Get Moving on Infrastructure

Proposals to improve and streamline the permitting process

America’s infrastructure is decrepit. Fixing it would create millions of jobs and return $1.44 on each dollar invested. It would also create a greener footprint and improve America’s competitiveness.

But, there’s a problem: Projects languish on the drawing board for upwards of a decade or more, as dozens of different government agencies bicker over the details of projects — often resulting in 10,000-page environmental review statements that are as immaterial as they are unreadable. So, how do we get moving on infrastructure? Here are three proposals from the “Drain the Swamp?” forum. What do you think of these ideas? What’s missing from the conversation? Tell us your thoughts on these and other solutions in the comments.

Empower and Staff the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), Richard Kidd, Executive Director of FPISC

The incoming Trump administration has two broad options when it comes to the topic of improving Federal permitting processes. Undertake wholesale reform of the existing regulatory regime, revising and altering underlying statutes and changing the current set of assumptions and approaches or build upon and accelerate the ongoing set of incremental process improvements undertaken by Obama and Congress. Given the complexity and breadth of the current process, a complete overhaul would take a substantial amount of time, probably years, to complete.

Fortunately, the incoming Administration is in a great position to take advantage of the coherence and momentum that now exists in regards to improving the Federal infrastructure permitting process. This path can be taken while simultaneously working to develop entirely new approaches. The two routes are not mutually exclusive and pursuing both maximizes opportunities for success. To fully leverage the new structure created by the FAST Act, I would recommend that the new Administration undertake the following actions.

1. Empower the position of FPISC Executive Director, providing this person with the access, influence and resources they need to drive systemic process improvements. The Administration should act to immediately appoint an Executive Director and to fully fund the Environmental Review Improvement Fund, up to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimated amount of $30M.
2. Hold the incoming Deputy Secretaries accountable for improving the performance of their agencies in regards to infrastructure permitting. This needs to be a priority action and communicated to each incoming appointee.
3. Invest in the federal work force, by ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of trained and qualified field staff to handle the permitting workload. Permitting actions are performed by people. Any permitting improvement initiative needs to include corresponding investments to ensure Agencies are capable of meeting new requirements and no area is in more need of investment than human capital. These investments should come in the form of increased numbers of permitting staff, and then providing these staff with more training, better technology to increase productivity, and a commitment to professional development through rotational assignments and career progression.
4. Involve federal staff in the reform process. Most staff that I have worked with as FPSIC Executive Director would embrace the opportunity to improve the Federal permitting processes. But, if permitting reform advocates loudly claim that Federal Employees are the problem, then they are very likely to resist change, even if well-conceived.

Accelerate Infrastructure Permitting, Philip Howard, Chair of Common Good

Permitting for infrastructure projects can take a decade or more. Multiple agencies oversee the process, with no clear lines of authority. Once permits are granted, lawsuits can last years more. These delays are costly and, often, environmentally destructive (see Common Good’s Two Years, Not Ten Years report).

To eliminate unnecessary delays, we must give officials authority to enforce deadlines and resolve lawsuits in expedited proceedings. To accomplish these goals, we recommend amending the FAST Act with the following provisions:

1. Except in unusual circumstances, decisions to approve infrastructure projects are made in less than two years.
2. The Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has authority to resolve all disputes regarding the scope and adequacy of environmental review pursuant to NEPA.
3. CEQ has the authority to grant a fast track one-year review for those projects that were developed with significant consultation with stakeholders and that demonstrate net environmental benefits.
4. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget has authority to resolve inter-agency disputes.
5. If state and local permits are delayed for more than six months past issuance of federal permits, the Chief Permitting Officer is authorized to grant final permits for projects of interstate or national significance.
6. Judicial review is limited to the question of whether the initial review failed to disclose material impacts and practical alternatives.

These changes will substantially improve review timetables and reduce construction costs while maintaining strong environmental protections for federal infrastructure projects. Here is the text of the bill to accomplish these amendments, which we call the Get America Building Act of 2017.

Private Capital Won’t Solve Our Infrastructure Problem, Michael Schmidt, Former economic policy advisor to Hillary Clinton

There are two ways to pay for infrastructure investment: infrastructure funding and infrastructure financing. Historically, the federal government has been in the business of infrastructure funding — using public resources (raised primarily through the gas tax) to invest in public assets, without the immediate expectation of a return on investment. Increasingly, policymakers are seeking out tools for infrastructure financing — investing in revenue-generating projects (e.g., toll roads) that promise economic returns to holders of project debt and equity. While the obligation to fund infrastructure investment falls exclusively to federal, state, and local governments, the opportunity to finance infrastructure investment can draw public and private capital alike.

Given the political challenges associated with raising public revenues for infrastructure funding, the prospect of generating greater private financing of infrastructure investment has garnered political support on both sides of the aisle — with both Secretary Clinton and President-elect Trump putting forward (albeit quite different) proposals to encourage public-private partnerships during the presidential campaign. But it’s critical to recognize that simply encouraging public-private partnerships will never alone come close to addressing our nation’s enormous infrastructure needs, as the vast majority of projects do not generate the cash flow necessary to support private financing arrangements. As far as infrastructure enthusiasts should be concerned, the question is whether the incoming Administration and Congress prove willing to put forward the resources necessary to meaningfully increase direct infrastructure funding.