Reforming permitting to build infrastructure

Building big infrastructure projects in the U.S. is expensive and slow. The cost of building a mile of interstate highway tripled in the later part of the 20th century, and constructing urban transit in the U.S. costs three times more than in other developed countries. Meanwhile, essential projects such as renewable energy generation are regularly delayed or canceled due to protracted permitting processes, often despite clear environmental and societal benefits. The average environmental impact statement requires over two years to produce, and litigation, even if unsuccessful, can delay projects by additional months or years. These inefficiencies not only impede economic growth and the green energy transition but also likely worsen inequality: while wealthier communities are better able to advocate for accommodative project changes, poorer communities often bear the brunt of limited energy, transportation, and other development.

A significant contributor to these shortcomings is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the centerpiece of the federal government’s environmental permitting regime. Originally enacted in 1970 to embed environmental considerations and democratic accountability in public infrastructure decisions, NEPA has done a lot of good. But NEPA now imposes complex procedural requirements that can take years to fulfill—and it can do a lot better. Recent legislation has helped by imposing time limits for environmental review, but little has been done to address the underlying causes of procedural bottlenecks, high costs, and inequitable outcomes.

This paper proposes legislative actions to reform NEPA. The proposal seeks to streamline permitting by balancing a reduction in back-end litigation with more robust and inclusive front-end planning, preserving its core values while adapting it to modern needs. The reforms are organized into four solutions:

1. Shifting legal power: Judicial oversight should be curtailed to reduce excessive litigation. This includes reforming the “hard look” standard courts use to assess agency actions, limiting the range of alternatives agencies must consider, shortening statutes of limitations for lawsuits, restricting standing to sue, and limiting the scope of judicial injunctions.
2. Facilitating popular decision-making and negotiated agreements: Since the permitting process often pits government agencies against fragmented community opposition, we need new tools to foster popular decision-making and negotiated agreements that would bindingly preclude litigation. These could include mechanisms like local legislative approval, compensation through community benefit agreements, or more experimental models in which the government would designate a representative set of interest groups to negotiate on the public’s behalf.
3. Strengthening state capacity: A well-functioning permitting regime requires well-resourced institutions. Agencies should be able to expand staffing, collect better data, coordinate their efforts, and make greater use of categorical exclusions and expedited reviews—especially for critical clean energy and transit projects.
4. Improving public participation: A more democratic and equitable permitting process requires early and broad-based outreach. Such outreach should include not only the most vocal opponents but also previously marginalized groups and those who would stand to benefit from planned development. Experimentation with new models to ensure diverse stakeholder involvement should be encouraged.

Taken together, these reforms comprise a “green bargain,” speeding construction and lowering costs, allowing the construction of the infrastructure needed for the green transition, and empowering the broader public—especially lower-income communities most hurt from failing infrastructure—over narrow interests. By pairing efficiency-enhancing changes with deeper community engagement, the proposed legislative package charts a path forward that honors NEPA’s original spirit while adapting it to today’s economic, environmental, and social realities.

Read the paper