also preserving environmental safeguards. Most importantly, Congress must establish a clear permitting framework similar to what some groups are advocating for on transmission reform, where projects are evaluated based on whether they comply with the process. American companies deserve a clear rubric by which they can inform their investments and long-term plans.
America is entering an era of extraordinary energy demand. Reindustrialization, AI development, domestic manufacturing, and long-term economic growth will all depend on the country’s ability to build infrastructure at scale. That cannot happen under a permitting regime defined by political caprice. It is high time to build in America again, and no president, Republican or Democrat, should stand in the way of that goal.