Legislation aimed at expediting federal permitting for the projects is moving forward in Congress, as the House Natural Resources Committee voted Nov. 20 to send an amended version of the Economic Development Standardization and Acceleration Act (SPEED) to a full vote. But even with some bipartisan support for permitting reform, opponents say the measure goes too far to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act by reducing transparency and limiting the ability of those affected by a project to provide input or challenge it.
The bill introduced by Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), passed 25-18, emphasizes that NEPA is “procedural” and does not mandate a particular outcome when agencies consider a project’s environmental impacts. During the committee markup hearing, he said the legislation is “project neutral” and would “address a number of issues at the heart of the NEPA dysfunction that exists today.”
The SPEED Act would codify the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition case, in which the justices unanimously ruled against environmental advocates who argued that the proposed $1.4 billion Uinta Basin Railway in Utah would have harmful impacts on Louisiana communities near where oil carried on the rail would be refined. The legislation states that agencies conducting NEPA reviews may consider only “those effects that share a reasonably close causal relationship with and are proximately caused by the project or immediate action under consideration.”
The bill would impose additional limits on what agencies can consider in their environmental reviews, directing them to rely more on past assessments for similar projects. It would also eliminate the requirement that a project receiving federal funding, including a grant, loan, loan guarantee, or other assistance, require an environmental review.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a member of the classification committee, questioned how many projects could be exempt from requiring an environmental review as a result, pointing to highway projects funded by the US Department of Transportation as an example. The bill would have “widespread and damaging ripple effects,” he said.
The SPEED Act would also establish timelines for agencies conducting NEPA reviews to complete various parts of the process, target cooperating agencies to conduct concurrent assessments, and prevent them from rescinding previously issued permits.
The bill would also limit challenges to permits and projects after reviews. Opponents would have just 150 days after the permit is approved to file a legal challenge. Courts hearing a case would also have limits, required to “give substantial deference to the agency” and prevented from “superseding.”[ing] their judgment for that of the agency in terms of environmental effects”.
Bipartisan interest, but questions arise
Republicans have tried to promote the SPEED Act as bipartisan, and Democrats on the committee expressed a desire to implement permit reform. Seven have signed on to co-sponsor the SPEED Act, but only two voted to advance the bill in its current form, and others criticized its potential far-reaching impacts.
“In our meetings, we heard a real appetite for bipartisan permit reform. This bill is not,” Huffman said. “This bill is so extreme that there is simply nothing meaningfully left of NEPA if this were to become law.”
In general, the bill has received a favorable response from the construction industry. In a letter to lawmakers in September, Alex Etchen of the Associated General Contractors of America highlighted the industry’s need to clarify and streamline various aspects of NEPA.
“Project delays caused by protracted NEPA reviews, permitting and litigation drive up costs and hurt the construction workforce by delaying job creation, disrupting hiring and reducing economic activity,” he wrote. “Delays increase labor and material costs, forcing contractors to reassess projects and can lead to cost overruns.”
Opponents of the bill expressed concern that the Trump administration’s actions have slowed project approvals. The White House has moved to claw back billions of dollars in project funding since Donald Trump took office in January and to lay off thousands of federal workers, potentially leaving permitting agencies with few resources to conduct efficient and thorough reviews.
“Adequate staffing and resources led to improvements in authorization timelines last year, but this bill does nothing to stop indiscriminate firings of career officials or congressional leadership’s disregard for funding,” Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy for the League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement.
Ray Long, president and CEO of the American Renewable Energy Council, said in a statement that the group applauds lawmakers for moving forward with the SPEED Act, calling for the authorization of neutral projects and the removal of blocks to fully permitted projects. But fully funding and staffing permitting agencies is also key to progressing approvals, especially as increased energy demand calls for more projects to provide the necessary infrastructure.
“Lasting, bipartisan permitting reforms that provide project certainty and accelerate the construction of energy infrastructure will help keep the lights on and lower electricity costs,” he said. “With less than four years to add the equivalent of 15 New York City’s electricity to the grid, it is critical that energy infrastructure projects can move forward quickly.”
