An approved project should have a reasonable chance of becoming a completed project. Chairman Bruce Westerman’s closing conversation with C3 President Nick Loris returned permitting reform to that basic test—and to the investment lost when government cannot meet it.
Drawing on his engineering and forestry background, Westerman connected procedural delays to the country’s ability to use its resources and deploy new technology. Permit reversals can chill investment across energy sources. Litigation rules can determine whether an agency corrects a problem and moves forward or a project spends years circling the same disputes. His case for reform combined durable approvals with a more predictable process for meeting environmental requirements.
Westerman brought optimism about further legislative action, tempered by the arithmetic of getting a bill through both chambers and onto the president’s desk. Compromise is part of that work. So is making the consequences understandable beyond Washington: delays affect energy costs and the price of goods, even when the permitting process itself remains invisible. The challenge for reformers is to connect those everyday stakes to a bipartisan agreement that lets America build.
