One of the most overlooked challenges in America’s effort to expand clean energy is the permitting process. While the country is poised for significant growth in renewable energy projects, permitting procedures have become a major barrier to building the infrastructure needed for this transformation.

A recent study at the R Street Institute explored how reforming the permitting process could significantly reduce carbon emissions over the next decade. The report, “Emission Benefits of Permitting Reform,” looks at how long project approvals currently take and how much faster the process could be with targeted improvements.

The core question of the study is straightforward: How much could the United States reduce emissions simply by speeding up the permitting process for electric power projects? To answer this, we developed two baseline permitting timelines—a moderate 36-month average and a slower 60-month average— based on recent observations.

Assuming that current permitting times average 36 months and that those times could be decreased by 15 to 25 percent, we calculated that improved permitting timeframes could avoid between 97 and 452 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) over 10 years, depending on how new resources could replace incumbent fossil fuel generation. This would reduce power-sector CO2 emissions by up to 4.7 percent and overall U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions by 1.1 percent.  

If we assume that the more recent data suggesting a 60-month baseline is accurate, then accelerating permits by 15 to 25 percent could yield an emission benefit between 322 and 753 million metric tons of avoided CO2 over 10 years. Furthermore, based on this 60-month average, a 60 percent improvement in timeline (i.e., from five years to two years) could avoid up to 1,806 million metric tons of CO2 over 10 years, commensurate with the most generous substitutions of renewable energy for fossil fuel. This would reduce total electric power CO2 emissions by up to 18.7 percent and overall U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions for all sectors and sources by 4.3 percent.

These findings show that emissions reduction is not just about financing clean energy—it is also about making processes better so that new resources can enter the market. Permitting delays slow down the deployment of wind and solar farms, energy storage systems, and modern transmission lines. Displacing carbon-intensive power generation can only happen if new resources are able to come online.

One key point for emission abatement supported by our report is the importance of transmission infrastructure. Clean energy, especially wind and solar, is often generated far from where it is most needed. High-voltage transmission lines are required to connect these projects to cities and industrial areas; however, these lines face long, multi-jurisdictional permitting reviews that can drag on for years. When projects stall, not only are emissions reductions delayed, but investors may walk away and communities may miss out on jobs and economic benefits.

One critique of permitting reform is that because it would affect all energy types (including fossil fuels), emission increases would overtake avoided emissions. However, the overall impact remains positive. Because clean energy projects tend to be more capital-intensive and time-sensitive, they stand to gain more from faster timelines. Additionally, many fossil fuel projects face market headwinds that may continue regardless of permitting speed, and most energy investment focuses on clean energy-related deployment.

Our most significant finding is that there is considerable emission abatement potential without a reimagining of energy policy. It shows how much can be achieved simply by making the current system more efficient. Setting clearer timelines for decisions, improving coordination among agencies, and eliminating redundant reviews could unlock significant emission abatement in just a few years.

While created to ensure oversight and protect communities, the permitting system has become a choke point for energy development. As R Street has pointed out, reforming the system does not mean abandoning oversight—it means modernizing how governments review projects so that public benefits like cleaner air, more reliable grids, and lower emissions are not left in limbo. As energy and environmental issues continue to dominate national policy conversations, this study provides timely evidence that the path to a cleaner grid does not always require new interventions; sometimes it just requires moving faster and smarter with the tools we already have.

Our study offers a compelling case for policymakers as to why some of the biggest wins in energy and climate policy come down to procedural details. It is also a reminder that efficiency in government processes is not just good governance—it can be good climate policy too.

Read the full report here.