Permitting reform isn’t simply an energy issue or an environmental issue. It is an affordability issue.
The economics are straightforward. In a market economy, prices are determined by supply and demand. When the supply of housing, energy or manufactured goods increases, prices tend to fall. When supply is constrained, prices rise. If policymakers are serious about lowering costs for American families, they should focus on making it easier — not harder — to increase supply.
That begins with fixing America’s broken permitting system.
THE SURPRISING HIDDEN COST QUIETLY ADDING NEARLY $132K TO NEW HOME PRICES REVEALED
America does not suffer from a shortage of entrepreneurs willing to invest, workers eager to build or capital ready to finance new projects. But the permitting system fails to produce timely, predictable government decisions.
Today, major housing developments, energy infrastructure and even manufacturing facilities routinely spend years navigating overlapping federal reviews, duplicative agency requirements and prolonged litigation. Time becomes a hidden tax. Every year a project sits in regulatory limbo, financing costs rise, construction expenses increase, investors demand higher returns and uncertainty discourages future investment. Those costs are ultimately paid by consumers through higher rents, home prices, utility bills and costlier goods.
Much of this dysfunction stems from decades of expanding procedural requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enacted in 1970, NEPA was designed to ensure informed environmental decision-making. Over time, it has evolved into a procedural maze that too often delays projects without producing better environmental outcomes. Endless rounds of paperwork, overlapping agency reviews and years of litigation have become commonplace, even after exhaustive environmental analysis is completed.
The resulting delays impede new supply.
TRUMP-APPROVED ENERGY PROJECTS AT RISK OF SUDDEN DEATH BY NEXT HOSTILE PRESIDENT
The Mountain Valley Pipeline illustrates the problem. First proposed in 2014, the project did not begin operating until nearly a decade later despite extensive environmental review, public comment and regulatory oversight. Repeated litigation under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act delayed construction and increased costs. It took an act of Congress to finally complete the project and deliver natural gas to households and businesses.
af
Housing faces similar obstacles. Following the closure of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard in California in 1996, planners envisioned a vibrant mixed-use community with thousands of new homes. Decades later, significant portions of the property remain unavailable because environmental remediation and overlapping federal oversight still delay redevelopment. Years of delays mean fewer homes entering the market and higher housing costs.
The cumulative impact of these delays extends far beyond individual projects. Delayed housing means higher home prices and rents for families already struggling to afford them. Delayed transmission lines and pipelines mean more expensive and less reliable electricity. Delayed factories send investment—and jobs—to countries with more predictable regulatory systems.
Fixing this does not require sacrificing environmental protection.
America should continue to maintain high environmental standards. Clean air, water and responsible stewardship of public lands remain essential public priorities. But protecting the environment and requiring government agencies to make timely decisions are not mutually exclusive. Endless procedural delays rarely produce cleaner air or healthier ecosystems. More often, they discourage investment, inflate costs and leave communities waiting years for needed projects.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Congress has an opportunity to modernize the permitting system while preserving core environmental protections. Reasonable deadlines for agency decisions, better coordination among federal regulators, narrower opportunities for duplicative litigation after agencies have completed their work and greater regulatory certainty would all make it easier to build without weakening environmental safeguards. Several proposals already before Congress — including the SPEED Act , the FREEDOM Act and the PERMIT Act —offer practical frameworks for accomplishing those goals.
Permitting reform should not be viewed through a partisan lens. Whether the goal is more affordable housing, lower energy prices, stronger domestic manufacturing or greater economic competitiveness, the solution begins with allowing projects to move from blueprint to construction in a reasonable amount of time.
In today’s polarized Congress, achieving bipartisan agreement on major legislation can seem nearly impossible. Yet permitting reform has proven to be the exception. The SPEED Act, the FREEDOM Act and the PERMIT Act have all attracted bipartisan support. This rare consensus reflects a fundamental truth: Permitting delays are not a partisan problem, but a practical one that hampers economic growth and competitiveness regardless of which party is in power. If Congress can leverage this rare bipartisan agreement to modernize America’s permitting system, it would demonstrate that gridlock isn’t inevitable, and it would deliver real results for American families seeking affordable housing, a stronger economy and enhanced global competitiveness. Making it easier to build America again is not simply good regulatory policy — it’s one of the most effective affordability policies available.
