From the desks of Jonathan Cox, Jennifer Dooly and James Janoskey:

We spend our days advising the companies building the physical backbone of the global economy—energy producers, power developers, miners, midstream operators, manufacturers, and infrastructure sponsors. One issue comes up more consistently than any other, and it isn't access to capital: it's permitting.

The concern is not confined to one region or political camp. We hear it from sponsors and investors, utilities and system operators, labor and local leaders, landowners, community groups, and public agencies.

What we see

Across sectors, the biggest issue is whether projects can reach a final, durable decision on a schedule that investors, communities, and supply chains can plan around.

Grid connection queues in the UK and Germany can now stretch a decade or more, and major project timelines in Canada and Australia have lengthened materially over the past five years. New generation and storage projects are routinely delayed by reviews, interconnection studies, and sequencing across agencies, meaning capacity that could be built is stuck in process even when capital and technology are ready.

The constraint is most acute in the United States, where shifting permitting requirements across jurisdictions compounds costs, erodes stakeholder support, and can stall otherwise viable projects.

A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers puts the annual cost to U.S. manufacturers at $7.9 billion in lost revenue, legal expenses, and delayed project initiation. McKinsey estimates that major U.S. projects now take 4–5 years to permit, holding up roughly $1.1–$1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment.

These figures represent generation capacity not coming online, grid upgrades not being delivered, and industrial facilities not being built. All of these inefficiencies show up as higher costs, tighter supply, and reduced resilience when needs are skyrocketing.

Our view

The case for permitting reform in the U.S. is about modernization, not deregulation: predictable timelines, durable decisions, and less duplication – while preserving appropriate safety standards, environmental safeguards, and community benefits. When the process itself becomes the primary source of risk, that uncertainty shows up in financing terms, hurdle rates, and final investment decisions, sometimes tipping the balance toward projects abroad.

There is also growing demand for broad, durable bipartisan legislation that can support a wide range of permitted projects and that can outlast election cycles, so multi-year projects aren’t forced to reprice, redesign, or restart. Capital formation and long-term societal planning both depend on rules stable enough for multi-year investments, community benefit negotiations, workforce development, and supply-chain buildout to hold together.

Our stake

JPMorganChase finances and advises clients building tangible infrastructure and industry worldwide such as grid upgrades, domestic manufacturing, critical minerals, semiconductors, and energy infrastructure.

The firm's Security and Resiliency Initiative reflects a particular focus on the United States: a $1.5 trillion, 10-year plan including an initial $10 billion in direct equity investments in U.S.-based companies strengthening energy independence, advanced manufacturing, and infrastructure.

The connection is clear: when permitting works, capital moves quickly into productive assets. When it doesn't, projects stall, costs rise, and the United States cedes ground in industries where leadership is not optional.

Critical components for permitting reform in the U.S.

First, permitting should be timely and predictable by design, including the use of enforceable schedules, concurrent rather than sequential reviews, and digital workflows. The European Commission's European Grids Package illustrates what this could look like at scale: harmonized deadlines (e.g., two years to grant permits for new transmission and distribution), a centralized national digital portal, and narrower reviews for upgrades or repowering where risk is well understood.

Second, judicial review must remain a safeguard but deliver decisions on a timeline that matches economic reality. Today, even unsuccessful challenges add years and function as a financing premium on nationally important projects. Tighter statutes of limitation, accelerated judicial review, and standing limited to substantive participants could preserve accountability while reducing investment-deterring uncertainty, an idea with strong bipartisan support.

Third, government coordination and capacity should be treated as core infrastructure. Several states have shown that creating a clearer ‘front door,’ with centralized coordination and defined accountability, can significantly reduce timeline risk without compromising standards. A recent Western Governors’ Association initiative points in this same direction, launching a Permitting Alignment and Coordination Task Force that aims to improve state and federal level coordination by creating a governor-led framework to align permitting processes, resolve interstate bottlenecks, and advance multi-state priority infrastructure projects more efficiently.

The bottom line

The United States can build faster without cutting corners. Our clients are ready to deploy capital into projects that expand capacity, lower costs, strengthen supply chains, and create jobs. Capital is global, and the window to secure America's share is narrower than it seems.

We will keep supporting our clients and engaging constructively with policymakers to help deliver a permitting system that is modern, accountable, and built for the scale of what this country needs to accomplish.

This material has not been reviewed, endorsed, or otherwise approved by, and is not a work product of, any research department of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and/or its affiliates. Information contained in this document has been obtained from sources, including those publicly available, believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty is made by the document’s author or JPMorganChase as to the quality, completeness, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement of such information. Sources of third-party information referred to herein retain all rights with respect to such data and use of such data by JPMorganChase herein shall not be deemed to grant a license to any third party. All information contained herein is as of the date referenced and is subject to change without notice.