Opinion>Opinions - Energy and Environment

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

A permit should mean something. CERTAIN Act guards projects from political meddling.

Comments:

by Connor Christensen, opinion contributor - 04/19/26 1:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Connor Christensen, opinion contributor - 04/19/26 1:00 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

FILE – Pipeline used to carry crude oil sits at the Superior, Wis., terminal of Enbridge Energy, June 29, 2018. (AP Photo/Jim Mone, File)

A permit that can disappear years later is not a permit. It is a gamble.

When the federal government issues a permit, it is supposed to tell communities, investors and builders that a project cleared review and can move forward. Too often, Washington sends the opposite message. Agencies approve projects, then politics reopens them, delays them, or kills them. That instability drives up costs and stalls highways, water treatment facilities, transmission lines, and new energy generation.

That problem sits at the center of the CERTAIN Act discussion draft, which Reps. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.), and Adam Gray (D-Calif.) released in December. The bill targets two chronic failures in federal permitting. First, agencies take too long to review projects. Second, even after agencies grant permits, administrations can still throw projects back into limbo.

The sponsors say the bill would impose clearer timelines, strengthen notice requirements, and increase accountability during review. It would also protect lawfully issued permits that remain in compliance from political interference after approval. As Garbarino put it, “endless permitting roadblocks hurt communities and drive up energy costs,” and the measure would help “ensure projects that meet their requirements can move forward on time.” That matters because the country needs to build far more, and far faster, than it has in decades.

In January, the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast the strongest four-year growth in electricity demand since 2000, driven largely by rapid data-center expansion. Meeting that demand will require more generation, more transmission and more supporting infrastructure. Any serious debate about affordability, reliability, or competitiveness leads to the same question: Can the United States still build what it needs when it needs it?

Congress has already shown why that question matters. During a Senate Environment and Public Works hearing in January, senators from both parties agreed that administrations should not cancel or delay fully approved projects just because political priorities change. In March, Democrats said they were ready to resume talks after officials made progress on stalled renewable applications. Both parties have suffered under permit uncertainty.

Republicans watched political pressure and Endangered Species Act litigation derail fully permitted oil and gas pipelines. Democrats now watch administrations freeze permits for near-complete offshore wind projects. Yet Washington still has not passed legislation that would protect permitted projects from the party that controls the executive branch.

China makes this problem look even worse. The International Energy Agency says China’s clean energy investment topped $625 billion in 2024, and it expects China to put about $88 billion into transmission and distribution in 2025.

China also expanded coal use by 7 percent last year and now accounts for more than half of global coal consumption. The United States should not copy China’s political system. Americans should defend public debate, legal review and democratic limits on power. But when Washington drags out reviews and then reopens settled decisions for partisan reasons, it turns democratic strengths into self-inflicted weaknesses. America cannot compete effectively if it keeps making it harder to build than it needs to.

Permit certainty matters far beyond any one industry. It reflects institutional seriousness and serves the broader economy. The same principle should apply to an LNG pipeline, a transmission line, a geothermal plant, a critical mineral mine, or a wind farm. A credible permitting system cannot protect only the projects one coalition favors. It should invite objections during review and deliver finality after review. Otherwise, every permit becomes a bet on the next election.

In February, more than 600 organizations signed a letter urging the Senate to pass bipartisan, comprehensive permitting reform. That letter reflected a simple idea: A permitting system should operate efficiently, transparently and predictably. It should earn public confidence. It should also support conservation and economic growth at the same time.

The CERTAIN Act will not solve every permitting problem. Congress still needs to address staffing sh