A version of this story was published in the Latitude Weekly newsletter on October 2, 2026. Subscribe to get pieces like this — plus a round-up of our reporting — in your inbox every Friday.
Just days after a bipartisan group of senators dropped a permitting reform deal, battle lines are already being drawn over where it goes from here. And it’s bringing together some unlikely bedfellows both for and against the legislation.
I’ve heard so far from groups representing energy companies — both in renewables and fossil fuels — utilities, environmental advocates, labor unions, tech giants, and Tribes. And their reactions are revealing.
It’s clear, and unsurprising, that energy developers and their trade groups are all for it, including the American Petroleum Institute, Advanced Energy United, and American Clean Power. They all want to make it easier to build, especially in this moment of spiking demand for power.
Utilities, though, are studiously avoiding endorsement. The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, said it’s still reviewing the transmission section, while the National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association only said it appreciates Congress’ recognition that the U.S. needs “meaningful permitting reform.” It’s telling, considering the Senate deal would significantly strengthen the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s role in transmission planning and oversight — something members of EEI and NRECA have historically opposed.
Meanwhile, a fight is brewing on the left over proposed changes to a handful of bedrock environmental laws that are aimed at speeding up permits for major energy infrastructure. Some groups, like the Center for Biological Diversity, want to sink the bill over their concerns. During a call attended by other environmental groups including the Sierra Club and Earthjustice on Thursday, Brett Hartl, CBD’s director of government affairs, suggested keeping their tactics secret from the two leading Senate Democrats behind the bill: Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Martin Heinrich (N.M). That’s according to the transcript leaked to Punchbowl News.
The Natural Resources Defence Council took a more moderate stance in its public statement. Manish Bapna, NRDC’s president and CEO, said the Senate deal comes with “stark tradeoffs.” The transmission provisions are desperately needed, he said, but NRDC has to assess whether those benefits outweigh the cost of the rollbacks to environmental laws.
Bill McKibben, one of the country’s most prominent climate activists, put it this way: “It is obvious that federal policy necessarily proceeds by compromise—the question is whether the compromise risks too much.”
Josh Freed, who leads Third Way’s climate and energy program, on Twitter defended the Senate deal, arguing that it’s a “big net-benefit” for clean energy. “Opponents of the deal need to do a lot more reflection on what they’re actually fighting for,” he said.
The reactions reflect a core tension in the climate movement: There are those who don’t want to cede any wins to the fossil fuel industry, even if they would also unlock more renewable energy, arguing the costs are too great for humanity amid rapidly rising global temperatures. Nor do they want it to be harder to challenge projects under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act.
Others argue that federal reviews under those laws often trigger lengthy, duplicative processes and lawsuits that obstruct clean energy and transmission projects across in the U.S. — the very projects needed to displace fossil fuel infrastructure.
(Many clean energy projects are delayed for another reason: Federal funding remains in limbo even years after it was awarded. My colleague Maeve Allsup reported on new data finding that the vast majority of Biden-era energy projects retained by the Trump administration earlier this year are still waiting for money. See below for our previous coverage of how things have evolved.)
My colleagues over at Latitude Studios sat down with Sen. Heinrich just minutes after the bill’s reveal, for an interview on the Critical Capital podcast, produced jointly with Crux. “Time is literally money in these infrastructure projects,” he said, adding that federal environmental reviews must be done in a reasonable time frame. “Those things have a tendency to stretch on sometimes for as much as a decade right now.”
Earlier this year, Crux published survey data showing that 94% of clean energy projects cited the federal permitting process as a factor in delayed or abandoned projects. For a typical 100-megawatt solar project, such reviews added up to $10 million in total costs — or a 10% increase.
The Senate permitting deal, among many other things, would shorten those long timelines. For example it would:
- Impose one-to-two year deadlines for NEPA reviews and allow developers to sue agencies in federal court if they miss them.
- Narrow the scope of federal actions that trigger NEPA review, exempting federal loans and upgrades to transmission lines and oil and gas infrastructure in existing rights-of-way.
- Allow federal agencies to skip the process entirely if a state or Tribal government already signed off on a project.
- Limit state and Tribal governments’ authority when reviewing projects under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Currently, they can review federally permitted projects to ensure they don’t violate local water quality standards. The bill would impose a new one-year timeline to do so, otherwise those rights are waived, and require a higher burden of proof to deny projects.
Finally, legal challenges to permits issued under NEPA, CWA, ESA, and the National Historic Preservation Act permits would need to be filed within 150 days.
It’ll take time to assess all the pros and cons of the legislation for the energy transition. But what’s clear is that enacting permitting reform during this Congress — or any for that matter — remains an uphill battle. Opposition is coming from many corners, from green groups to utilities. That said, they’ve lost some of their political influence as energy affordability has become a bipartisan cause.
Either way, lobbyists have plenty of time to get organized.
The four Senate negotiators said they won’t vote on the 412-page deal until after November midterms, a risky political calculus that just two years ago helped tank the last bipartisan permitting bill. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, already said that it makes no sense for Democrats to fold their hands in the lame duck when they could have a better negotiating position next year.
