By OBBM Network Editorial Staff

Donald T. Eason

What if the next time you turn on a light, the cost of that electricity was lower because a pipeline or power line could be built faster? That simple question frames a deep‑seated debate about the nation’s permitting system, a topic that dominated the latest conversation on Cure America.

From FERC to the White House: Insider Views on Permitting

Jonathan Alexander opened the discussion by recalling his two‑decade career that began at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the agency that oversees natural‑gas pipelines and the power grid. He described FERC as “a hugely important agency that does a lot of these permittings especially natural gas pipelines,” underscoring the critical role the regulator plays in keeping energy flowing.

Joining him were Marty, Vice President of Coalitions and Director of Legislative Engagement at Cure, and Travis, a former Department of Energy government‑relations official who also served on the White House’s outreach team. Their combined experience on both sides of the regulatory aisle gave the panel a rare perspective on how permitting works—and why it often stalls.

Statutes Intended to Protect, Now Used to Block

The conversation turned to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law enacted in 1970 to ensure that major projects consider environmental impacts. Alexander praised its intent, noting, “You have to take a hard look at these projects that are going to impact the environment.” Yet he warned that “a lot of groups have figured out that you can actually stop just about any project by suing on these statutory grounds.” The result, he argued, is a system where “it’s almost impossible to build anything in this country.”

Travis added that the sheer volume of paperwork fuels the problem. A typical environmental impact statement for a multi‑state pipeline can run “several thousand pages,” and a single legal challenge to a minor omission can trigger a stop‑work order, effectively undoing a permit that was already granted.

The Political Shift: From Partisan Gridlock to Bipartisan Consensus

Historically, permitting disputes were framed as partisan battles. President Obama and President Biden each issued executive orders canceling projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline, actions that were widely criticized by the energy sector. According to the panel, President Trump changed the tone by openly revoking permits for offshore wind projects, prompting a broader recognition that “the status quo is not working.” This move, they said, helped create a bipartisan appetite for reform.

“What President Trump has done is shine a light on the issue of executive authority to cancel projects,” Marty observed. “That was a partisan issue in the past. This was the key issue I would focus on.” The panel noted that both Democrats and Republicans now agree that a more predictable permitting process is essential for long‑term infrastructure investment.

Inside the Permitting Reform Bill

The Senate’s bipartisan Permitting Reform Bill aims to streamline timelines and reduce duplicative reviews. Rather than allowing each agency to complete its assessment sequentially, the bill proposes “concurrent reviews” so that multiple steps can proceed at the same time. This could shorten the permitting timeline dramatically, providing “project certainty” for investors and developers.

One of the bill’s most consequential provisions would make it harder for lawsuits to overturn permits on procedural grounds. As Alexander explained, “If it’s just a matter of the paperwork, you didn’t cross the T on page number 4,000…the single‑state veto of a multi‑state project becomes a thing of the past.” By limiting the ability of external groups to use the courts as a “weapon,” the legislation seeks to keep essential energy projects moving forward.

What This Means for American Consumers

For the average homeowner, the stakes are tangible. Delays in building pipelines, transmission lines, or renewable‑energy facilities translate into higher energy costs because supply cannot keep pace with demand. The panel argued that faster permitting would “lower prices” by allowing new capacity to enter the market more quickly, ultimately benefiting families across the country.

Moreover, the bill’s emphasis on “project certainty” could encourage private capital to fund large‑scale projects that might otherwise be deemed too risky. As Travis noted, investors are reluctant to commit to assets that could be halted by a new administration’s policy shift, saying, “No way, it’s a railroad…you can’t have that much power…the president can revoke permits for things that we’ve already gotten approved.” Reducing that uncertainty is a key step toward delivering affordable, reliable energy.

In sum, the discussion on Cure America highlighted a rare moment of consensus: both parties recognize that the current permitting regime hampers economic growth and inflates consumer costs. The bipartisan bill now before the Senate could be the legislative vehicle that finally aligns environmental stewardship with the nation’s need for affordable energy.

The full episode of Cure America is available on OBBM Network TV.