Bill locks in federal permits, strips agencies of power to revoke them.

What it does

This bill creates strict new rules preventing federal agencies from revoking, terminating, or suspending permits and authorizations for infrastructure projects unless required by court order, necessary to prevent immediate harm, requested by the permit holder, or based on material breach or fraud. It also imposes tight timelines on agencies to process permit applications (30–60 days to declare completeness, with automatic approval if deadlines are missed), requires coordinated environmental reviews across agencies with 90-day to 2-year completion deadlines depending on complexity, and gives applicants the right to sue agencies in federal court if deadlines are missed, with courts ordered to decide within 90 days. The bill benefits permit applicants and infrastructure developers by making it much harder for agencies to withdraw approvals and much faster to obtain them.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is to accelerate and lock in federal permits by restricting agency authority to revoke them and imposing hard deadlines on application review. It is functionally a deregulatory measure that trades environmental/safety discretion for speed, benefiting permit applicants (energy, infrastructure, development sectors) at the expense of agency flexibility and public oversight.

What the text implies

• Agencies cannot withdraw permits even if new environmental data emerges post-approval, creating a 'locked-in' approval regime that may trap agencies into maintaining harmful authorizations.
• The 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for permit revocation is higher than the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard normally applied to agency action, making it nearly impossible for agencies to withdraw permits based on changed circumstances.
• Automatic approval of applications after missed deadlines (deemed-complete) incentivizes agencies to miss deadlines rather than conduct thorough review, since applicants can sue for delay but not for inadequate review.
• The 90-day court decision deadline for permit challenges may pressure courts to issue shallow rulings, reducing the quality of judicial review of complex environmental and safety determinations.
• Tribal governments receive an exemption from response deadlines (Section 6(b)(3)(B)), creating a two-tier system where Tribal consultation can be delayed indefinitely while other agencies face hard deadlines.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

While faster permitting may reduce project costs, the bill strips agencies of authority to protect public health, safety, and environmental resources by withdrawing permits when new harms emerge or conditions change. Citizens lose the ability to challenge permit revocations through normal administrative channels, and agencies cannot respond to unforeseen environmental or safety risks discovered after approval. The automatic approval mechanism (deemed-complete) bypasses substantive review, shifti

Who stands to gain

• energy companies (oil, gas, renewable energy developers)
• infrastructure developers (transportation, pipelines, transmission)
• mining and extraction companies
• real estate and construction firms
• permit applicants generally

Named in the bill

Federal agencies (general), Council on Environmental Quality, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Office of Personnel Management, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Atomic Energy Act (excluded from bill scope)

Where it stands

9 cosponsors: 5 Republicans, 4 Democrats.

• Apr 15, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Apr 15, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Energy and Commerce and House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

13 lobbying clients named this bill on 15 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $6,056,600 in lobbying spend. A filing names 21 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 94% of bills with at least one filing.

Scott Peters, the sponsor, reported $1,174,750 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $8,500 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.

• Chevron U.S.A. Inc. — $1,670,000 on 1 filing
• Honeywell International — $1,610,000 on 1 filing
• Associated Builders and Contractors Inc — $700,000 on 1 filing
• Experian North America — $440,000 on 1 filing
• American Clean Power Association — $380,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.