WASHINGTON, Dec. 18, 2025 — The U.S. House on Thursday approved sweeping permitting legislation aimed at speeding federal reviews for major energy and infrastructure projects, sending a high-stakes overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the Senate — where both parties are already signaling major changes. [1]
The bill, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act — better known as the SPEED Act — passed 221–196, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans and one Republican voting no, as lawmakers try to respond to soaring demand for new power generation, transmission, factories, data centers and other large projects. [2]
But what looked like a rare bipartisan “yes” on permitting reform turned into a late-week scramble after conservatives forced a last-minute change tied to offshore wind — a move that cost the bill support from the nation’s largest clean power trade group and sharpened the fight heading into the Senate. [3]
What happened today: SPEED Act passes the House — and the Senate signals a rewrite
Lawmakers across both parties have increasingly argued that the current NEPA review process has become too slow for today’s build-out needs. A recent study cited in coverage of the bill found environmental reviews often run close to 600 pages and take nearly five years — timelines that can collide with everything from grid reliability warnings to business investment decisions. [4]
House sponsors framed Thursday’s vote as a critical reset.
- Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), the bill’s chief sponsor, said NEPA’s implementation has become a “bureaucratic bottleneck.” [5]
- Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), a lead co-sponsor, argued the broken system is delaying “basics” like energy and transportation. [6]
Democrats who opposed the bill warned the changes go too far — especially on limiting court challenges and narrowing environmental analysis.
- Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said the legislation treats environmental review “as a nuisance,” warning it could increase risk and damage to communities. [7]
And while Bloomberg summarized the House vote as a plan to fast-track project approvals and litigation under NEPA, the bill’s real battle is now shifting across the Capitol. [8]
What the SPEED Act would change: NEPA narrowed, timelines tightened, lawsuits constrained
The SPEED Act is designed to reduce the number of actions that trigger NEPA review and shorten the time and legal exposure around those reviews. The official congressional summary says it limits the scope of NEPA and seeks to expedite the environmental review process. [9]
1) Redefining “major Federal action” — and limiting the role of federal funding
The congressional summary says the bill redefines “major Federal actions,” including specifying that an agency may not decide something is “major” based solely on the provision of federal funds. [10]
The bill text likewise states an agency action may not be considered “major” solely because of federal funding (including grants, loans, and loan guarantees). [11]
That matters for sectors that increasingly use federal financing alongside private capital — including grid upgrades, manufacturing expansions, and (notably) large-scale data center power projects.
2) Allowing agencies to rely on other reviews and limiting “effects” considered
The summary also says the bill would allow certain actions to avoid NEPA review if they’ve already been reviewed under another federal, state, or tribal environmental review statute that meets NEPA’s requirements. [12]
On impacts, the bill directs agencies to focus only on effects proximately caused by the immediate project, and not to consider effects that are speculative, attenuated, separate in time or place, or tied to separate projects. [13]
This “scope of effects” question is one of the most contentious parts of permitting reform: supporters see it as common sense; opponents argue it can wall off real downstream impacts that communities care about.
3) Earlier procedural decisions and faster coordination across agencies
The text includes multiple procedural deadlines that would push agencies to decide earlier whether a project needs a full environmental impact statement (EIS), a simpler environmental assessment (EA), or no NEPA review at all.
Among the deadlines included:
- Within 60 days of a permit application being submitted, an agency must document receipt and tell the applicant whether the application is complete (or request more information). [14]
- Within 60 days after determining an application is complete, the agency must notify the applicant whether the action is categorically excluded, not “major,” needs an EIS, or needs an EA. [15]
- Within 21 days after a notice of intent (EIS) or EA notice, the lead agency must identify likely involved agencies and invite them as cooperating agencies; invited agencies have 21 days to accept or deny; the lead agency must convene cooperating agencies within 7 days after that acceptance window closes. [16]
The bill also requires a final agency action within 30 days after completing an EIS or EA, and directs agencies to include a schedule for any remaining authorizations. [17]
4) “New science” cutoff and longer reliance on some prior reviews
Two additional provisions are drawing particular attention in policy circles:
- When preparing an environmental document, agencies generally would not be required to consider scientific or technical research that becomes publicly available after the earlier of the application receipt date or the notice to prepare the document. [18]
- The bill extends certain durations in NEPA’s programmatic environmental document provisions by changing “5” to “10” in relevant parts of the statute, effectively expanding how long some programmatic documents can be relied upon before being updated. [19]
5) Court challenges: shorter filing windows, faster decisions, and fewer remedies
The SPEED Act’s litigation section is among its most consequential.
The bill states that courts reviewing NEPA compliance must give agencies “substantial deference” and may not substitute their judgment for the agency’s on included environmental effects. [20]
If a court finds a final agency action violates NEPA, the bill limits the remedy to a remand “without vacatur or injunction” — and explicitly says the final agency action remains in effect while the agency corrects errors. [21]
It also creates a shorter, clearer clock for lawsuits and court action:
- Claims generally must be filed within 150 days after a final agency action is made public (unless another law sets a shorter deadline). [22]
- Courts must issue final judgment within 180 days after the agency record is filed (with the record due within 60 days of the claim filing), absent a shorter deadline elsewhere. [23]
- Appeals must be filed within 60 days, with appellate decisions due within 180 days after the appeal is filed. [24]
Supporters say this reduces “frivolous litigation”; opponents argue it narrows public recourse in ways that could lock in flawed approvals.
The flashpoint: an offshore wind change fractures clean power support
The SPEED Act’s week in the House turned “tumultuous,” in E&E News’ telling, after House Freedom Caucus members and offshore wind opponents demanded a late change allowing the Trump administration to continue efforts tied to reopening permitting for a group of offshore wind projects. [25]
That adjustment prompted the American Clean Power Association (ACP) — the largest U.S. renewable energy trade group — to drop its support. ACP said the Rules Committee action “fundamentally changed” the bill and abandoned the technology-neutral structure that had made bipartisan progress possible. [26]
Even some supporters treated the change as tactical rather than final. E&E reported Westerman and Golden defended the move as necessary to get the bill out of the House, with more changes inevitable in the Senate. [27]
Business, manufacturing, and co-ops applaud; environmental groups warn of rollbacks
While clean power groups split, much of the business and industrial community praised Thursday’s vote.
The National Association of Manufacturers said permitting reform is key to expanding operations, jobs, and U.S. competitiveness — explicitly linking permitting reform to the ability to “lead the world in artificial intelligence,” describing the SPEED Act as a cornerstone of its “Roadmap to AI and Energy Dominance.” [28]
Electric cooperatives also highlighted a concrete change: co-ops said the bill would streamline NEPA requirements for projects to build or strengthen generation, transmission, and distribution — and noted that co-ops would no longer face NEPA review every time they receive federal grants or funding assistance for improvement projects. [29]
Environmental and legal advocacy groups, however, warned the bill weakens a foundational environmental law and limits communities’ ability to challenge harmful projects. The AP report quoted an Earthjustice Action lawyer arguing the approach risks “contaminated air and water” and reduces accountability in court. [30]
Senate next steps: broader deal talk, Clean Water Act debate, and “undoing the House” dynamics
The Senate is the reason the fight is far from over.
Axios reported the House-passed bill is expected to face “big changes” in the Senate, where Democrats are pushing for a broader package and bipartisan talks are underway through the Energy and Natural Resources and Environment and Public Works committees. [31]
AP also reported that Senate discussions may include changes to the Clean Water Act aimed at facilitating pipeline projects and transmission lines — and that Democratic senators are pursuing legislation to make it harder for President Donald Trump to cancel permits for clean-energy projects. [32]
In other words: the House vote establishes a negotiating position. The Senate will likely try to turn it into a larger bargain — one that may attempt to restore “technology neutrality,” add transmission-focused reforms, and address presidential authority over already-approved clean energy permits.
Why AI is in the middle of this: permitting reform meets the electricity demand surge
Even as Congress fights over permitting rules, federal energy regulators are grappling with another side of the same problem: how to power the AI boom fast enough without destabilizing the grid or spiking bills for everyone else.
FERC orders PJM to write new rules for data centers co-located at power plants
On Dec. 18, FERC directed PJM Interconnection — the nation’s largest U.S. grid operator — to implement new rules governing the connection of AI-driven data centers and other large energy users located near power plants, citing reliability and affordability concerns. [33]
Reuters reported that FERC Chairman Laura Swett called the PJM decision a major step toward protecting national and economic security amid AI-driven load growth. [34]
FERC’s own release emphasized that PJM’s current tariff provisions were too unclear and must be revised so eligible customers serving co-located load choose among transmission service options — an attempt to clarify who pays for what and how the public grid is protected. [35]
AP: regulators clear a path for Big Tech to “plug in” directly — with warnings attached
The Associated Press reported Thursday that federal regulators approved a major policy shift allowing tech companies to link massive data centers directly to power plants, speeding access to power while sidestepping some delays of connecting through the broader grid. [36]
AP said the move was prompted in part by disputes over a co-location proposal involving Amazon and a Pennsylvania nuclear plant, and it described the order as establishing guidelines and directing PJM to create pricing and terms for different co-location scenarios. [37]
Utilities and consumer advocates have warned that if these deals aren’t structured carefully, they could shift costs onto ordinary ratepayers or reduce reliability for the public system. [38]
The scale of the build-out: thousands of data centers in the pipeline
Adding to the urgency, Axios reported Dec. 18 that nearly 3,000 data centers are under construction or planned across the U.S., on top of more than 4,000 already operating, with Virginia leading the pack. [39]
That data center growth is a key reason permitting reform is increasingly being framed not just as an “energy” fight, but as an AI competitiveness fight — a point echoed in a joint op-ed from House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Westerman arguing that AI data centers and reshored manufacturing are driving demand, and that permitting reform is a “generational opportunity” to avoid an energy crisis. [40]
What to watch next
With the House vote complete, the next phase is both procedural and political:
- Senate negotiations: Expect a Senate package that goes beyond the House bill — potentially mixing NEPA changes with transmission provisions, Clean Water Act debates, and guardrails around executive authority over clean energy permits. [41]
- Technology neutrality vs. carve-outs: Clean power groups have drawn a bright line that reforms must apply across energy types — a fight that will shape whether a bipartisan coalition can re-form. [42]
- AI power politics: As FERC pushes PJM toward new co-location rules and Big Tech accelerates power procurement, the interplay between permitting timelines, grid interconnection, and consumer costs will keep tightening — regardless of what Congress does next. [43]
References
1. apnews.com, 2. apnews.com, 3. apnews.com, 4. apnews.com, 5. apnews.com, 6. apnews.com, 7. apnews.com, 8. www.bloomberg.com, 9. www.congress.gov, 10. www.congress.gov, 11. www.congress.gov, 12. www.congress.gov, 13. www.congress.gov, 14. www.congress.gov, 15. www.congress.gov, 16. www.congress.gov, 17. www.congress.gov, 18. www.congress.gov, 19. www.congress.gov, 20. www.congress.gov, 21. www.congress.gov, 22. www.congress.gov, 23. www.congress.gov, 24. www.congress.gov, 25. www.eenews.net, 26. cleanpower.org, 27. www.eenews.net, 28. nam.org, 29. www.electric.coop, 30. apnews.com, 31. www.axios.com, 32. apnews.com, 33. www.reuters.com, 34. www.reuters.com, 35. www.ferc.gov, 36. apnews.com, 37. apnews.com, 38. apnews.com, 39. www.axios.com, 40. www.majorityleader.gov, 41. www.axios.com, 42. cleanpower.org, 43. www.reuters.com
