A February 2026 Crux survey of 50 clean energy developers and permitting professionals found that federal permitting contributed to project delays or cancellations for 94% of developers and increased costs for 100% of developers surveyed. Across respondents alone, the impacts represent roughly 11 GW of affected clean energy capacity in a single year.
The federal permitting process serves an important purpose — considering economic and energy benefits against environmental and community impacts — but it is not functioning as intended. As a result, the current system is creating challenges and costs for clean energy developers across every region. That means projects that are downsized, delayed, or canceled altogether.
To better understand the impacts of federal permitting, Crux, the capital platform for the clean economy, conducted a targeted survey of clean energy developers and permitting professionals in February 2026. The findings offer a clear picture of how federal permitting is shaping — and in some cases, stopping — clean energy project development.
Federal law creates permitting obligations for projects with a federal nexus — a connection to federal jurisdiction, funding, or resources — regardless of whether that project is sited on public lands. These permitting obligations could include:
Even when developers meet these obligations and receive the required permits, those permits can be challenged in court. The process can be difficult to predict, and, as the survey shows, that unpredictability carries a cost.
Download the factsheet for survey data and respondent stories →
Every single developer and permitting official that responded to the survey had projects impacted by federal permitting–related issues in the last 12 months. Using conservative assumptions, this represents roughly 11 GW of capacity affected across survey respondents alone in the last year.
Those impacts show up as delays, added costs, and even decisions about where not to build new energy infrastructure.
Federal permitting is a consistent contributor to project delays and cancellations. Ninety-four percent of respondents said it was sometimes, often, or always a factor when asked how frequently federal permitting, federal review/approval requirements, or related litigation contributed to projects being delayed, abandoned, or cancelled in the last 12 months.
Among the projects that were delayed in the past 12 months, 46% of respondents reported project delays of 3–6 months, 34% experienced delays of 6–12 months, and 8% faced multi-year setbacks. The average delayed project loses more than half a year, functionally pushing back the delivery of clean, affordable energy by six months or more.
In the last 12 months, federal permitting–related issues raised project development costs for 100% of survey respondents. The most commonly cited cost impact was a 6–10% increase in total project costs (58% of respondents), although 4% of respondents reported increases greater than 25%.
For a typical 100-MW solar project, this finding translates to $10–14 million in additional project costs — and energy bills that are up to 6.75% higher for customers.
More than 80% of respondents intentionally site projects to avoid triggering federal permitting requirements — regulatory avoidance, not optimal resource or land-use considerations, is driving siting decisions for the majority of clean energy developers. States with significant federal lands, jurisdictions, or resources lose out on clean energy development that would otherwise occur there — a real economic and energy cost that is difficult to quantify precisely because it never shows up in permitting data.
This finding also challenges the view that federal permitting is not burdensome because a relatively small percentage of projects undergo NEPA review. Developers are actively siting projects to avoid triggering NEPA and other federal requirements in the first place.
Download the factsheet for survey data and respondent stories →
Critically, developers aren’t asking for weaker environmental protections; they’re asking for a more predictive and consistent framework so they can better plan, finance, and build projects where they are needed most. When asked to identify the single change they would most like to see in the federal permitting process, 72% of respondents chose more predictable outcomes, defined as clearer requirements and consistent decisions. This far outpaced faster timelines (12%), simpler processes (8%), and additional agency staffing (6%).
Permitting reform is not about removing protections or shortening reviews for their own sake. It is about making a process that is currently unclear, inconsistent, and unpredictable work better for everyone: communities, developers, and the grid.
Federal permitting refers to a set of review and approval obligations triggered when a project has a "federal nexus" — meaning it involves federal land, funding, or resources, or may affect federally protected species, waterways, or historic properties. For clean energy developers, this nexus can arise even when a project sits entirely on private land: receiving federal financing, crossing a small stretch of federal territory, or potentially affecting a listed species can each trigger full federal review requirements under laws such as NEPA, the ESA, or the Clean Water Act.
Among developers who reported permitting-related delays in the past 12 months, the most common delay was 3–6 months (46% of respondents), followed by 6–12 months (34%). Eight percent of respondents faced multi-year setbacks. On average, a delayed project loses more than six months — pushing back the delivery of clean energy to the grid by half a year or more.
Because the process is unpredictable and costly, more than 80% of developers surveyed report siting projects specifically to avoid triggering federal review requirements. The consequence is that siting decisions are driven by regulatory avoidance rather than where energy resources are strongest or where capacity is most needed — a form of market distortion that doesn't show up in permitting data precisely because the projects never enter the process.
According to the Crux survey, 72% of respondents said more predictable outcomes — defined as clearer requirements and more consistent agency decisions — was the single change they would most like to see. This far outpaced faster timelines (12%), simpler processes (8%), and additional agency staffing (6%). Developers are not asking for weaker environmental protections; they're asking for a framework that lets them plan, finance, and build with greater certainty.
Download the full survey report for additional data and developer perspectives.
