U.S. Senator Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led a hearing in Washington, D.C., to examine how federal environmental review and permitting processes affect businesses, workers, consumers, and state governments. The focus was on the economic impact of uncertainty surrounding federal permits for major infrastructure projects.
During the hearing, Senator Capito highlighted how changes in political priorities can disrupt previously issued permits. She referenced ongoing issues with projects in Rhode Island and the Mountain Valley Pipeline as examples of construction being halted or delayed due to shifts during presidential transitions.
Brendan Bechtel, Chair of the Smart Regulation Committee for Business Roundtable, addressed these concerns by saying: “Yes. Uncertainty disrupts workforce planning, investment, communities and families. […] Predictability matters for all of these constituents in the process. And I think it’s fair to say that rather than any one project, this is about how the whole system works, including what happens after a permit is issued and what happens with litigation. Something that [Mr. Booker] can speak to as well is that for these kinds of projects, in our case for example, we’re typically making investments in training, in hiring, partnering with vocational schools in the area, doing housing studies ahead of time to make sure we mitigate impacts on local housing for big projects. That all can happen 18 to 36 months before a shovel ever even goes in the ground. And so, unpredictability about when we need to get started on that work is a real issue…”
Bechtel also compared U.S. permitting practices with those abroad: “I’m trying to think of examples of other countries. I will point out, I deliberately picked the Australia and Canada examples because I don’t think any of us would say those are countries that cut corners when it comes to environmental and social protections, and so I think they’re leading examples that you can achieve efficiency, speed, scale, while really having important community engagement and environmental protections upfront in the process.”
Brent Booker from Laborers’ International Union of North America described how delays affect workers’ lives: “That’s the bottom line. It takes time to get the skills you need… When a project is built… people move. Our workforce is transient in some cases… But they will move to that job… because they know they have the two-, three-, four-year job to build that energy infrastructure. And to have the whim of somebody with a pen in their hand say, ‘you know what, I don’t like that energy source,’ completely disrupts their life, their livelihood and their family’s livelihood.”
Dustin Meyer from American Petroleum Institute said industry faces challenges even after meeting regulatory requirements: “From our industry’s perspective, we’re eager to deploy billions of dollars of capital… Everyone agrees that there should be a robust environmental review system… but what really challenges the industry is when you get approval but approval does not equal finality… Or even when you are in compliance that does not end litigation.” He added: “That’s absolutely right. It’s a challenge not just for projects that are going through the process but it chills the decision even to propose new projects.”
Abigail Ross Hopper from Solar Energy Industries Association emphasized consumer impacts: “I will agree with everything my colleagues said and add the impact on consumers… if these projects are either not approved in the first place or… permits are pulled.”
David S. Terry from National Association of State Energy Officials called unpredictable federal permitting “essentially a hidden tax” on organizations as well as individuals such as homeowners or small businesses.
The hearing highlighted concerns over how regulatory unpredictability can delay infrastructure development across sectors such as energy production—raising costs for companies and ultimately affecting consumers.
