U.S. House approves SPEED Act to streamline environmental reviews; critics say it could undermine clean energy projects

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, a major permitting reform bill intended to shorten federal environmental reviews and accelerate approval timelines for energy and infrastructure projects. The legislation passed by a 221-196 vote and now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain.

The SPEED Act would overhaul portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the cornerstone environmental statute requiring detailed environmental reviews before federal approval of major projects such as energy facilities, highways, pipelines and factories. Supporters argue the Act will reduce bureaucratic delays that often stretch for years and hamper construction and economic growth.

Under the proposed changes, federal agencies would face statutory deadlines for completing environmental assessments and impact statements, limit the scope of issues considered in reviews, and narrow legal challenges that can be brought against permitting decisions. The legislation also includes provisions aimed at codifying parts of recent Supreme Court guidance that limits the reach of NEPA review.

Support from industry, bipartisan backing

The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), and co-sponsor Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) framed the measure as a necessary modernization of the federal permitting process. Lawmakers and business groups argued that NEPA reviews have become overly litigious and procedurally burdensome, delaying infrastructure and energy projects at a time when the U.S. faces rising demand for electricity, broadband, manufacturing capacity and transportation improvements.

Industry associations representing oil, gas and construction sectors welcomed the House vote, saying streamlined reviews will help reduce project costs, attract investment, and create jobs. The National Association of Manufacturers said the bill restores certainty and helps unlock energy infrastructure development critical to domestic production and competitiveness.

Controversial amendment draws clean energy criticism

The SPEED Act’s passage was accompanied by a contentious amendment that emerged late in the legislative process. That amendment prevents the bill’s expedited permitting provisions from applying to certain offshore energy projects, particularly those blocked or revisited under the Trump administration, which critics say effectively shields fossil fuel initiatives and limits access for clean power infrastructure.

As a result of the changes, several clean energy organizations withdrew their support. The American Clean Power Association, which represents wind and solar developers, criticized the amendment for abandoning technology-neutral reform that would benefit all energy sectors. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) also said the bill “falls short” of creating a fair and predictable permitting regime for renewable energy development.

Environmental and public input concerns

Environmental and advocacy groups expressed strong opposition to the SPEED Act, arguing that it weakens important public oversight of federal environmental decisions. Critics contend that shortening review timelines and limiting legal challenges could sideline community input and compromise protections for clean air, water and wildlife habitats.

Democratic lawmakers echoed these concerns, with some calling the legislation “a solution in search of a problem” that undermines environmental safeguards without addressing underlying causes of permitting delays. Others argued that reforms should include transmission infrastructure and equitable treatment for clean energy projects, which face their own permitting hurdles. (AP News)

Senate outlook and future negotiations

With the House passage complete, the SPEED Act now moves to the Senate, where it must overcome procedural hurdles and build bipartisan support to secure the 60 votes needed to advance. Legislative analysts say the inclusion of provisions perceived to favor fossil fuel interests could further complicate negotiations, particularly among moderate senators concerned about equitable treatment for renewable energy and environmental protections.

Lawmakers in both parties are expected to continue discussions into 2026 about how best to balance the goals of reducing permitting delays with maintaining robust environmental review and public engagement. Some Senate proposals under consideration include broader permitting reform packages that might incorporate transmission siting, Clean Water Act updates and additional environmental safeguards.