Having the money and the political will to build a greener energy grid isn’t enough. We w0n’t be able to cut emissions in half by 2030 if it takes ten years to get permission to start building.

Streamline infrastructure permitting by creating clear lines of authority to resolve disagreements among competing public agencies, to focus environmental review on material impacts, and to expedite review of legal disputes. No decision should take more than two years, and most should be finalized in less than a year. Learn more by reading Common Good’s influential report Two Years, Not Ten Years: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals and our proposal for streamlining permitting.

One way to speed things up: Congress should create a nonpartisan National Infrastructure Board, with the charter to maintain an ongoing list of national infrastructure priorities. Setting independent priorities, similar to base-closing commissions, will narrow and expedite political debate. A National Infrastructure Board could also be given responsibility to set guidelines for reasonable contracting policies to avoid featherbedding and other waste of public funds, and to audit finished projects.

Philip K. Howard — “The Political Infrastructure We Need Now,” New York Daily News

The best model to instill trust and confidence in infrastructure spending would be a nonpartisan National Infrastructure Board, comparable to base-closing commissions that make recommendations to Congress on the closing of unnecessary military bases. Australia and other developed countries have created similar bodies to avoid distrust of backroom deals for huge infrastructure investments. A National Infrastructure Board could bring order and reliability to the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure.

Marc J. Dunkelman — “Why It’s Hard to Get Good Projects Going,” Boston Globe

In the absence of centralized figures empowered to cut through objections and force bureaucracies to serve a common mission, billions of taxpayer dollars will inevitably sit fallow or go to waste. Legitimate environmental review processes, landmarking standards, and zoning regulations are too easily hijacked by those holding torches for the status quo or a competing investment. Congress and the Biden administration are right to address one of the most profound barriers to world-class infrastructure — a lack of resources. But it’s the bureaucracies and officials who will control those dollars at the federal, state, and local level who will ultimately chart the path forward.

DJ Gribbin — “Environmental Permitting Might Block Biden’s Clean Energy Targets,” Brookings

The president’s infrastructure plan is not timid—especially its energy transition agenda, which calls for our nation’s power generation to be carbon-free by 2035 … Two major obstacles stand in the way of the U.S. meeting this 2035 goal: adequate funding and the government’s ability to provide permits necessary to deploy wind and solar generation. The administration attempted to tackle the need for adequate funding head-on by proposing $100 billion in additional federal funding and providing tax and other incentives for renewable power. The permitting challenges, though, remain a key sticking point that need to be addressed.

Herb Woerpel — “Fixing America’s Failing Infrastructure,” Engineered Systems

While the path to approval is littered with political hurdles, one solution may lie in the creation of a nonpartisan national infrastructure board…

ALEX HERRGOTT — “To ‘Build Back Better’ We Must First Be Able to Build,” The Hill

The key to unlocking future consensus is to prove environmental protection can be strengthened through greater coordination and efficiency — not shortcuts to the process. But to achieve this balance, Congress must untangle the web of overlapping statutes that cannot serve America’s infrastructure needs in the 21st century.

Heather Reams — “A Boom in Bureaucracy Won't Build America Back Any Better,” The Hill

“Simplifying our nation’s complex permitting process would increase predictability, shorten the time to project delivery and reduce costs — while still providing for thoughtful consideration of public and environmental concerns. Streamlining project approvals is especially critical in the clean energy sector. If America wants to harness the power of our natural resources, create jobs and reduce emissions, we can’t allow clean energy projects to be delayed by nonsensical, bureaucratic roadblocks.”

The WALL STREET JOURNAL – “A Bad Infrastructure Bargain”

More money will do little good without regulatory and permitting reforms (especially to the National Environmental Policy Act) that would speed up projects.

Charles Kolb — “Biden’s Last ‘Infrastructure’ Bill Didn’t Work Out Well. Can He Make It Work This Time?” Daily Caller

If Biden is serious about fixing America’s decrepit infrastructure, including for clean energy, he must first fix the legal infrastructure. Philip Howard has proposed a dramatically simpler process that gives officials authority to enforce bureaucratic deadlines. To avoid Washington pork and other waste, Howard also proposes creating a bipartisan National Infrastructure Board that would prioritize projects and avoid freebies to organized labor or other special interests.

Problem Solvers Caucus — “Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure” (p. 3) 

Congress must also cut red tape and stop gridlock when it prevents projects from moving forward in as expedient a manner as possible while ensuring environmental and safety protections … Support project approval streamlining measures that reduce delivery time and costs without jeopardizing safety. Options for improvement include: the creation of a finite permit challenge period; naming a lead agency to coordinate cross-agency permitting and to resolve disputes in multi-agency reviews; and a pilot self-certification option under which recipients of federal funding may self-certify, at their own risk and responsibility, that their right-of-way acquisitions and project plans meet all federal requirements.

Niskanen Center — “So You Want to Do an Infrastructure Package” (p. 8)

When the Obama administration passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009, the overarching goal was to limit unemployment … The infrastructure portion of the bill was also delayed because of lead time, often by years … The red tape created by environmental review and our adversarial legal system harm U.S. state capacity, and thus our ability to act swiftly.

The New Center — “The Path to a Bipartisan Infrastructure Solution” (pp. 27-28) 

Congress should couple new infrastructure with measures to increase the effectiveness of every dollar, including the creation of a National Infrastructure Board … It could also introduce a program that would incentivize or reward states and localities for streamlining and improving their procurement processes and taking procedural steps that would speed up the delivery of necessary and essential infrastructure projects.

Bipartisan Policy Center — “From Sea to Shining Sea” (pp. 9-12) 

BPC’s Executive Council on Infrastructure found that unnecessary delays in the environmental review and permitting process add to project costs, slow the delivery of needed—often cleaner—projects, and discourage private capital from investing in U.S. infrastructure. For many private investors, the risk of changing political dynamics is simply too great if the time between project conception and construction is several years. The imperative to achieve net-zero 10 carbon emissions by 2050 is an enormous undertaking that will not succeed unless we modernize our permitting processes to match the required breakthroughs in energy technology.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA – speaking to The New York Times in “Education of a President”:

There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.

U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a sponsor of the Republican infrastructure proposal – quoted in the Washington Examiner:

I think a critical aspect of an infrastructure package is a permitting streamlining that saves time and money.

U.S. Representative Mike Gallagher – in a column titled “The Right Way to Modernize Infrastructure”:

For years, nonpartisan groups like Common Good have advocated for approval in less than two years when it comes to the environmental review process. Common Good suggests creating a National Infrastructure Board charged with setting national infrastructure priorities and reasonable contracting policies. This independent entity would help take politics out of the equation while also increasing accountability through auditing project results.

U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan – When asked what he would like to see in an infrastructure bill, Senator Sullivan replied:

Permitting reform.

Americans for a Clean Energy Grid – “Transmission Projects Ready to Go: Plugging into America’s Untapped Renewable Resources”:

While most authority for permitting transmission lines is held by states, federal agencies have authority over lines that cross federal lands. Steps can be taken to streamline and expedite that process, which can currently take a decade or more.

U.S. Representative Garret Graves – in a commentary titled “Efficient Reviews of Federal Projects Would Build Them Sooner” in The Advocate (Baton Rouge):

Lengthy environmental reviews prolong coastal environmental damage by delaying restoration projects. That's a flawed bureaucracy. We can do better. The only way to get the economic and environmental benefits of projects is to complete them.

U.S. Representative Peter Meijer – On Twitter:

Until we fix permitting/process and align national investment with outcomes … we won’t be able to build the country our children deserve.

President bill clinton – In “14 Ways to Put America Back to Work” by Newsweek:

Harry Hopkins had nowhere near the rules and regulations we have now. (In 1933, Hopkins's Civil Works Administration put 4 million to work in a month.) I don't blame the people in the White House for problems in getting shovel-ready projects off the ground; sometimes it takes three years or more for the approval process. We should try to change this: keep the full review process when there are real environmental concerns, but when there aren't, the federal government should be able to give a waiver to the states to speed up start times on construction projects. We gave states waivers to do welfare reform, so by the time I signed the bill, 43 of the 50 states had already implemented their own approaches. We need to look at that.

Associated General Contractors of America – Brian Turmail, Vice President of Public Affairs and Strategic Initiatives was quoted in an article titled “Biden's infrastructure plan yet to address causes of decade-long project delays”:

If the two points of the president's initiative are to build infrastructure and to stimulate economic activity, having those funds tied up in an endless, Kafkaesque regulatory process certainly doesn't meet either objective.

American Action Forum – In a report titled “A Look at Infrastructure Permitting Reform Efforts, Past and Present” states:

According to quantified data made available by past reform efforts, the paperwork filings currently involved in many infrastructure permitting processes collectively add up to 30.4 million hours of paperwork and $1.6 billion in costs annually. In the face of those and other burdens, lawmakers should consider further reforms to the infrastructure permitting process – including some recently proposed ideas – to increase agency coordination, accountability, and transparency.

Center for American Progress – In its report titled, “An Infrastructure Plan for America”:

Establish a national infrastructure investment authority, or NIIA, to provide competitive grant funds, low-cost financing, and expedited environmental review and permitting for infrastructure projects of regional or national significance … Reform federal infrastructure programs to increase accountability and ensure that each dollar produces the greatest possible social, environmental, and economic return on investment.

Bipartisan Policy Center – Their Smarter, Cleaner, Faster Infrastructure Task Force released policy recommendations, including:

Congress should codify the presumptive time limits of two years for an environmental impact statement and one year for an environmental assessment, with a clear and transparent process for extension if needed.

Progressive Policy Institute – In “Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism”:

Approving public works projects with all deliberate speed would save costs and yield environmental benefits, while also helping America catch up with overseas competitors who have been investing heavily in infrastructure while ours has decayed.

Less tangible, but perhaps as important, would be the psychological lift we’d get from fixing a deeply flawed regulatory process. It would help dispel the “can’t do” pall that hangs over Washington today, and boost public confidence in the federal government’s ability to take purposeful action against urgent national problems. And, as a practical matter, taxpayers will be more likely to support more spending on public works if they believe they’ll derive concrete benefits from them soon, not far off in the hazy future.

Professional Services Council – In a letter to Congress:

Streamlined contracting and permitting processes will provide agencies with the flexibility necessary to seek and obtain innovative solutions, better and quicker acquisition outcomes, and ultimately the best value on behalf of the American people. Clear direction that removes nonvalue-added regulatory burdens and an emphasis on outcomes will ensure that the desired results are achieved, and resources are spent in a timely and effective manner.

Thomas J. Madison Jr., former federal highway administrator – in a syndicated column titled “Reinvest in infrastructure and support America’s industrial base”:

Permitting new American infrastructure has become a slow, painful process, and its cost and complexity increase with each new effort. Building in a concerted, intelligent manner requires a streamlined, accelerated environmental permitting process. Introducing smart reforms and reasonable timeframes for permit reviews will expedite project delivery while protecting our environment.

Western Water Coalition, more than 220 organizations representing over one-third of U.S. agricultural production and public water agencies supplying water to over 75 million residents – in a letter to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

Improve the efficiency of permitting processes for water infrastructure development. … Congress should direct federal agencies to implement a more cooperative approach toward achieving multiple goals under existing environmental laws and regulations. And, where such approaches are currently in law, Congress should encourage these agencies to use any and all flexibilities under the law to act with the urgency and promptness that this crisis demands.

U.S. Representative Sam Graves, U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member – in introducing the BUILDER Act:

The president’s call for bipartisan action on infrastructure should start with reforming the overly lengthy and costly project review process. By approving needed infrastructure projects more efficiently, we can make our limited resources go much further while maintaining strong environmental protections.

U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member – in introducing the BUILDER Act:

Under the current half-century old process, environmental reviews for federal highway projects on average take over 7 years and, across the federal government, environmental reviews average 4 and a half years. It shouldn’t be that way.

U.S. Representative Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader – in introducing the BUILDER Act:

The current system is better at building backlogs than building roads, bridges, and reservoirs. We need rational rules that are efficient, economical, and environmentally-friendly, not cumbersome, costly, and corrupt.

JONATHAN ALTER – describing a January 2009 meeting with President Obama in The Promise: President Obama, Year One (Simon & Schuster, April 2010):

The regulatory hurdles to modernizing the grid were beyond belief; it turned out that no fewer than 231 different state and local regulators had to sign off on modernization. Obama was appalled. “We went to the moon!” he said. “We can do better than this!”