How to Modernize our Permitting System and Let America Build

America is facing challenges of increased energy demand, strained supply chains and intense global competition. We have the resources and technology to turn these challenges into opportunities for economic growth and geopolitical advantage, but success hinges on building much-needed infrastructure predictably and efficiently. The Administration has recognized this need in their energy dominance agenda, as DOI Secretary Burgum recently said, “the United States needs to permit critical infrastructure faster.” This is why our current permitting system has to be modernized…so we can let America build.

The current permitting system has become a giant tangled mess across different federal regulatory bodies, states and local governments – and we could spend years trying to unravel each individual piece. Or, what we think is a better approach — focus on the few core issues, and commit to a step-change approach. 

Before we get into solutions, we have to understand the full picture as it stands now. America needs to double its energy production in the next few decades just to meet our own growing demand – let alone competing with the likes of China and Russia for global energy leadership.

The Current System = Unnecessary Delays

We need to build all kinds of infrastructure – roads, power plants, data centers, waste management facilities, factories, transmission lines, pipelines and more. Today, one of the biggest obstacles to building infrastructure is permitting delays. On average, you could get one or even two college degrees in the time it takes to obtain all the required federal permits to build. Let’s face the facts: that is too slow.

Projects that involve federal funding, cross state lines or use federally regulated resources (“federal actions”) are subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA was signed into law by President Nixon in 1970 and was the first of many environmental laws passed in the 1970s. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of proposed major federal actions prior to making decisions. But, it’s important to note that NEPA is not a permit – however, NEPA is often the first activity a project takes because the environmental information collected is used in other federal permitting processes. NEPA is about disclosure; it does not set standards or process approvals. Even though that is the case, the average timeline for a project to obtain necessary NEPA reviews is just under four and a half years, which may include litigation on the NEPA process.

Project developers subject to NEPA must still comply with all underlying federal laws and regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc. Each of those laws has its own permitting process, including detailed environmental assessments, public consultations, and coordination across multiple agencies. The complexity and duration of obtaining these permits can significantly extend project timelines, adding years and uncertainty to the approval process.

That is not acceptable if you’re planning to build and finance a project. Here are a few of the more egregious delays including litigation.

Egregious Permitting Timelines

Sources: 1. Renewable Energy World, 2. Trans West Express, 3. Scotusblog, 4. Mountain Valley Pipeline

We need to let America build ASAP

The good news is – this can be fixed. Each of those laws mentioned, plus dozens of others, have regulations that various federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, Department of Transportation and others review for permit applications.

But, instead of relying on multiple federal agencies to deliberate — why not make the project developer responsible from the start to know the rules and comply with them? This would allow our agencies to focus on enforcement instead of process. The U.S. also has an incredibly robust inspection and audit capability so projects will not get away with compromising environmental safety. The key here is that companies who are going to invest billions of dollars to build critical energy infrastructure and projects will ensure they are complying…and actually build.

The Administration has recognized the need to expedite permitting and identified permit by rule as a potential solution in the Unleashing American Energy Executive Order. That is a good first step, but for a durable solution, there will need to be a change in law.

One example is the Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement Act or “FREE Act,” introduced by Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT), which would enhance the efficiency in permitting across all federal agencies. Some know this as “permit-by-rule.” We call it ‘letting America build.’

The FREE Act requires federal agencies to identify and then develop permit-by-rule for some permits within their agencies’ permitting system. This means if the project permit applicant meets specific written standards developed by the agency for the permit and certifies compliance with these standards, then the agency must issue the permit. This does not mean the project permit applicant is free from these environmental laws. Quite the opposite, each project must still comply with every federal environmental and safety law … and the agencies are responsible for the enforcement of these permits and all the laws behind them.

If implemented, the FREE Act could potentially shorten time to receive identified permits from more than four years, to more like four months.

Broader permitting reform could also consider limiting litigation delays and reforming judicial review of agency actions. For example – a recent analysis found litigation delayed fossil energy and clean energy projects by an average of 4 years, AND agencies won 71 percent of those challenges. Separately, an analysis on transmission projects found 24 percent of projects that completed environmental review faced litigation, and the agency won 88 percent of those cases.

If major infrastructure projects are regularly delayed by legal challenges that are ultimately overturned, it is time to reassess whether our current system is protecting consumers or project opponents.

There is a big opportunity for Congress to look at how the U.S. currently operates its permitting system so we can continue to meet rising energy demand while still complying with all laws and environmental standards. The pace and scale necessary to build energy infrastructure projects to reliably meet America’s energy demand and reduce emissions is not something the authors of the 1970s environmental laws could have imagined. If we want our country to be energy dominant, we need a permitting system that promotes speed and safety. It’s time to Let America Build.

 

Tax Incentives Can Help Achieve Energy Dominance

The Trump administration has propelled an American energy dominance agenda poised to cement U.S. leadership in all forms of energy production. As the administration seeks to break down permitting barriers and accelerate the buildout of new energy infrastructure, tax incentives can play an important role in accelerating American innovation, lowering prices and reducing global emissions. With proper incentives in place for innovative emerging energy technologies, America’s private sector will continue to deliver reliable, affordable, clean energy to power our economy.

ClearPath has long supported innovation over regulation, with a strong preference for incentives for new clean energy technologies rather than higher taxes on American energy producers. Public-private partnerships for research and development have catalyzed many world-changing American innovations. The U.S. shale boom is a prime example, where the private sector developed new drilling technology in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1980s when the U.S. was struggling to compete with foreign adversaries. Congress then enacted a new production tax credit to scale up adoption rapidly. Once the technology sufficiently matured, the tax credit reasonably expired. As a result, U.S. consumers now have abundant, affordable, reliable natural gas produced through hydraulic fracturing. This private-public partnership has delivered a 10-time return on investment of taxpayer resources. This is just one example of how American innovation not only increases reliability and affordability for US consumers but gives the U.S. a competitive edge in the global market for energy exports. The same success story is already playing out in Europe, as countries like Poland and Romania look to the U.S. for advanced reactor technology.

Today, there is a similar dynamic at play as the U.S. experiences unprecedented energy demand growth related to data centers, artificial intelligence and an American manufacturing resurgence. These factors could push U.S. energy demand up by as much as 18% over the next decade, according to the latest data from the North American Electric Reliability Council. To meet rising demand and preserve grid reliability, the U.S. needs to rapidly deploy 24/7 reliable power, like advanced nuclear, geothermal and natural gas with carbon capture.

Tax credits can help new technologies overcome initial hurdles and rapidly reduce the cost of deployment. Early support for new technologies can be part of a comprehensive strategy to unlock domestic energy resources and make American manufacturing more competitive globally. Once technologies are proven domestically, they can rapidly reshape the global energy market, just as U.S. LNG exports have. Above all, tax credits should promote the uptake of new technologies as they become cost-competitive and not relied on as a permanent subsidy for uneconomic resources.

Tax Credits Help Push Technologies up the Innovation Curve

As part of a tax policy deal this year, Congress can use targeted policies to best position the U.S. to lead the world in energy production and prevail against China. Many of these credits have received bipartisan support in the past, which is vital to provide durable policy incentives over long investment horizons. Below are three areas for Congress to consider taking action on this year:

To build on President Trump’s goal to make American energy dominant, the private sector needs all tools available, including tax incentives and faster permitting, to meet the goals of increasing power production and lowering costs for consumers. 

Examining Policies to Counter China

U.S. House Committee on Financial Services

Below is my testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services on February 25, 2025 in a hearing titled, “Examining Policies to Counter China”

Watch Niko’s Opening Remarks
Read Niko’s Full Testimony as Seen Below

Good morning Chairman Hill, Ranking Member Waters, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today on the imperative of American energy dominance around the world to ensure our national security at home and leadership abroad. 

My name is Nicholas McMurray. I am the Managing Director of International and Nuclear Policy at ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that works to accelerate American innovation to reduce global energy emissions. Industry-informed but philanthropically funded, ClearPath runs like a business — we seek out the top private sector innovators, determine the barriers to their success, and help cultivate the environment that allows them to scale up.

The global energy landscape is rapidly evolving, shaped by growing demand, shifting supply chains, and heightened competition among major energy producers. For example, China currently has 57 nuclear reactors in operation and 28 reactors under construction. In contrast, while the U.S. has 94 reactors in operation, it currently does not have any commercial reactors under construction although several of the advanced reactor demonstrations supported by public-private partnerships are close. China also continues to finance and construct large-scale energy infrastructure in nations like Pakistan and Argentina. Nations around the world are seeking more reliable, affordable, and cleaner energy solutions to fuel their economies while breaking dependencies on predatory suppliers like China. This presents a significant opportunity for American energy dominance as U.S. companies lead in innovation across nuclear, natural gas, and other cutting-edge energy technologies. Strategic financing tools and pro-growth policies can help the U.S. strengthen its energy leadership, open new markets and counter adversaries.

The Global Energy Landscape

The world’s energy consumption is at an all-time high. Some estimates show the demand for electricity generation in the U.S. will double by 2050. Similarly, the International Energy Agency (IEA) notes that global energy demand is accelerating its growth rate. 

American private sector innovation is the key to meeting today’s rising energy demand while ensuring that the U.S. remains the global leader in clean, reliable, and affordable energy solutions. By rapidly scaling the deployment of cutting-edge energy technologies – such as advanced nuclear, clean hydrogen, long-duration storage, and carbon management – the U.S. can drive down costs and establish itself as the premier exporter of these solutions. 

This kind of commitment to innovation extends beyond domestic borders. The U.S. has demonstrated its ability to address international energy challenges. For decades, the European Union (EU) relied heavily on Russian natural gas imports, which grew in share even after the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. In one year, the U.S. surged its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports, driving Russia’s market share in the EU down from 40 percent in 2021 to 8 percent in 2023. The economic opportunity for America’s clean energy innovators is immense, with some estimates suggesting a potential $10 trillion in domestic market and export opportunities reaching $330 billion annually by 2050. More importantly, widespread adoption of these American technologies can strengthen U.S. economic and geopolitical influence while significantly reducing global emissions.

Meeting these historic energy needs at home and abroad demands a strategic approach. While the U.S. remains a leader in key areas like nuclear power operations and energy innovation, America’s competitors are rapidly scaling up their domestic and international investments. China and Russia aggressively expand their influence in global energy markets by financing and constructing large-scale projects, extending their geopolitical reach. Their strategies include nuclear, oil and gas infrastructure, renewable projects, critical minerals, and others that entrench reliance on their state-backed enterprises. For example, in 2024, China started construction on about 94.5 GW of coal capacity, which is just shy of total U.S. nuclear energy capacity. In addition, China also invested $940 billion in clean energy last year. Without a concerted effort to expand American energy production at home and exports abroad, U.S. companies risk being sidelined in rapidly expanding global markets.

The past few years have exposed vulnerabilities in global energy markets, underscoring the need for reliable, market-driven alternatives. Supply chain disruptions from COVID-19, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and China’s tightening grip on clean energy supply chains have forced many countries to reassess their energy partnerships. Some nations, such as Finland, have already backed away from Russian projects, and others, from the Philippines to Panama, are seeking alternatives to avoid excessive debt burdens associated with Chinese financing.

China and others have leveraged their financial institutions to provide generous, long-term financing to developing countries, securing energy deals that come with diplomatic strings attached. Russia, for example, has funded a majority of Egypt’s and Bangladesh’s nuclear projects. By offering full-service packages – including financing, construction, and long-term operational support – China and Russia are creating decades-long dependencies on their technologies and fuel supplies. This strategy not only strengthens their economic and political influence but also undermines energy security in regions critical to U.S. interests.

The U.S. can contend by providing competitive financing and export support for diverse energy technologies, ensuring nations seeking long-term energy solutions turn to America over global competitors. U.S. innovators are already leading in these technologies, and while federal support exists, it needs modernization to stay competitive. With the right focus, America can seize this moment.  

Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Energy Dominance

U.S. government export and development financing plays a pivotal role in advancing America’s strategy for global energy dominance. By providing financial support to expand innovative American energy technologies abroad, agencies like the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) can help solidify U.S. leadership in international energy markets. Working alongside interagency partners at the Departments of Energy, State, Commerce, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and others to level the playing field for America’s private sector leaders both strengthens U.S. energy security and promotes the adoption of innovative American solutions worldwide.

The U.S. government will not – and should not – attempt to match China dollar-for-yuan in state-backed subsidies. Instead, America must take a more agile and strategic approach, using targeted financing tools to de-risk projects, attract private capital, and create market conditions that empower U.S. innovators and manufacturers to compete and lead globally without relying on government subsidies to prop them up.

Trade and development finance prioritizes investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, energy security, and economic partnerships that benefit both the U.S. and its trading partners. EXIM and DFC provide loans and guarantees that must be repaid, ensuring taxpayer dollars are used efficiently while expanding opportunities for U.S. businesses. This approach creates American jobs, strengthens economic ties, and positions the U.S. as the preferred energy partner for nations seeking reliable, long-term energy solutions.

An interagency effort in 2019 exemplifies the influence that the U.S. has in leveraging its financing agencies to compete with China and advance international American energy dominance. To counter China’s growing influence in Romania’s nuclear sector, the U.S. launched a multi-pronged strategy, including a Department of Energy (DOE) Intergovernmental Agreement and an EXIM Memorandum of Understanding, signaling long–term U.S. commitment. This diplomatic push resulted in the cancellation of China’s negotiations to build Units 3 and 4 of the Cernavoda nuclear plant in Romania – an estimated $7.4 billion project. In 2023, EXIM approved a $57 million loan for pre-construction studies at Cernavoda by Fluor Enterprises, supporting 200 American jobs. Further, EXIM signed a letter of interest for $3 billion towards the deployment of the project, set to be operational by 2031.

In addition to the Cernavoda example, the U.S. is continuing to expand its nuclear financing activity in Eastern Europe. EXIM and DFC expressed letters of interest for multiple projects, including the NuScale small modular reactor (SMR) deployment in Romania, the GE-Hitachi SMRs in Poland as well as the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plants in Poland. 

Beyond nuclear energy, EXIM and DFC are proven valuable tools for exporting American technology abroad. In late 2024, EXIM approved a loan for over $500 million to support a natural gas project in Guyana, which will double the nation’s installed electricity capacity, drive an annual emissions reduction of over 460,000 tons of carbon dioxide and generate 1,500 American jobs. In the same year, DFC committed $126 million to a 31 MW geothermal plant in Indonesia with the U.S.-based Ormat Technologies as a part owner and developer. Additionally, both agencies are working to diversify and secure critical minerals supply chains, reducing reliance on China.

These efforts highlight the strategic value of sustained U.S. financial engagement in building energy partnerships, advancing U.S. clean energy technologies and countering adversarial influence across the globe. And these aren’t handouts, they are commercially oriented efforts that earn a return on investment – $80 million back to taxpayers in 2024.

Sharpening America’s Toolkit

Both the EXIM Bank and DFC are due for reauthorization this Congress, creating a prime opportunity to sharpen and enhance America’s foreign policy toolkit to benefit U.S. national, economic, and energy security. Other countries are bringing enormous resources to bear in an effort to dominate global energy markets, which requires the U.S. to be more agile and strategic in order to advance its long-term goals.

As America’s official export credit agency (ECA), EXIM is one of the best tools for increasing export competitiveness. An increasingly competitive trade finance landscape has transformed ECAs worldwide from lenders of last resort into proactive partners, building capacity and creating business opportunities for their domestic exporters. This shift is largely aimed at countering China’s non-market tactics, designed to eliminate competition in strategic markets and control geostrategic supply chains such as clean energy. China offers financing at favorable terms and conditions non-compliant with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Arrangement on Export Credit and Trade Related Support, which binds nations like the U.S. to acceptable terms for global trade. While China’s practices are a primary concern, other countries have already begun adapting their ECA policies to promote domestic industries, underscoring the potential for EXIM to set the pace in modernizing trade finance and reassert American global leadership.

While EXIM has made strides in the energy sector, its current capabilities limit the Bank from achieving energy dominance. Not only is China offering significantly higher levels of overall export credit than the U.S., but it is also shifting from its use of export credit to financing from state-owned commercial banks. This poses an issue as these forms of financing are often more covert and difficult for the U.S. to track and compete against. Strategically tailored reforms can position the U.S. to advance national interests by improving its global export competition in critical sectors. The following recommendations outline key opportunities to bolster U.S. energy leadership and domestic jobs while enhancing energy security in partner countries:

  1. Create a National Interest Account (NIA): 

EXIM’s current mandate does not account for the geostrategic value of investments, but Congress can fix this by creating a National Interest Account that prioritizes projects related to U.S. national interests. An NIA would cement EXIM’s role in the Trump Administration’s America First Trade Policy by leveling the playing field for U.S. companies against countries who already use similar tools to work against American interests and American businesses.

  1. Expand the China & Transformational Exports Program (CTEP): 

The CTEP program, created in 2019, was a strong first step to countering Chinese influence over advanced technologies. The NIA could prioritize similar technology areas while expanding beyond a narrow focus on renewables to support a balanced strategy for clean energy technologies such as nuclear energy, carbon management, clean manufacturing and grid infrastructure to reinforce an all-of-the-above energy dominance approach. 

  1. Default Rate Cap Exclusion for Nuclear Projects:

EXIM’s current 2% default rate cap is a unique requirement placed on the Bank that other countries do not face and discourages EXIM’s staff from meeting congressional mandates. Modifying the cap to support high capital costs technologies, like nuclear energy, would align the Bank with OECD norms and provide flexibility. This requirement, created over a decade ago and linked to an outdated lending limit, is an unnecessary obstacle. 

  1. Reinforce the U.S. Jobs Mandate: 

EXIM’s current standard to support its jobs mandate has not changed significantly since 1987 and is internal policy rather than Congressionally directed. In a memo to the Board, EXIM reported that its current standard was the largest obstacle to the Bank’s competitiveness and that it was the least flexible policy among all ECAs globally. To account for globalized supply chains, Congress could authorize a forward-looking metric to modernize EXIM’s mission to support U.S. jobs through exports. This incentivizes companies with globalized supply chains to shift to U.S. exporters in strategic industries.

  1. Bolster Domestic Manufacturing: 

EXIM’s Make More In America Initiative (MMIA) finances export-oriented U.S. manufacturers. This unique financing tool builds manufacturing capacity while working to improve America’s trade position. With a clear tie to national interests, reauthorization could codify and strengthen the MMIA by including it in the NIA. Building domestic industrial strength in strategic areas like critical minerals could allow U.S. clean energy manufacturers to establish a leadership stake in securing supply chains.

  1. Modernize the Mission: 

EXIM could update its mission to support American jobs and advance U.S. national interests. EXIM’s U.S. jobs mandate remains critically important and could be reinforced with the recommendation above. However, an additional provision to consider national interests could strengthen the Bank’s direction to proactively develop a project pipeline aligned with U.S. national security objectives, fostering a clear understanding that global competitiveness is a core priority.

EXIM’s 2026 reauthorization is a crucial opportunity to strengthen the Bank’s ability to compete and advance American national interests. However, in the short term, Congress can work with the Administration to confirm at least two additional board members to restore the Bank’s quorum. Without a board quorum, EXIM cannot approve transactions over $25 million, hindering its ability to support American businesses competing in the global marketplace. The consequences of a non-functioning EXIM are significant, particularly when we consider the economic opportunities and job growth potential lost between 2015 and 2019 when the Board last lacked a quorum. During the three full fiscal years (FY 2016-2018) when EXIM lacked a quorum, it supported only 125,000 U.S. jobs and $22 billion in U.S. export sales. In contrast, during the three prior fiscal years when EXIM was fully operational, it supported 624,000 U.S. jobs and $115 billion in U.S. export sales. This highlights the stark difference a fully functioning EXIM can make for American businesses and workers.

It is crucial that the Bank signals its long-term reliability and commitment to supporting American businesses, especially as it looks ahead to its 2026 reauthorization. A fully operational EXIM is not just good for business; it’s good for America. It supports American jobs, strengthens our manufacturing base, and enhances our competitiveness in the global economy. It is important the President and Senate prioritize filling the vacant EXIM Board seats and restoring its quorum without delay.

Finally, the DFC – created during the first Trump Administration – already established itself as a key player in the United States’ national interests for global energy leadership and in countering China. The DFC has already made notable geostrategic clean energy investments and in 2020, removed its moratorium on funding nuclear energy projects. Through DFC’s reauthorization this year, Congress has the opportunity to make targeted, critical improvements to further enhance DFC’s capabilities and efficiency, including 1) fixing the current budgetary scoring system DFC’s equity stakes; 2) increasing the DFC’s lending authority to provide the financial flexibility needed to engage in large-scale energy infrastructure projects; 3) and broadening the DFC’s country eligibility criteria to invest in more strategically significant countries and regions, aligning with U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Aligning International Financial Institutions with U.S. Foreign Policy  

International Financial Institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank also have a critical role to play in advancing firm, clean, and affordable energy infrastructure worldwide. Yet, they have been slow to align their financing with both energy security and geopolitical realities. These institutions were originally designed to support economic development and stability, but their outdated policies – including self-imposed restrictions on financing nuclear power and other firm energy sources – have left a gap that China has eagerly exploited. Over the past decade, China has dominated energy project financing, investing more than all major Western-backed development banks combined. 

Without reform, IFIs risk becoming passive enablers of China’s broader geopolitical strategy to make developing countries dependent on Chinese technology and supply chains. To prevent this, the U.S. should push for reforms at IFIs not only to lift restrictions on nuclear energy financing but also to pursue broader procurement reforms that are essential to ensuring U.S. companies – not just Chinese state-backed firms – can compete fairly for IFI-backed energy projects. The United States, as a leading shareholder in these institutions, has the influence to drive these reforms. A more assertive U.S. approach would not only counter China’s intentions but also ensure that developing nations have access to a wider range of market-driven, secure, and clean energy solutions that align with American national security interests.

Additionally, the Chinese Communist Party continues to benefit from developing nation status at the World Bank, amongst other international institutions, despite running the world’s second-largest economy. Due to this status, China continues to receive over one billion in World Bank financing each year, which would be better used to contribute to economically developing democracies. 

Another near-term step that Congress and the Administration can take is to establish a Nuclear Energy Trust Fund at the World Bank. The World Bank is one of the largest funders of energy infrastructure in the developing world, with an active portfolio of roughly $40 billion active projects in energy and extractives. The Bank is also an advisor to developing countries working to select partners and technologies. Despite this, the World Bank has no nuclear energy expertise and, by internal policy, refuses to build internal capacity. Russia and China have filled this role by exporting reactors with exploitive state-backed financing. Trust Funds are managed by the World Bank on behalf of funding partners, and complement core activities of the Bank. A Nuclear Energy Trust Fund would build analytical capacity to assess the viability of nuclear projects in Bank shareholder countries, giving the Bank expertise it could tap into when requested.

The global demand for nuclear energy is intensifying as countries aim to meet rising energy needs while curbing emissions. Over 30 countries have committed to tripling nuclear power. Relatedly, 14 major banks support this goal. To meet this interest, the World Bank needs to modernize its stance on nuclear energy, starting with building internal expertise that will allow the Bank to provide advisory services and assess nuclear projects. A trust fund could be the first step toward the Bank supporting nuclear energy, opening a major new financing source for U.S. companies looking to export, and providing objective expertise to buyer countries as they evaluate technology options.

American Innovation Will Power the Administration’s Goals

The Trump Administration has a bold vision for a reindustrialized America that leads the world in everything from manufacturing to AI. As energy-intensive industries grow, so too will the demand for power — a trend already evident nationwide. To meet this ambitious agenda, the nation must prioritize developing abundant, reliable, and affordable energy. This means building on longstanding leadership in traditional energy sources like natural gas, while also expanding into new energy technologies. American expertise in oil & gas sectors can be leveraged to capitalize on burgeoning opportunities in LNG, geothermal, and carbon capture, driving significant economic gains. The U.S. will also need to build out supply chains to match this ambition, ensuring that whatever next-generation technologies succeed, whether nuclear fission, fusion, geothermal, long-duration batteries, or anything else, that they will be made here in America.

America’s greatest asset is its unmatched capacity to innovate. The U.S. is home to a vibrant private industry aiming to demonstrate market-competitive advanced technologies. Tech companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta signaled this commitment through major nuclear energy investments, complemented by groundbreaking geothermal technologies from companies like Sage Geosystems and Fervo Energy. Furthermore, Form Energy’s iron-air battery project in Maine is set to deliver the highest energy capacity of any battery system in the world.

At ClearPath, we believe in markets over mandates. But in order to achieve energy dominance, the government must provide a predictable environment for developers — one where long-term, stable policy frameworks help unlock private investment. Congress has made significant efforts to modernize permitting at Agencies like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and at a broader scale through changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the Fiscal Responsibility Act. These efforts should increase investor confidence by creating clear and consistent pathways to market. 

Additionally, the government has provided support to the private sector through targeted tax credits and demonstration programs like those created by the first Trump Administration under the Energy Act of 2020. These programs provide financial stability and encourage the ​​scaling of new technologies like nuclear, carbon capture, geothermal, and more that can deliver reliability, affordability, and substantial emissions reductions. Maintaining an all of the above approach to supporting new technologies is necessary to ensure American energy dominance, which is fundamental to our national security but also to the Administration’s goal of reindustrializing American industry. The work of this Committee will be critical to providing certainty and predictability for companies seeking to raise capital and compete on a global stage.

Conclusion

The scale and urgency of building new energy infrastructure to meet America’s growing demand and strengthen our energy leadership globally requires bold action. The U.S. must focus on making these technologies here and selling them abroad. Ensuring American leadership in energy means having financial tools that are properly designed for U.S. companies to compete with aggressive state-backed financing from China and Russia.

Congress has a unique opportunity to strengthen American solutions by advancing commonsense policies, including modernizing development and export financing to support nuclear, LNG, and other critical energy technologies that align with our strategic national interests. By advancing smart reforms, the U.S. can unlock private-sector investment, reduce reliance on adversarial nations, and reinforce its role as the world’s energy leader.

ClearPath looks forward to working with this Committee to advance these priorities, and I look forward to today’s discussion.

Improving the Federal Environmental Review and Permitting Processes

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Below is my testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on February 19, 2025 in a hearing titled, “Improving the Federal Environmental Review and Permitting Processes”

Watch Jeremy’s Opening Remarks
Read Jeremy’s Full Testimony as Seen Below

Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for holding this important hearing. 

My name is Jeremy Harrell. I am the Chief Executive Officer of ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization that works to accelerate American innovation to reduce global energy emissions. Industry-informed but philanthropically funded, ClearPath runs like a business — we seek out the top private sector innovators, determine the barriers to their success, and help cultivate the environment that allows them to scale up. 

The United States faces intense global competition, especially in the energy sector. Adversaries like China and Russia are deploying hundreds of billions of dollars around the world to advance their geostrategic interests, with the goal of controlling the sector and connected supply chains. There is real uncertainty as to whether the U.S. will be able to effectively counter these efforts, and our current permitting regime is often cited as a major factor. Regulatory unpredictability is the single largest barrier to meeting energy, climate and economic development goals at the federal, state, and local levels.

Unmovable bureaucratic obstacles cause delays at every stage of project development. Whether it is federal permitting, lawsuits, or local opposition, there are numerous challenges to moving projects forward. These challenges are present in every infrastructure sector of the economy, from energy to housing to transportation projects. 

This challenge must be overcome for the U.S. to meet its domestic energy needs and beat the competition for resources and technology. America is at the dawn of a new age of unprecedented   energy demand fueled by robust economic growth, a revival of American manufacturing, strong advances in artificial intelligence (AI), and quantum computing. These developments have presented new challenges for the future yet offer immense opportunities for America to build big things as we once did. 

For example, over $200 billion has been invested in clean manufacturing since 2022, creating over 200,000 jobs, primarily in Republican districts. Meanwhile, the Chips and Science Act combined with regulatory reforms have supported an expected tripling of semiconductor manufacturing by 2032. Recent projects show the AI race may more than triple data center capacity this decade. Major technology companies have redoubled their efforts to deploy clean 24/7 energy to meet their needs, with the likes of Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft all announcing orders for advanced nuclear reactors. Large energy users from a wide variety of sectors have similarly made commitments to support innovative energy resources. These also include large manufacturing companies like Cummings, Dow and Nucor, which have each committed to develop first-of-a-kind projects for emerging technologies – like advanced nuclear, next-generation geothermal, clean hydrogen, and long-duration energy storage (LDES). These types of corporate commitments are essential to “build the order book” to commercialize new technologies. Realizing these tremendous opportunities for economic growth, decarbonization, and strategic geopolitical advantage all hinge on America’s ability to build infrastructure at a rate that is significantly faster than today.

The need for new sources of reliable and affordable energy is urgent. The technologies are ready, but they will not be built if they cannot secure permits on a predictable, expeditious timeline. 

In the final days of the 118th Congress, members of this Committee worked closely with members in the House and Senate in an effort to find a compromise on the Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA) led by former Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Senator John Barrasso (R-WY). While that bill did not make it across the finish line, I remain hopeful that this Committee will be able to build on those recent bipartisan discussions in the months ahead. Today’s hearing sends a strong signal that permit reform remains a bipartisan priority, and it is my hope that this hearing is the first step to passing bipartisan legislation this Congress.

My testimony will address several of the underlying issues that necessitate “step-change” reforms to America’s permitting system. 

The nation’s permitting system should demand accountability and promote good outcomes – balancing speed and safety by:

The Infrastructure Challenge has Arrived

Building enough energy infrastructure has become more urgent in the face of skyrocketing demand growth. The North American Reliability Corporation (NERC) finds that annual demand growth rates are nearly double those of the last decade, when roughly three projects were added to the grid per day. Meeting this demand growth may necessitate building approximately six projects per day or 16,000 facilities by 2035. This could equate to doubling the grid’s current capacity by adding as much as 1,300 gigawatts of new energy by 2035.  The U.S. will need an  “all-of-the-above” push to meet that need with new nuclear, lower-emission natural gas and coal, geothermal, wind, solar, and hydropower generation and new grid infrastructure. 

The geographic spread of new manufacturing, data centers, and other electric-intensive industries may be concentrated in a few regions. However, reliably serving these customers and maintaining grid reliability at the lowest cost may require broader network upgrades and deployments.  And while past periods of projected demand growth from data centers did not materialize due to efficiency gains, America’s national security and economic competitiveness cannot afford to have a permitting regime that flouts the significant project demand growth, especially from efficient AI.

Absent a thorough overhaul of the current permitting system, meeting the expected pace of  demand growth will be practically impossible. Connecting new generation assets to the grid will also require significant expansions of electric transmission, natural gas, and carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure, which will face regulatory, permitting, and litigation challenges.

A looming transmission shortage poses a direct threat to America’s energy security. Many areas of the country are already experiencing insufficient transmission capacity. This shortage has immediate ramifications, meaning that manufacturing, data centers, and the power sources they need are stuck waiting before they can begin operating. Innovative grid technologies, like advanced conductors, can unlock more capacity on existing lines, and thus, permitting new lines will be absolutely necessary. American workers, businesses, and clean energy innovators cannot delay investments to accommodate a NEPA process that takes 4.3 years on average from the Notice of Intent to a Record of Decision for an Environmental Impact Statement for electrical transmission projects and litigation that is resolved in the projects favor in 88% of cases. 

Permitting delays are already presenting a growing reliability crisis for the power sector. The importance of natural gas infrastructure to grid reliability and affordability cannot be overstated. Natural gas provides 44% of U.S. electricity needs and has simultaneously delivered significant U.S. emissions reductions since 2005. Yet, opposition of some states to the development of pipelines has contributed to blackouts during winter storms in recent years and has led to states in the Northeast relying on the highest emitting sources of energy, like fuel oil, to keep the lights on when natural gas supplies are artificially constrained. A December 2022 cold-snap caused the region to “burn more oil for electricity on a single day during…than they have in four years.” The reliance on fuel oil remains a policy choice due to natural gas supply constraints ingrained in the current permitting system.

Today, the U.S. has more than 5,300 miles of carbon pipelines across the nation. This is a small fraction of the Department of Energy’s recent estimates that the U.S. will need 30,000 – 96,000 miles of these pipelines by 2050. While that number may seem daunting, this is just a fraction of the existing 3 million miles of oil and gas pipeline infrastructure that go unnoticed every day.

The U.S., along with 30 other countries and 14 major financial institutions, has committed to tripling global nuclear capacity. This could amount to as many as 200 additional GW in the U.S. grid by 2050 in addition to keeping our current fleet operational. This equates to upward of 1,000 new reactors, depending on size. In order to meet this scale of deployment, the pathway between the order announcements of today and power on the grid tomorrow hinges on Congressional action. In the near term, it is essential that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implements the act in an effective, efficient manner and updates the way that it does project reviews to ensure that the U.S. adds more nuclear energy to the grid in a timely manner. 

Never has the phrase “time is money” been more appropriate. Regulatory delays, in some cases, that can last nearly a decade are making projects more expensive, and impeding our ability to deploy billions of dollars of capital that would create American jobs, enhance U.S. energy security, keep consumer costs affordable, and reduce emissions. 

In the final week of the Biden Administration, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published data showing that the median EIS completion time, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), between 2021 and 2024 was 2.4 years, compared to 3.1 years from 2017 to 2020. When comparing 10-year averages from 2025-2015 and 2020-2010, permitting timelines remain unchanged, underscoring the insufficiency of incremental reforms.  

However, 34% of projects undergoing an EIS took more than five years to reach a Record of Decision, highlighting the continued unpredictability of this process. Many of the projects facing the longest review timelines have the greatest potential benefits to the United States in reduced energy costs, enhanced energy independence, increased economic opportunity, and lower global emissions. 

The combination of permitting delays and politically charged decisions has disrupted our ability to build. As a result, it can now take more than three years to permit carbon dioxide storage wells from industrial sites in Illinois to California, 13 years to permit a critical minerals project in Minnesota, and up to 15 years for a new transmission line from Wyoming to Utah. Beyond those specific examples, the U.S. needs a system that ensures timely approvals of new LNG terminals as well as any necessary interstate natural gas pipelines to supply these new terminals. These are just a few of the hundreds of projects held up by the status quo of the current system.ns threatens U.S. national security, the American people, and their economic future. Congress can implement a national strategy to maximize public and private sector investments in critical minerals supply chains. 

Clarifying the Role of the National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA is often misunderstood as an environmental protection law with regulatory standards. In reality, NEPA does not impose substantive environmental requirements such as emissions limits or technology mandates. Instead, it is a procedural law that requires federal agencies to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts of their actions before making a decision to proceed. 

NEPA mandates that agencies provide the public with a “detailed statement” outlining the environmental consequences of proposed federal actions, which may include issuing permits, distributing grants, or approving infrastructure projects. NEPA is about process – not results – meaning that compliance with NEPA does not ensure specific environmental outcomes or project approval. 

However, NEPA compliance is just the first step in a broader permitting process. Permitting refers to the legal approvals required for a project to proceed under multiple federal statutes  – each of which addresses a specific environmental or cultural consideration. In concert with agencies completing a NEPA review, project developers must often obtain multiple permits under the:

Each statute requires its own permitting process, which can include detailed environmental assessments, public consultations, and coordination across multiple agencies. The complexity and duration of obtaining these permits can significantly extend project timelines, adding years to the approval process. 

NEPA does not grant or deny these permits, it only ensures agencies evaluate and consider environmental impacts. 

Obtaining a permit is one thing, but project developers must still comply with all underlying laws and regulations. Understanding these as two distinct tools – with one focused on process and one focused on real outcomes – is necessary to properly evaluate the options ahead for permitting reform.

Bipartisan Opportunities for Congress

The following are some ways Congress could improve the permitting system that range in complexity and impact. These include setting clear deadlines and expanding categorical exclusions to certain well-understood resources, to a paradigm shift that significantly changes the system by establishing a permit-by-rule approach.  

Require accountability, provide transparency, and encourage the use of modern technology, like artificial intelligence. Establishing timelines for agency action is critical to deploying energy projects at scale. Process reforms without timelines can lead to a lack of consistency when administrations change. One mechanism could be achieved through legislation that compels agencies to meet deadlines and deem projects approved if the agency falls short. The federal government should also track the number of permits in the federal agency queues at any one time in a consistent and timely manner. 

There is a clear need for more reliable information from federal agencies to better understand the number of permits under review and how long they have stuck in permitting limbo. Transparent data will help Congress better address agency funding needs in these areas to approve permits and provide the public with information about how the federal permitting system works at large.  Yes, Congress created the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, better known as the Permitting Council, which, unfortunately, lacks the legal ability to compel timely agency action and resolve interagency disputes.   

Congress could also consider the role of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other automation technologies that can help reduce the human capital burden of project reviews. While the federal government should explore how to best leverage technology in the future, a recent congressionally mandated report from CEQ to Congress illustrated that even requiring the use of spreadsheets or tracking systems would be a helpful first step in better understanding how our permitting system works today. Technology reforms are perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit for bipartisan action to streamline reviews.

Expedite Approvals. Expediting the approval process for projects that bring net benefits and comply with existing environmental laws could be an effective first step toward meeting the nation’s energy needs. 

Congress could expand categorical exclusions to permit projects in a timely manner. Categorical exclusions are a one-time determination under NEPA that certain activities do not warrant the need for the substantial data collection and review that comes with site-specific environmental assessments (EA) or environmental impact statements (EIS). A categorical exclusion requires the agency to determine whether an activity does not individually or cumulatively negatively impact the environment. However, categorical exclusions still require agency decisions specific to each site. Expanding categorical exclusions could be a useful next step to accelerate low-impact energy projects like geothermal exploration by eliminating redundant reviews.

Permit-by-Rule: Another approach to streamlining permits is for Congress to create a permit-by-rule system for obtaining federal permits. Permit-by-rule expedites reviews by the agency by Congress and/or the agency establishing predetermined criteria for a defined permit to be issued for a project at the planning and design phase. Instead of undergoing a case-by-case review, applicants would assess the criteria, take the necessary steps to comply, and submit a notice of compliance to the permitting agency – along with necessary proofs and certifications – to receive a permit. Once submitted and reviewed, that permit is automatically issued, allowing construction to begin.  

This approach eliminates case-by-case government reviews and analysis. It also shifts the federal government’s role from gatekeeping to compliance enforcement, ensuring substantive standards are promulgated to protect public health, safety, and the environment. 

At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already implemented permit-by-rule systems for certain activities, including ocean disposal, injection wells, and treatment works facilities. The EPA’s model simplifies the permitting process, providing a potential framework for other federally regulated industries, such as the energy sector, to adopt. 

Permit-by-rule is not limited to federal regulations. Many states have also embraced this approach. At least 26 states have implemented permit-by-rule systems, including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Utah. These state permit-by-rule systems cover a wide range of activities, from hazardous waste management to pharmaceutical take-back programs. Each state has its own criteria tailored to fit its specific needs and risk assessments, demonstrating the flexibility and effectiveness of this permitting approach.

Permit-by-rule can offer significant benefits with a balance between streamlining procedures and safeguarding public health, safety, and the environment. To do this, the criteria must be well-defined, periodically reviewed, and aligned with the overall regulatory framework. 

Place-Based Streamlining: Similarly, encouraging development in certain prequalified geographic areas could go a long way toward accelerating projects with the lowest impact. Such areas could include previously disturbed lands or well-categorized sites, such as brownfield sites that present opportunities to use existing electrical or mechanical infrastructure. The environmental impacts to these locations related to energy deployment are minimal, and in many cases, these locations are in or near communities that need the redevelopment most urgently. Congress could also consider regulatory incentives to direct investment toward areas where impacts are already well understood.

Litigation Reforms: To make any of the suggested improvements in permitting more effective, Congress could seek to narrow the scope of legal challenges against approved projects and streamline judicial review of agency actions. The current system is overwhelmingly tilted in favor of those seeking to delay or block projects. Nearly every major energy and infrastructure project faces litigation that often drags on for years over minor procedural details buried within agency reviews. This results in years of additional analysis that often changes little to nothing about the project. Meanwhile, injunctions halt progress, paralyzing the project and jeopardizing investments. Litigants exploit these delays, knowing that time is money. By repeatedly filing lawsuits, they aim to stretch the process until developers run out of funding and abandon their projects. This uncertainty affects all energy and infrastructure projects from pipelines and transmission lines to manufacturing facilities, where delays drive up development costs, and discourage investment. Congress could limit legal challenges to clear and material errors under natural resources laws, narrow the scope of review, and enforce statutory timelines for resolving disputes. Without these changes, billions in investment and years of progress will continue to be wasted, undermining the nation’s ability to build the infrastructure needed for energy and economic security.

Last Congress, H.R.1, the Lower Energy Costs Act included provisions requiring legal disputes be resolved in less than one year – a critical step in the right direction. Other major House and Senate permitting proposals include injunctive relief, standing clarifications, and deadlines on the statute of limitations. However, judicial unpredictability is among the biggest wildcards in the current permitting system.  Last Congress saw a variety of proposals seeking to do the same, the RESTART Act, introduced by Sen. Capito (R-WV), the REPAIR Act, introduced by Sen. Cassidy (R-LA), and the PEER Act of 2023 introduced by former Sen. Carper (D-DE) and Sen. Schatz (D-HI), all proposed reforms to reduce the years-long uncertainty tied to legal challenges. 

Recent bipartisan proposals can provide a roadmap to restore balance to the system. The Fix Our Forests Act offers a strong starting point to balance the needs of local communities with a more predictable process. A more predictable process benefits all parties involved, allowing claims to move forward when real harms occur while limiting litigation that merely seeks to delay or cancel projects. 

The pace and scale necessary to build energy infrastructure projects to reliably meet America’s energy demand and reduce emissions is not something the authors of the 1970s environmental laws could have imagined. Merely throwing more federal money at the projects or the agencies reviewing them is not going to substantially change that problem. Further, the erosion of regulatory and legal predictability makes attracting project financing more difficult and expensive. At a time when the U.S. economy is poised for significant growth and innovation, we encourage policymakers to ensure the federal permitting process can help deliver on these opportunities, not stand in the face of them.

ClearPath looks forward to working with this Committee to advance permitting reform, and I look forward to today’s discussion.

Delivering America First Energy Policy — 5 Priorities for the 119th Congress

The 119th Congress and incoming Administration have a major opportunity: Make America the world innovation leader in clean energy and clean manufacturing. This opportunity builds on the foundation established under the first Trump Administration to unleash American energy projects and build a stronger America.

The incoming Trump administration has nominated leaders to key agencies who have the experience to deliver on these results – Lee Zeldin for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Chris Wright for the Department of Energy (DOE), and former Governor of North Dakota Doug Burgum for the Department of the Interior (DOI).

And Congress is poised to deliver on this too by focusing on innovation over regulation and markets over mandates to advance clean, reliable, and affordable American-made energy.

ClearPath has outlined five policy areas for the 119th Congress to unleash the power of American innovation:

ClearPath’s mission is to accelerate American innovation to reduce global energy emissions. ClearPath therefore supports all-of-the above energy and innovation policies that make America stronger and more secure. 

We look forward to advancing policies that will further strengthen America’s leadership role in clean energy and innovation.

Let’s get to work.

CO2 Pipelines Are Safe…and We Need a Lot More

You’ve probably heard about a clean energy technology called Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage – or “CCUS” for short.

This is a method of capturing carbon dioxide or “CO2” from emissions sources like power plants and industrial facilities. Another method for reducing emissions is called Direct Air Capture, which removes CO2 that is already in our atmosphere — think a giant vacuum. If we’re serious about global emissions reduction — we need both.

In addition to driving down emissions, captured CO2 is also a valuable commodity.  CO2 is not only used to make your beer fizz, carbon oxides can be used for everyday products like building materials, fertilizer, and fuels. CO2 that is not in use can be permanently and safely stored – usually underground – where it resides for thousands of years. 

Often, when CO2 is captured, it’s not located near an available storage or use site and has to be transported to another location. Today, the best and safest way to move CO2 is through pipelines. 

Pipelines are everywhere – often without us even realizing it. They are beneath our highways, run through our cities, and connect our homes. Other essential resources, like natural gas, water, and waste, are all moved by pipelines. That’s because pipelines are the most land-efficient way to transport materials while minimizing environmental impact.

The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also known as “PHMSA”, has long regulated the security of this infrastructure. PHMSA provides national standards for pipeline design, construction, maintenance and operation. These ensure that all necessary measures are taken to mitigate risks and safeguard the well-being of your family and the environment.

Now let’s talk about CO2 pipelines. The U.S. currently has more than 5,000 miles of these pipelines, which have been safely operating across our country for over 50 years. CO2 is a stable, non flammable gas – we know it’s safe. We breathe it in and out every day – it’s even used in fire extinguishers. Over the last twenty years, there have been zero recorded fatalities associated with the very few CO2 pipeline incidents that have occurred. A pipeline accident, like we saw in 2020 in Satartia, Mississippi, while concerning, is extremely uncommon and is not representative of the safety performance of this critical infrastructure over the last several decades.

As demand for clean, reliable, and affordable energy grows, so will the demand for effective carbon management technologies. That means, to meet our energy security and global emission reduction goals, the build-out of CO2 pipeline infrastructure is vital.  An estimated 30,000 – 96,000 miles of CO2 pipelines will be needed by 2050 – that’s roughly 5 to 18 times the length of our existing network. 

We get it, some people are uneasy about new infrastructure. But let’s face it, whether you care about climate change or U.S. competitiveness- we need these technologies. By building CO2 pipeline infrastructure, we are not only building our capacity to reduce emissions and protect our environment, we’re also creating jobs, bolstering local economies, and continuing to use the energy sources that make our country strong. In America, we’re not afraid to build — it’s what we do. 

And, through R&D and innovation, we’ll leverage the efficiency and maintain the strong safety record of this vital American infrastructure.

Let America build – A policy path to modernize energy permitting

Our team spends a lot of time on reliable, affordable, clean energy systems that run 24/7. These types of technologies are an integral part of our energy future, but with a growing economy and electricity demand doubling, we need MORE power.

This means building a lot of new nuclear, geothermal, and clean fossil power plants. We’ll also need immense new transmission and pipeline infrastructure to move energy around the country.

But we’ve got a ton of work to do in very little time. 

Whether you are motivated by deep emissions reductions, furthering our nation’s energy security, or enabling the next generation of American manufacturing, the coming decades are essential. By many estimates, that means at least 10,000 new clean energy projects this decade alone. And, every one of those projects will require new permits to build. 

Unfortunately, the U.S. has a world-class apparatus… for getting in the way.

Let me give you an example. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, calls for developers to measure the environmental impact of their projects. But NEPA was passed years before we had other laws with strict environmental standards like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act. 

Each of those are important — but all together … permit reviews can spiral into extremely long efforts, spanning thousands of pages with duplicative analyses and dozens of bureaucrats required to sign off on each individual project. And, this is not even taking into account the time it takes for any local permitting or state regulations. While this system may have made sense 50 years ago, the surge in new energy demand requires a new way.    

When we think about how to build tens of thousands of new clean energy projects, and how to balance speed and safety, it’s obvious the U.S. needs a more predictable process. 

At ClearPath, we always focus on solutions. Here are two that should be pretty simple: 

First, grant immediate approval to projects on a site that have already undergone an environmental review.

Second, we must expedite court challenges so a final decision on projects is made in a timely manner. 

Let me simplify both concepts.

Do you remember standing in line at the airport before TSA pre-check? That was brutal! Now, individuals who have proven they are not a risk can move through an expedited line.

Here’s another example.

There are mountains of evidence that some projects have little to no environmental impacts, such as an advanced manufacturing facility that produces parts for clean energy on a brownfield, or converting a retired coal plant to an advanced nuclear facility or siting a new geothermal plant at a depleted oil and gas well. These are the types of projects we should automatically permit to move forward.

Just like random screenings at TSA, we can audit the operators to ensure they’re complying with all environmental laws as we go. So new energy accelerates at no new environmental costs.

And for those projects that do need permits up front, we should ensure reviews are complete within 1 year and resolve any legal disputes within 6 months.

Under the current system, clean energy projects can suffer long delays, sometimes decades, largely because of obstructive litigation practices. We must strike the right balance while halting the never-ending cycle of frivolous lawsuits. 

At ClearPath, we believe all of this can be done without rolling back environmental protections or eliminating the public’s opportunity to be involved in the review process. Even with these necessary changes, a project would still be required to comply with environmental laws during its entire lifetime.*

It’s a win-win. Let’s get building.

New NEPA Rules Will Delay Permits and Increase Emissions

Permitting Reforms Championed by House Republicans are the Lone Bright Spots in the Biden Admin’s NEPA Rule

The electric grid is on the cusp of a huge expansion. With a massive amount of new energy demand on the horizon, grid operators are already bracing for huge amounts of growth. The sudden increase in 5-year load growth expectations is driven by a surge in new data centers supercharged by artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, increased American manufacturing and industrial activity, and new projections for hydrogen fuel plants, batteries and electrified transportation. 

The U.S. will need to build as many as 13,800 new energy projects by 2030 — an average of 7 projects per day — to provide enough clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Given the need to build more energy infrastructure of all types, it is right to question why the Biden Administration’s Phase II National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rulemaking is filled with new requirements that make it more difficult to get projects permitted. The U.S. needs to deploy more clean energy infrastructure projects, not fewer, at a faster pace and scale than the status quo.

Instead of revising the proposed rule to account for challenges ahead, the Biden Administration’s final NEPA permitting rule increases uncertainty, adds new requirements to permitting reviews that move the process in the wrong direction and ultimately increases emissions through permitting delays. The Biden Administration’s voluntary actions prioritize a political agenda rather than build upon the newly enacted changes to NEPA.

The most favorable parts of the rulemaking actions to implement permitting reforms championed by House Republicans, including key provisions passed in H.R.1, the Lower Energy Costs Act and codified on a bipartisan basis in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). But beyond those new reforms that Congress mandated, the Administration is actively self-sabotaging its climate goals in this proposed rule. 

Among the reforms championed by House Republicans are new standards to keep reviews on track, including deadlines and page limits. Federal agencies have begun to use a new provision from the FRA allowing them to adopt categorical exclusions from other agencies, as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently did for geothermal exploration activities on federal lands. Beyond BLM, a broad range of agencies from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA to the Department of Energy (DOE) have also used these new authorities to adopt categorical exclusions to accelerate reviews for high-impact projects.

CEQ notes that it received many comments opposing this new categorical exclusion authority, with at least one going as far as to call it a “disastrous policy.” While CEQ was obligated to enforce the law enacted by Congress, CEQ still managed to limit its scope to exclude categorical exclusions that were enacted legislatively rather than through an administrative process. CEQ should have sought to maximize these new bipartisan provisions, not undermine them. 

Failing to maximize new authorities will only increase delays in the years ahead as more energy projects enter the queue. Absent change, these permitting delays are bound to get worse under the status quo as clean energy projects face the same delay tactics and legal risks that can jeopardize financing. 

When the proposed rule was released last August, ClearPath identified five additional missteps from CEQ’s NEPA guidance that actually make the Administration’s emissions reduction goals more difficult. These five issues remain in the final rule announced this week. 

  1. Defaults to the status quo that is making permitting worse 
  2. Creates more confusion and uncertainty for project developers
  3. Allows agencies to base project reviews on unrelated alternatives
  4. Increases bureaucracy and red tape by removing jurisdictional boundaries
  5. Invites more litigation to oppose project permits

Unfortunately, there is little in the final rule focused on fast approvals for projects with limited environmental impacts, reducing litigation risks after permits have been issued, or fundamentally getting more projects built without bureaucratic delay. If anything, the final rule invites more legal challenges to projects before they can even get off the ground.

There are many opportunities to improve the permitting process. Judicial review reforms remain an unaddressed opportunity. As this rule injects new uncertainty and increases litigation risk, Congress could step in to fill the gap to provide more certainty for projects looking to move forward to meet America’s record energy demands.

Modernizing the U.S. Department of Energy for Today’s Energy Challenges

The United States is in the midst of an energy revolution. Demand for new energy will reach all-time highs, breakthrough technologies are beginning to commercialize, and existing technologies are innovating new, cleaner ways to produce more energy. It’s all very exciting.  

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) can play an important role in meeting this challenge, but it must focus on America’s global energy leadership, advancing innovative technologies, protecting national security interests, and supporting fundamental research and science. 

DOE has experienced incremental changes since its inception 50 years ago in attempts to respond to the rapidly changing energy landscape, but those tweaks aren’t fully meeting America’s challenges of today.  

ClearPath has published a new report offering holistic policy recommendations and proposed a new organizational structure to best promote energy innovation in a new administration. 

In recent years, Congress has expanded the Department’s energy innovation mission, providing unprecedented funding increases to commercialize new technologies through demonstration programs. These new authorities stem from bipartisan legislation, including the Energy Act of 2020, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). If implemented effectively, these programs could reduce emissions, lower energy costs to consumers, boost domestic manufacturing and allow the U.S. to retain its position as a global energy leader.

DOE Annual Funding in $ Billions – Regular Appropriations Process

Today, the United States faces different conditions characterized by the energy crisis of the 1970s that spurred the Department’s creation, yet the legacy structure of the Department largely persists. In recent years, the U.S. has transformed from an import-dependent country to a net energy exporter since 2019. Most notably, this era of American energy dominance has been marked by the United States becoming the world’s largest oil and gas producer. 

But how can we best promote American technology at home and abroad, advance energy innovation and thwart the influence of foreign adversaries over energy and mineral supply chains?

These challenges demand rethinking. 

The current approach at DOE incentivizes political appointees and career officials alike to advocate for specific technologies rather than promoting an integrated, practical application of technology innovation in the energy sector. 
ClearPath’s proposed structure will empower the next Secretary of Energy with the necessary tools to lead strategically from day one.

Proposed Direct Reports to the Under Secretary for Energy & Innovation (simplified)


Notably, the reforms proposed in this report will maximize impact without requiring new authorizing legislation or amending the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977.

DOE must remain focused on accelerating innovative technologies from basic research in the lab to commercial deployment.

ClearPath believes that for the U.S. to maintain its global energy leadership, DOE must better align with industry to advance its technology demonstration mission and protect the U.S.intellectual property from foreign adversaries.

Read the full report and recommendations here.

Geothermal Innovation Investments Could Help Meet Electricity Demand

Rapid electricity demand growth is no joke. It’s happening much faster than grid planners anticipated and some estimates show a need to double the U.S. grid by 2050. On top of that demand, most large utilities and producers have commitments to make it all clean. Wind developments are hitting headwinds, solar manufacturers have supply chain challenges, some environmental groups are pulling out all stops to make it harder for coal and gas, and there are still some who aren’t yet sold on clean, reliable nuclear energy.

Could geothermal be a big part of the solution that everyone can get behind? We think so. 

New firm, flexible clean energy generation is heating up. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), cutting-edge new generation technologies, could play a major role in achieving the dual goals — increased demand, all clean. The Department of Energy has made its first three awards of $60 million, for the bipartisan geothermal demonstration program Congress has pushed for years to catalyze EGS:

The DOE is expected to also make at least one more initial award for a project east of the Mississippi River, per Congressional direction.

Why it matters: Geothermal is one of the few technologies, including nuclear and fossil generation + carbon capture, that can provide valuable firm, flexible clean power to the grid. Geothermal currently produces more than four gigawatts of power to the U.S. grid, and a recent DOE analysis shows it has the potential to provide upwards of 90 gigawatts by 2050 – enough to power the equivalent of more than 65 million U.S. homes.  

How did it happen? These announcements have been years in the making, originating in bipartisan legislation dating back to the 116th Congress. In late 2019, the top Republican and Democrat at the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Frank Lucas (R-OK) and the late Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) teamed up on the Advanced Geothermal Research and Development Act to further geothermal innovation. 

At the same time, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and then-Ranking Member Joe Manchin (D-WV) navigated the Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership Act through the Senate, with language explicitly calling out a geothermal energy demonstration “earthshot.” Those bills were ultimately reconciled, and key policies, including greenlighting these demonstration programs, were signed into law as part of President Trump’s Energy Act of 2020 in the final days of his first term. 

Fast forward a year later, a bipartisan group of policymakers worked to include energy innovation funding in the bipartisan infrastructure bill (Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act – IIJA) and the DOE’s geothermal program received an injection of more than $84 million. Now in 2024, the DOE is moving forward on the innovation effort envisioned nearly five years ago.

What’s next: Permitting reform – Unlocking the commercial scale-up of new geothermal. It is not enough to just prove the technology. Policymakers should get the government out of the way of its takeoff.  
Research from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that each final geothermal well on public land invokes NEPA as much as six times, with each Environmental Assessment taking 10 months. This adds up to an average development timeline of eight years.

There has been an uptick of interest on Capitol Hill to pick up and keep pace. The House Natural Resources Committee recently approved bipartisan legislation from Rep. Michelle Steele (R-CA) and Suzie Lee (D-NV). Other legislation, like Rep. Young Kim (R-CA)’s HEATS Act, Rep. John Curtis (R-UT)’s GEO Act and Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID)’s CLEAN Act, all make similar reforms. There is also a cadre of Republican and Democratic Senators eyeing a new bill in the coming months. 

Permitting reform remains a hot topic on Capitol Hill – a bipartisan deal could leverage the work energy entrepreneurs like Fervo, Chevron and Mazama are doing, and accelerate geothermal’s contributions to a cleaner and more reliable electricity grid.