The Case for Permitting Reform Is Stronger Than Ever

Democrats would be wise to take this opportunity.

The need for permitting reform has never been greater, and Democrats should seize this chance. Today’s Senate hearing on federal permitting revealed a rare consensus: voices from business, labor, and renewable energy alike agreed the process must be modernized and made technology-neutral to unlock new projects. With the House already passing the bipartisan SPEED Act in December, and energy costs climbing as demand soars, the urgency for action is real. Every delayed clean energy project means higher bills for families. Trump’s renewed assault on clean energy — from canceling offshore wind leases to personally bottlenecking solar permits, is precisely why Democrats must move quickly on permitting reform. By enshrining fair, predictable permitting rules into law, they can stop executive overreach from undermining renewables, ensure the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy investments don’t languish, and protect consumers from unnecessary price hikes. In short, this is Democrats’ second chance to deliver the infrastructure progress they promised, and they should grasp it with both hands.

Rebuild readers know we called this last year: without permitting reform, clean energy would be vulnerable to political sabotage, and the piece below explains why that warning matters now:

The original piece below was published on August, 26, 2025.

---

The Trump Administration’s recent Treasury guidance has altered the landscape for solar and wind tax credits. It sends a clear message: if you can’t start building now, you’ll lose out. The Treasury and IRS guidance would eliminate the long-standing “5% safe harbor” for beginning construction on large solar and all wind projects. Under the new rules, any project that hasn't physically begun construction by July 4, 2026 must be fully operational by the end of 2027 to qualify for federal clean energy tax credits.

This compresses timelines for developers and forces projects to begin construction much faster than before. For many, the rule would kill projects outright.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

On one hand, the rules provide certainty and urgency. Developers know the clock is ticking on these incentives and must accelerate their efforts. On the other hand, it raises the stakes: if projects languish in bureaucratic limbo or permitting purgatory, they could easily miss these tighter deadlines and forfeit their tax credits. The message for policymakers invested in a clean energy future is unmistakable: streamlining the permitting process is no longer a “nice to have,” but a necessity if we want to keep the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) green energy efforts alive.

Compounding this pressure is the expected guidance on “Foreign Entities of Concern (FEOC)” rules for clean energy supply chains. The Treasury’s latest notice left out language on the new FEOC restrictions created by the One Big Beautiful Bill, noting that additional guidance is in the works. FEOC clarity is important for solar and wind developers who need to avoid components linked to China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. In short, the federal government is closing loopholes and issuing rules so projects can proceed with confidence – but none of that will matter if building permits are delayed.

If Treasury’s new rules lit a fire under developers, the administration quickly doused it. Since January, Trump has unleashed a wave of regulatory rollbacks targeting renewable energy – especially offshore wind. They claim this is to unleash energy abundance, but their efforts are doing the exact opposite. Consider these actions in recent months:

• Offshore Wind Freeze: The Interior Department paused all new approvals for offshore wind projects, including leases, permits, rights-of-way, even federal loans, pending a sweeping review of their “impact on the environment, national security and the economy.” In effect, this put the entire U.S. offshore wind pipeline on ice.
  

• No Future Leasing Schedule: On August 5, Interior eliminated the requirement to publish a five-year offshore wind leasing schedule. This rescinds the predictable roadmap of future lease sales that developers have long relied on for planning. The Administration also rescinded all existing designated Wind Energy Areas in federal waters, throwing years of planning into disarray.
  

• New Barriers for Renewables: Interior also imposed a new “capacity density” metric that makes wind and solar projects look land-intensive by excluding fossil fuel land impacts, and ordered extra wildlife reviews (e.g. stringent eagle impact assessments) specifically targeting wind farms. It even slashed the Bureau of Land Management’s renewable energy program budget to the bare legal minimum, hampering support for projects on federal lands.

• Personal Sign-off Requirement: A July 15 Interior order added a new bottleneck: 69 separate steps in the approval process for wind and solar projects now require the personal signature of Secretary Doug Burgum. Even routine filings must cross his desk. Analysts found that nearly half of those requirements apply to private or state-based projects that connect to federal systems — effectively granting one political appointee a nationwide veto pen.
  

• Cancellation and Review Blitz: In late July, Interior piled on with at least six distinct new policies, including canceling designated offshore wind zones, reopening high-potential onshore areas for “review,” and even terminating previously approved offshore Wind Energy Areas years in the making. An estimated 70 or more solar and wind projects are now stalled or imperiled. The Solar Energy Industries Association blasted the campaign as a “discriminatory permitting crackdown.”

I know, you read all of that and it becomes incredibly daunting, each of these actions undercuts the momentum of the clean energy transition. They also highlight a painful irony: many of these obstacles could have been blunted, or even prevented, had Congress passed robust permitting reform when it had the chance. For example, last year’s Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA) contained provisions that would directly counter the Trump administration’s tactics.

EPRA would have required at least one offshore wind lease sale each year from 2025 through 2029, instead of allowing years-long gaps or an indefinite halt. It would have also set clear timelines and significantly reduced the risk of multi-year leasing gaps, preventing agencies from slow-walking approvals.

Had EPRA passed, it’s likely we would not be seeing the current offshore wind paralysis. Interior would be legally obligated to hold lease auctions and issue permitting decisions on schedule, “America First” agenda or not. It’s sobering to realize that failure to support that permitting compromise may have left the door open for the Trump team’s aggressive maneuvers against renewables. This is not a case of, Trump did something bad, and it is the Democrats fault, but instead an opportunity for Democrats to shift gears and realize the importance for advancing permitting reform.

Why Democrats Must Embrace Permitting Reform

For most voters, the fight over permitting reform only matters when it hits their wallets — and right now, it is. As Robinson Meyer of Heatmap notes, electricity prices have been rising at more than twice the pace of inflation over the past year, and with new factories connecting to the grid, costs are projected to keep climbing. That’s the household reality Democrats should center: when Trump weaponizes permitting delays to stall wind and solar projects, he isn’t just blocking turbines, he’s raising people’s bills.

Image Credit: EIA

Every stalled clean energy project means less cheap power on the grid and more dependence on volatile natural gas. The line is simple and sharp: permitting paralysis equals higher prices. Democrats can turn what sounds like a procedural reform into an issue that impacts them, protecting families from unnecessary rate hikes.

We have an opening (and arguably an obligation) to revisit their skepticism on permitting reform with fresh eyes. What seemed like a “giveaway” to fossil interests a year ago can now be reframed as a bipartisan insurance policy for the clean energy future – one that locks in progress and insulates it from political pendulum swings. The historical lens is instructive: failing to act on constructive reforms when you have leverage can lead to far worse outcomes under an antagonistic administration. In hindsight, passing EPRA’s moderate streamlining measures would have been far preferable to the current scenario of outright project freezes and uncertainty.

By embracing a new permitting reform effort, Democrats can align themselves with the pragmatism that building infrastructure (of any kind) requires. They can also take some credit for addressing Americans’ frustration with red tape and delays, which cut across party lines. Crucially, they would be ensuring that the clean energy jobs and investments promised by laws like the IRA actually materialize – in blue states and red states alike.