America does not primarily have an energy shortage. It has a permitting shortage. A new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proposal to streamline expansions of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities highlights both the opportunity and the limits of piecemeal reform. As energy analyst Stuart Turley notes, LNG expansion alone will not lower costs for consumers without broader regulatory overreach reform throughout the natural gas value chain—and beyond, across all energy sources. The same delays, litigation risks, and multi-year reviews that slow LNG and pipelines also constrain power plants, transmission lines, refineries, and even renewable projects, feeding higher construction costs, tighter supply, and upward pressure on power bills.
We highly recommend reading and following both the Daily Caller, with great energy writers like Simon and Paris, and David Blackmon.
FERC’s LNG Fast-Track Proposal
On October 16, 2026, FERC unanimously proposed a blanket authorization program that would allow certain LNG facility expansions and modifications to proceed without full project-specific reviews under the Natural Gas Act. Minor changes that do not increase authorized capacity, expand the footprint, or exceed design limits could proceed automatically. Capacity increases within the existing footprint would require 60 days’ notice; larger projects such as new processing units, storage tanks, or marine berths would need 90 days’ notice, still subject to safeguards. Source: Paris Apodaca Dailycaller
Energy analyst David Blackmon called it “a very significant move to streamline permitting and get the government out of the way of one of America’s most dynamic expanding industries.” He pointed to cases in which an LNG operator waited more than two years simply for approval to build a safety- and efficiency-related flow line. “If approved, this authority would have avoided that and other bureaucratic delays,” he said. FERC Chairman Laura V. Swett framed the proposal in terms of energy dominance: “American energy dominance requires us to build and maintain the energy infrastructure our country needs without unnecessary delay.” The proposal mirrors an existing program for interstate natural gas pipelines and includes standardized environmental and engineering safeguards. Public comments will be accepted for 60 days after Federal Register publication. Source: Paris Apodaca Dailycaller
Turley’s caution is equally important. “LNG expansion by itself will not lower costs; it has to have regulatory overreach reform throughout the value chain,” he said. Expanded LNG exports can place upward pressure on domestic natural gas prices even as other reforms lower supply-chain costs. Restrictions on production, pipelines, and transportation remain binding constraints. Faster LNG infrastructure is helpful for energy security and exports, but it is not a complete answer for residential or industrial power bills. Source: Paris Apodaca Dailycaller
Broader Permitting Reform and Consumer Impacts
Blackmon and others have repeatedly argued that the United States faces a permitting shortage rather than a resource shortage. More than 650 major infrastructure projects, representing roughly $1.1–1.5 trillion in investment, remain stuck in federal review. McKinsey has estimated that construction costs rise 24–30 percent over long permitting timelines, driven largely by materials, labor, and overhead while reviews and litigation continue. An ICF analysis commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute found that comprehensive federal permitting reform could cut residential electricity bills by a combined $55.6 billion from 2026 through 2035 across 22 states studied, while supporting about 705,000 jobs and nearly $24 billion in tax revenue by 2030. Average residential rate reductions of roughly 0.71 cents per kWh (rising toward 0.95 cents by 2035) translate into annual household savings that vary by state, with larger impacts in places like Virginia.Blackmon.substack
A bipartisan Senate package—the American Affordability and Jobs Act (sometimes described as “Freedom to Build”)—aims to address core problems: narrowing NEPA reviews to impacts tied to the project rather than every hypothetical downstream effect, imposing a 150-day clock on certain lawsuits and limiting standing, preventing courts from vacating completed permits over paperwork defects (remand rather than halt), keeping Clean Water Act Section 401 focused on actual water quality rather than serving as a backdoor climate veto, and making statutory deadlines enforceable. These changes would apply across energy types, including transmission, generation, and pipelines. Environmental and safety standards remain; the goal is to end process that treats delay as a virtue.Blackmon.substack
It is impossible to isolate a single precise dollar figure for “permitting costs” to every U.S. energy consumer—the interactions of federal, state, and local rules, litigation, financing costs, and forgone supply are too complex. Analysts have nonetheless quantified large effects. Beyond the ICF and McKinsey figures, other work shows that delays in transmission and generation development raise system costs by tens of billions annually in modeled scenarios, with net costs to energy users several times larger than any capital-cost savings from slower spending. Project-specific examples (transmission lines, solar, storage) routinely show 6–25 percent or higher cost increases from federal or local permitting delays, which flow into rate bases. Broader federal regulatory compliance costs have been estimated in the trillions annually across the economy, with energy, climate, and appliance rules among the drivers that raise household expenses. The direction is clear: longer, more uncertain processes raise the cost of building the infrastructure that keeps the lights on and fuels affordable.
Blue-State vs. Red-State Permitting: Oil Wells as a Window into All Energy
Energy News Beat’s comparison of oil-well permitting in Colorado, California, and Texas illustrates how state-level differences compound federal ones and affect supply reliability. As of mid-September 2026 data:
- Texas (development-oriented): Standard W-1 drilling permits typically process in 2–4 business days. Trailing 24-month permits ~3,232; high spud activity (hundreds in recent 90-day windows). 2025 oil output ~5.76 million b/d. Statewide spacing rules with relatively limited local veto power; the statutory posture emphasizes preventing waste and protecting correlative rights, with development presumed.
- Colorado: OGDP-to-hearing averages 257–297 days in recent years; full state-plus-local packages often 12–18 months. Trailing 24-month permits only ~335. 2,000-foot statewide setbacks, local surface-siting authority, continuous monitoring, methane rules, and net-zero-oriented statutes have sharply reduced activity near residences and slowed new wells. Output has plateaued in the 420–475 thousand b/d range after earlier growth.
- California: Paper targets for certain notices are short, but CEQA, local land-use vetoes, and phase-down politics dominate real timelines. Trailing 24-month permits ~1,853 (many reworks rather than new shale-style drills); recent 90-day spuds extremely low (single digits in some snapshots). Long-term production decline continues in the ~300 thousand b/d range. Kern County saw limited 2026 streamlining, but overall policy has constrained new development.
Texas’s volume and speed support high output and a deep operator base. Colorado and California’s longer clocks, setbacks, and environmental/litigation overlays have produced lower new-well activity relative to resource potential. These patterns are not limited to oil. Pipelines, gas-fired power plants, nuclear projects, transmission lines, and even large wind or solar farms face analogous multi-year federal NEPA processes, state siting battles, and lawsuit risks. In higher-regulation states, local and state rules frequently add layers that make firm, dispatchable capacity harder to build. The result is greater reliance on existing assets, imports, or intermittent resources that require backup—raising system costs and volatility that appear on power bills.
Reform for Stable Power Across All Sources
More permitting reform would accelerate baseload and firm capacity—natural gas combined-cycle plants, nuclear (including advanced designs), hydropower, and the pipelines and transmission that serve them—alongside any renewables that can clear reviews efficiently. Data-center load growth, electrification, and manufacturing reshoring are increasing demand. When new firm generation or delivery infrastructure is delayed, operators run older plants longer, buy more expensive power, or curtail loads, all of which increase costs. Streamlined processes reduce the 24–30 percent construction-cost premium from timelines, lower financing risk, and allow capital to flow into capacity that stabilizes the grid rather than relying solely on weather-dependent resources plus storage and backup.
LNG and pipeline reforms help by supporting abundant, flexible gas supply that underpins both power generation and industrial demand. Broader reforms (federal NEPA and Clean Water Act fixes, state-level streamlining modeled on Texas-style efficiency rather than Colorado- or California-style constraints) would extend the benefits to every major energy pathway. As Blackmon has emphasized in recent commentary, the bipartisan package offers a practical path; Turley’s point remains that partial measures are insufficient without consistent reform across the value chain.
Consumers ultimately pay for the capital, financing, and reliability costs embedded in delayed or canceled projects. Analysts’ estimates—tens of billions in cumulative residential bill reductions from comprehensive reform, double-digit percentage cost increases from prolonged timelines—indicate the scale. Permitting reform is not a silver bullet, but it is one of the highest-leverage steps available to expand stable supply and moderate pressure on power bills.
Check out the World’s Greatest Podcast Show Notes at EnergyNewsBeat.co or EnergyNewsBeat.com. And subscribe to: The Energy News Beat Substack.
Appendix: Sources and Links
- Paris Apodaca, “‘Significant Move To Streamline Permitting’: Regulators Move To Fast-Track Gas Infrastructure,” Daily Caller, October 16, 2026.
https://dailycaller.com/2026/10/16/ferc-proposes-fast-tracking-lng-facility-expansions/ - David Blackmon commentary and related posts on the American Affordability and Jobs Act / permitting shortage (including ICF and McKinsey citations), October 2026.
https://blackmon.substack.com/p/x-post-sign-the-frickin-permitting
Related X posts and API summaries of the ICF analysis. - ICF analysis for API: Permitting reform impacts on residential electricity bills (~$55.6 billion cumulative 2026–2035), jobs, and tax revenue.
https://www.icf.com/clients/energy/american-petroleum-institute-permitting
API study materials and related summaries. - McKinsey, “Unlocking US Federal Permitting,” on timelines (4–5 years average for project dollars) and 24–30 percent construction-cost increases.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-us-federal-permitting-a-sustainable-growth-imperative - Energy News Beat, “Colorado oil and gas wells lag even with high oil prices,” comparison of Colorado, California, and Texas permitting, production, and regulatory postures (data as of ~September 17, 2026).
https://energynewsbeat.co/crude-oil/colorado-oil-and-gas-wells-lag-even-with-high-oil-prices/ - Supporting state drilling activity data (Buckhead Energy and others, October 2026 snapshots): Texas leading in permits and activity; California and Colorado showing constrained new-well metrics relative to historical or resource potential.
- Additional analyses on delay costs: Resources for the Future-style modeling of transmission/generation delays (tens of billions in annual system-cost increases); project-specific cost overruns (e.g., 6–25+ percent on renewables and transmission); Competitive Enterprise Institute and related work on broader federal regulatory burdens.
- Stuart Turley / Energy News Beat and Energy Realities discussions on value-chain reform, pipeline hypocrisy, data-center load costs, and the need for regulatory changes beyond single sectors (multiple 2026 episodes and posts).
All figures are as reported in the cited sources as of mid-October 2026. Policy outcomes depend on final legislative and regulatory details.
