The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 set a two-year target for federal permitting decisions on major infrastructure projects and named a lead agency for each — the most substantial permitting change since the 1970s-era framework it amended, with the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council tracking the projects that fall under the new schedules. As of the Council's 2024 dashboard, more than 60 projects — transmission lines, mines, pipelines, and renewables — had been designated covered projects under the FAST-41 framework the law extended, per the Permitting Council's own published project inventory. The mechanism to watch is the schedule, not the press releases.
What actually changed in the law?
Three things. The statute codified a two-year goal for completing environmental reviews for major projects, with a one-year target for lower-tier ones — replacing guidance targets that agencies routinely missed with statutory language, per the text of the Fiscal Responsibility Act's permitting title. It clarified the lead-agency assignment that determines who runs the review when multiple agencies have jurisdiction, a chronic source of delay the Council's own annual reports document. And it expanded the categories of projects eligible for the FAST-41 covered-project track, which brings a published schedule and a permitting dashboard the public can check, per the Council's published criteria.
Why does a schedule change matter more than a deadline?
Because the documented permitting failure mode is not a missed deadline — it is no deadline. Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act have lengthened for decades: the Council on Environmental Quality's own statistics, in its 2023 NEPA guidance materials, put the average environmental impact statement at over four and a half years to complete, with page counts in the hundreds. A published schedule with a named lead agency creates two things litigation-prone processes lacked: an accountable party and a record of slippage. Projects on the FAST-41 dashboard show their milestone dates publicly, which converts delay from an internal condition into a visible one.
What are the first test cases showing?
Mixed, and that is the honest reading. Some covered projects have held their schedules — the dashboard's milestone data show on-track entries through 2024 — while others show slipped dates, and the two-year target remains a target, not an enforceable cap; the statute provides no penalty an applicant can invoke when an agency misses it, per the law's own remedies, which run through Council coordination rather than court orders. The detail most coverage skips: the clock's start. A schedule that begins at the notice of intent, not at the applicant's first submission, excludes the pre-review consultation that projects report as the longest phase, in the Permitting Council's published project pages.
What to watch next in the process?
Three checkpoints. Whether dashboard schedules survive contact with litigation — court challenges to individual reviews proceed regardless of statutory targets. Whether Congress extends the framework's authorization, which sunsets on a statutory calendar and has required reauthorization fights before. And whether the average completion time on the Council's annual report — the one number that aggregates reality rather than promises — moves from CEQ's four-and-a-half-year baseline. The mechanism is now in place; the record is not yet written.
For more context, read Continuing Resolutions: How Stopgap Funding Actually Works.
For more context, read unikel.