⚡ AI + energy: A Quick Q&A with … Mark Jamison on permitting reform

'Regulatory certainty is essential for infrastructure investment, especially in energy, where timelines can span decades and capital requirements are enormous'

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,

The US may be number one in artificial intelligence, but the competition is fierce, and a future of American AI leadership is by no means a foregone conclusion. One of the biggest challenges to progress is none other than US energy infrastructure regulation.

As Mark Jamison points out in his recent piece, “America’s AI Future Needs Faster Permitting”:

Electricity is the binding constraint for building and using hyperscale data centers, essential for training today’s advanced AI models. The Department of Energy projects that data center electricity demand will nearly triple by 2028. Meeting that growing demand will require building generation and transmission capacity at unprecedented speed. Yet some AI developers are struggling to obtain the electricity they need . . .

I asked Jamison a few quick questions about what reforms might allow the US power its AI revolution.

Jamison is a nonresident senior fellow at AEI whose research centers around the impact of technology on the economy. He is the director of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business, where he is also a senior lecturer.

---

1/ Which aspects of Iowa's efficiency reforms would work best for federal permitting, and what challenges might arise when scaling nationally?

Iowa’s approach to regulatory streamlining offers a strong model for federal permitting reform. Under Governor Reynolds’ directive, each state agency was required to clearly define its core mission, assess the effectiveness of its programs, and identify duplicative or misaligned functions. A similar exercise could work well at the federal level, particularly within departments and agencies that oversee permitting.

To apply this federally, department heads should require their leadership teams to step back and ask three fundamental questions: What is the central purpose of our permitting process? Are our current procedures effective in achieving that purpose? And where else in government is this purpose being addressed — potentially in ways that are redundant or at odds with our work?

This kind of disciplined self-review helps prevent regulatory programs from drifting away from their original goals or outliving their usefulness. It creates space to simplify permitting without compromising legitimate safeguards.

That said, scaling this effort nationally would come with challenges. The scope of federal regulatory activity is vast, and a government-wide review could overwhelm agencies and derail reform. That’s why permitting is a smart place to start — there’s urgency, a clear economic impact, and in many cases, a relatively bounded policy domain.

A more subtle challenge is bureaucratic resistance. Long-tenured career staff can respond to change efforts by stalling — outwaiting political appointees — perhaps through procedural delays or shifting attention to politically charged distractions. Limiting this evaluation to permitting helps maintain focus, making it harder for bureaucracies to deflect reform and easier for Congress to oversee real progress.

2/ What mechanisms could create regulatory certainty for infrastructure investments while maintaining environmental protections?

Regulatory certainty is essential for infrastructure investment, especially in energy, where timelines can span decades and capital requirements are enormous. Certainty requires more than pro-business rhetoric; it demands clear, consistent rules that function predictably across administrations and limit the scope for shifting interpretations.

The most durable solution is congressional action. If Congress wants permitting rules that outlast executive branch turnover, it must legislate them clearly and in detail. That means defining timelines, narrowing discretion, and including mechanisms for periodic review or amendment. But doing so requires members to engage in deep negotiation and accept responsibility for how laws operate in the real world — something Congress has increasingly avoided.

In the absence of robust legislation, agencies should use their rulemaking authority to create durable permitting frameworks. That includes setting binding deadlines for permit objections and enforcing them. It also includes adopting "permit-by-analogy" rules — if a permit application matches a previously approved project, it should be presumed acceptable unless there’s material evidence to the contrary. These rules would provide both predictability and efficiency without undermining legitimate environmental protections.

Regulatory certainty works to the advantage of environmental protection and improvement. Clear expectations, a transparent process, and guardrails that prevent agencies from shifting the goalposts midstream serve environmental protection. Investors and communities alike benefit when rules are stable, timelines are enforced, and political winds don’t determine regulatory outcomes.