Eight years ago, local officials in Washington learned that a section of a sewage line next to the Potomac River had become corroded and was at risk of bursting. They wanted to repair it urgently. But the officials first needed to apply for a federal permit.<\/p>\n
When they did, federal officials demanded an exhaustive review of the project\u2019s potential effects on trees, wildflowers and bats rather than granting the permit, The Washington Post has documented. Four months ago, the section burst<\/a>, spewing hundreds of millions of gallons of raw human waste into the Potomac.<\/p>\n This example is extreme, but it shows how well-meaning permitting laws have stymied vital projects in the United States. Government agencies can take years to grant permits. The highest toll comes from the accumulated harm of the millions of projects that are never built: homes that would make housing more affordable; roads, bridges and transit that would speed movement; factories and office buildings that would provide good jobs; power plants that would be cleaner<\/a> than those they replaced.<\/p>\n Congress now has an opportunity to lift some of the regulatory burden. In December, the House passed a bill to reform federal permitting rules, the Speed Act, with 11 Democrats joining most Republicans. The bill is a good start but could stand to be improved. Senators from both parties recently restarted talks on their own version of a bill.<\/p>\n The politics are more favorable to progress than they have been in a long time. One reason is that Democrats, who are traditionally wary of deregulation, increasingly recognize that dense permitting rules are obstructing progressive goals<\/a>, such as reducing living costs and protecting the environment. \u201cWe need to build, and fast,\u201d said Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democratic senator known for his passion about climate policy. Failing to do so, he said, \u201cwill look grossly negligent.\u201d<\/p>\n Congressional Republicans and President Trump, for their part, have often gone too far in the other direction and unwound valuable regulation. But Republicans now have reason to consider compromise on a reform bill: the fear that voters\u2019 unhappiness about affordability could cost them their majority in the midterm elections this year. In Mr. Trump\u2019s 15 months in office, his policies have mostly increased prices<\/a>, through his war in Iran and his tariffs, as well as the foolish cancellation of clean energy projects<\/a>.<\/p>\n A deal that makes it easier to build in America is feasible, and we urge Congress to work toward one.<\/p>\n The broad outlines<\/strong> are already visible. Democrats want to aid green energy; Republicans want to promote fossil fuel projects and other types of building that they feel environmental reviews have stymied. These divergent aims require different changes in the law. The two sides should make a deal.<\/p>\n Renewables such as wind and solar power have become very cheap to build and operate \u2014 that is, if they can plug into the grid. One obstacle to building more renewables is the lack of high-voltage transmission lines to move electricity from areas where the wind blows and the sun shines to the rest of the country. Not nearly enough of these lines exist today, and that undermines the production of clean energy and raises energy costs for both households and businesses. The problem is likely to worsen<\/a>, given the increasing demand for electricity, coming from A.I. data centers, electric cars and other sources.<\/p>\n The approval process for new lines today is maddening. The TransWest Express, a line that is supposed to transmit renewable electricity from Wyoming to the Southwest, took 18 years to receive final approval and is still under construction. A power line to move energy from Kansas to Indiana has been in the works since 2010 and remains unfinished<\/a>, mired in politics and litigation.<\/p>\n A congressional bill that centralized oversight of power lines in a single federal authority, one with a mandate to link the country\u2019s electric grids, would speed things up. A comparable process already exists for natural gas pipelines. The bill that the House passed in December did not do enough to solve the problems with power lines, and a Senate bill should do more.<\/p>\n As for the political trade, Republicans are more likely to agree to this reform if Democrats accede to easing environmental review laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, and other statutes that restrict construction projects. There\u2019s good reason to do this, too. Since NEPA became law in 1970, judges and regulators have expanded the intensity of environmental reviews<\/a> to the point of paralysis. The time it takes to prepare an environmental-impact statement is long and has become longer over the decades, stretching to about four years on average in recent years. Litigation and other hurdles can add more time, even for the projects that clear legal review.<\/p>\n We understand why<\/strong> many Democrats are wary of permitting reform. Environmental laws have accomplished tremendous good<\/a> over the past half century, cleaning our air, water and more. Republicans frequently exaggerate the downsides of laws like NEPA and sometimes tell outright lies. As president, Mr. Trump has shown disdain for the serious damages and risks of climate change.<\/p>\n At the same time, overregulation has become a problem in some areas. Too often, today\u2019s regulations fail to accomplish their mission of balancing the nation\u2019s varied interests and arriving at the best collective solution. Fixing the excesses while still keeping the best parts of permitting laws is possible.<\/p>\n Many projects, like the Potomac sewage line repair, should not require intensive scrutiny that lasts for years. Builders should be able to object when a process is moving too slowly. And regulators should face binding timelines to complete their reviews. Federal agencies should also be adequately staffed; some are not, and the Trump administration has aggravated<\/a> the problem. These steps would preserve the core function of environmental regulation: requiring reasonable but not excessive assessment of a construction project\u2019s impact.<\/p>\n Leaving things as they are would help to preserve a status quo that has proved inadequate for the challenges the country faces: disconnected power grids; dirty energy; creaky roads, bridges and rail lines. The system is tilted in favor<\/a> of those who seek to preserve their own parochial interests at the expense of their broader communities and the country.<\/p>\n