WASHINGTON — ICYMI, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) President and CEO Heather Reams published an opinion piece in Real Clear Energy making the case that fixing America’s judicial review process is essential to building the energy infrastructure the country needs to be dominant. Heather argues that the time for Congress to act on commonsense judicial review reforms that cut unnecessary delays and restore certainty for energy developers is now.
Click here or the image above to read the op-ed in full
To remain competitive on the global stage, the United States needs more energy infrastructure, and we need it sooner than our current system allows. New data centers, a resurgence in American manufacturing and emerging technologies are critical for growth but demand more power. We need more generation and transmission, stronger supply chains and faster deployment of the projects that keep the economy growing, but there are overburdensome bureaucratic processes in place working against this important growth.
Ongoing discussions about permitting reform in Washington continue, and it’s true that’s long overdue. However, one of the most pressing permitting issues is the judicial review process.
New energy projects can get tied up in court for years, even after clearing environmental review and receiving agency approval, which is a years-long process to begin with. Excessive lawsuits and lengthy court delays have become some of the biggest bottlenecks in building energy infrastructure.
The Trump administration consistently emphasizes the need to expedite development and reduce red tape, but Congress plays a critical role in long term reforms. This isn’t an issue that can be solved through executive action alone—there are challenges at nearly every step in the process.
First, lawsuits may be brought by groups or individuals who did not meaningfully participate in the public review process or would not be directly impacted by the project itself. Agencies often provide multiple opportunities for public comment during permitting, yet some parties sit out that process then choose to sue after a decision is made. This system creates a scenario that breeds uncertainty and disincentivizes investments in new projects.
Second, the timeline for filing lawsuits is far too long. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) gives plaintiffs up to six years after a Record of Decision to bring a claim. That means projects can be well underway — if not already complete — before litigation suddenly brings everything to a grinding halt. Businesses can’t plan long-term investments around that kind of uncertainty, and workers can’t rely on jobs tied to projects that may be put on pause at any moment for any period of time.
Third, cases can be filed in different courts around the country. That produces mountains of compounding caselaw, conflicting rulings and inconsistent precedent. Developers and overseeing agencies trying to comply with the law can end up navigating a patchwork of decisions that makes future investment even more challenging.
Then there are injunctions. Courts use injunctions for legitimate reasons, but they are also used in ways that can freeze projects for long stretches of time. When projects are stopped midstream, costs rise quickly and workers are left suddenly without employment. Financing becomes more difficult, timelines slip, jobs are lost and some investments never recover.
But, there are ways to address these issues, and it doesn’t require eliminating oversight or silencing public input. It means creating a process that is timely, fair and workable. There are practical reforms Congress could — and should — pursue right now.
One is clarifying standing. Lawsuits should generally be limited to parties who participated in the public comment process, raised concerns during review and can show a reasonable likelihood of direct harm. Bills such as the SPEED Act and PERMIT Act have included versions of that approach.
Another is making the statute of limitations more concise. The law should require that challenges be raised promptly rather than allowing for litigation years after a project’s approval. The SPEED Act would do just that. If enacted, it would require lawsuits within 150 days of an agency decision and set clearer timelines for court proceedings and appeals.
Congress should also consider centralizing all NEPA-related cases under the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That would help reduce conflicting rulings and create more consistency. The REPAIR Act also proposes tools to track unresolved claims and encourage timely decisions. Finally, injunctions should come with explicit limits to avoid indefinite project blockers.
These are targeted reforms built on lessons learned over decades. They do not erase environmental law or end judicial oversight. Rather, they simply recognize that endless delay is a detriment to our nation’s energy growth, and demand is only rising.
Judicial review reform would help projects move more quickly, lower uncertainty, attract investment and strengthen energy security. It would support the Trump Administration’s goal of accelerating development while creating durable rules that last beyond any one presidency or sways of power in Congress.
The time to act is now. Congress should update the law, cut unnecessary delays and allow America to build again.