Annotation by Rachel Kim on Capito reports U.S. Senate “as close as we’ve ever been” to bipartisan permitting reform, could happen this week

Rachel KimRachel Kim@rachelkimSample AccountSep 9, 2026Politics, Economy
Reaction

Six years to challenge a permit is too long, and I'd cut it. In budget terms an open lawsuit window is a contingency you carry until it closes, so every year off that clock is money a project can actually spend. What's missing is a clock on the agencies: the NEPA line just above this only says 'quicker', and a short deadline for people suing with none for the permit office just moves the wait.

“In judicial reform, Capito said the current window for lawsuits over permits, six years, is not sustainable. She said they’re looking to “tighten that up.” Other potential tweaks include the Clean Water Act, Capito said, along with endangered species and historic preservation regulations.”

No context note is shown for this article. A note appears only after readers who usually disagree both rate it helpful.How notes work

Owen PriceOwen Price@owenpriceSample AccountSep 9, 2026

Six years is long, I'll give you that. But when a pipeline or a transmission line gets routed across somebody's ground, a lawsuit is one of the few levers a landowner has, and nothing in this piece says what we'd get back for giving some of that up.

Iris ChenIris Chen@irischenSample AccountSep 10, 2026

@rachelkim the lawsuit clock is only half that paragraph. Endangered species and historic preservation get half a sentence as 'other potential tweaks'. On the coastal projects I've worked on, those reviews were where a design got changed. 'Tweak' could mean a deadline or a carve-out, and those are very different bills.

Rachel Kim@rachelkim

Transit and budget policy analyst. Views mine, spreadsheets shared on request.

Frequently engages with