A new bill introduced in Congress, and co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats, would significantly overhaul the environmental permitting process for federal projects.
The 鈥淪tandardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development鈥� or 鈥� alters language in a longstanding environmental law called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that essentially mandates federal agencies consider the environmental and cultural impacts of their actions and decisions.
The bill comes after earlier changes under the Trump administration to significantly weaken the Council on Environmental Quality, which used to oversee how federal agencies implement NEPA.
Because of those changes, agencies from the Department of Defense to the Bureau of Reclamation were empowered to individually alter their internal rules for environmental permitting without any public input.
Legal experts have warned that these systemic policy shifts could weaken oversight. Deborah Sivas, professor at Stanford University Law School and the Doerr School of Sustainability, said the changes were alarming.
鈥淚t gives a lot of power and discretion to the agencies, with very little public oversight or accountability,鈥� Sivas said.
Sivas said that NEPA is a purely 鈥減rocedural鈥� piece of legislation that essentially forces decisionmakers to go through an environmental review process.
Other legal experts echo her concern. During a preliminary hearing on NEPA reform earlier this month, Richard Glicksman, a professor of environmental law at George Washington University Law School, told the House Natural Resources Committee that, under NEPA, agencies 鈥渄on鈥檛 have to listen to what the environmental document they鈥檝e prepared says. They鈥檙e free to ignore it.鈥�
The new SPEED Act aims to clarify this distinction by adding language specifying NEPA 鈥渄oes not mandate particular results鈥� and only lays out a 鈥減rocess鈥� for the government to follow.
Other more substantial changes in the bill would also make it significantly harder for the public to challenge and delay these projects.
This includes limiting court authority, narrowing the time window to bring a suit to just 150 days and only allowing those that submitted 鈥渟ubstantive鈥� and 鈥渦nique鈥� comments during a project鈥檚 public comment period to bring a lawsuit against the federal government.
Challenges to NEPA compliance have historically been limited to 6 years in general circumstances.
Similarly, the new bill would ban the use of new scientific research or any other updated data after a project is proposed 鈥� including wildfire risk maps, climate models, or other assessments of health risks.
鈥淚f this Act passed with the language we have right now, NEPA would become basically a dead letter,鈥� Sivas said. 鈥淚t wouldn't be worth people's effort to try to engage.鈥�
The legislation鈥檚 effects could be wide-ranging for the state of New Mexico, where over and two national labs start to prioritize nuclear research and development.
In a, advocates warn that the SPEED Act would harm water, air, and wildlife in the name of extractive industry interests.
NEPA has long drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Politicians have as a case of government overregulation that impedes both economic and energy development across the nation.
that activists have abused the environmental law to slow down projects they don鈥檛 like or, in other cases, stop a project entirely.
However, a found that challenges to NEPA have declined over time, with just 1 in 450 NEPA decisions actually going to court to be litigated.
Despite the uncertain future of the SPEED Act, the federal government will still have to comply with other congressionally-approved pieces of legislation 鈥� such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.
Though, these pieces of legislation have long been criticized by and .
