Coloradoās energy and infrastructure projects are taking longer than ever to move from proposal to reality. Federal permitting reviews that were intended to support informed decision-making now move on for years, delaying projects and increasing costs for communities across the state.
One of the reasons for these setbacks is theĀ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). When originally signed into law in 1970, NEPA was designed to ensure environmental impacts were carefully considered while allowing energy and infrastructure projects to move forward. More than 50 years later, the process has grown longer and more vulnerable to litigation, creating significant barriers for projects Colorado depends on.
Today, completing the NEPA process takes an average ofĀ four-and-a-half years, with many taking even longer to reach a decision. A study from Resources for the Future found a project that tookĀ 12 years just to reachĀ a record of decision. Energy transmission projects now average over six years, and even clean energy projects can take over four years before construction begins. For a growing, energy-producing state like Colorado, those timelines are not sustainable.
The issue is not environmental protection, but a permitting process that has lost sight of its original purpose. NEPA requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts using Environmental Impact Statements, but those reviews have become increasingly lengthy, rigid, and open to litigation. NEPA is now the most litigated environmental statute in the country and has been the subject ofĀ 17 Supreme Court cases. The Council on Environmental Quality found that environmental impact statements between 2013 and 2018 averaged 575 pages, with one-quarterĀ exceeding 621 pages. Reviews of that size are difficult to distribute amongst teams and guarantee future delays.
A clear example of NEPA overreach locally is theĀ Uinta Basin Railway, designed to connect Utah oil producers to refineries in Colorado. Despite clearing an initial environmental impact statement, the project was halted for years by litigation The project remains pending today.
NEPA is not the only statute contributing to the problem. Ambiguous language in theĀ Clean Water Act,Ā Clean Air Act, andĀ Endangered Species Act has fueled continued litigation, adding up delays for energy infrastructure throughout the West. The result of these seemingly endless delays is a permitting system that prioritizes the actual process of obtaining a permit more than the environmental impact itself. This hinders both energy reliability and economic growth, hurting Americans across Colorado and the U.S.
It is also important to note that permitting reform is not a partisan issue. The Bipartisan Policy Center found thatĀ 61% of votersĀ support expediting permitting reform and lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly tried to act. In 2024, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced theĀ Energy Permitting Reform Act, and more recently, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AK) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) introduced theĀ Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, which would limit litigation unless direct harm is demonstrated as a result of the project in question. These efforts show bipartisan agreement on the problem, even if Congress has yet to deliver a solution.
Governors are increasingly vocal as well. At theĀ National Governors Association Winter Meeting, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt noted that permitting reform is one of the rare issues where Republicans and Democrats largely agree on both the problem, yet Congress continues to neglect the solution. That same meeting led to the creation of a bipartisan governorsā working group focused on NEPA, judicial review, and transmission siting.
Colorado cannot afford a permitting system that obstructs the creation of safe, effective energy projects. Reforming NEPA does not mean abandoning environmental responsibility; it means restoring balance so that critical energy and infrastructure projects can move forward responsibly and on time. Refusing to act continues to raise costs for workers, consumers, and communities across the state. Congress has the bipartisan will and public support to act; the only question is whether or not they will prioritize a solution.
Congressman Scott Tipton served Coloradoās third congressional district from 2011- 2021 and was a member of the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources Committee.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
