Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), an office within the executive branch that guides NEPA applications for federal agencies. The office issues guidance for compliance with NEPA and works with the executive branch to develop environmental procedures. Likewise, the CEQ advises the White House on environmental quality policies in alignment with other critical national priorities.

NEPA Permitting Reform Debate

Established over 40 years ago, NEPA has received many calls from constituencies to modernize and expedite the review process in EIS preparation. Between 2010 and 2018, the EIS process took an average of 4.5 years to complete, but this average has been lowered to 2.4 years. Even though the process has become shorter, NEPA is still often criticized for its role in slow processing times. Due to increased concerns about rapid clean energy development, streamlining the NEPA process is a priority and a debate within the environmental community.

Resistance to Streamlining the NEPA Review

Many environmental organizations have expressed opposition to NEPA reform introduced in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the Energy Permitting Reform of 2024. Each of these bills proposes plans to reduce average EIS completion time and fast-track projects subject to NEPA review. However, these changes to NEPA tweak a critical component of environmental law; reducing NEPA’s scope may serve to expand fossil fuel projects by streamlining their approval—a result detrimental to many environmental organizations’ causes. In an open letter to the U.S., several organizations noted the only lawsuit seeking an expedited NEPA review process was from a coal company after the passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

Another critical component of the NEPA review process, the public comment period, may be harmed by reforms. During this period, the public can directly communicate concerns about a particular project before it has begun. Opponents of NEPA reform see attempts to weaken the review process as a threat to the process of meaningful public engagement. After all, the NEPA essentially acts as a public disclosure law requiring agencies to disclose their actions and receive public input; likewise, reducing the statute’s scope could threaten its underlying principle.

Rather than the NEPA itself, opponents of NEPA reform have found delays in the review process originate with external issues beyond the statute. A more in-depth review of project timelines and delays with federal projects revealed that only 25 percent of project delays were due to NEPA-specific factors. A lack of agency capacity was cited as one of the primary reasons for delayed review. When agencies are short-staffed, permits are less likely to be reviewed promptly. Given the sources of delays, rather than reform the NEPA statute itself, they argue that agency capacity should be addressed.

Support for a Streamlined NEPA Review

Despite some environmental agencies’ resistance to streamlining, other climate activists strongly push for NEPA reform. From these perspectives, clean energy infrastructure projects must be built rapidly to support the energy transition. Before the 2024 CEQ study on EIS timelines, the average time it took to complete an EIS was around four years. Reducing the period spent on NEPA review could accelerate the energy transition by streamlining clean energy projects’ approval and reducing barriers to their construction, while helping to meet climate emissions goals. For instance, many wind and solar energy projects have remained in the permitting stage of the process (Fig. 1). From the Department of Energy’s 2021 report, they have also noted that of all projects undergoing NEPA review, 42 percent were clean energy and just 15 percent were fossil fuel. To help free clean energy projects from the backlog of reviews, streamlining may be necessary.

Fig. 1: Institute for Progress, 2023

Given that the NEPA is a procedural law rather than a substantive one, as long as an agency fulfills its review requirements, the project should be able to proceed. This has prompted proponents of NEPA reform to reconsider the statute’s utility for preventing environmentally detrimental projects. Considering its procedural nature, permitting reform has become a greater priority for streamlining the energy transition and removing regulatory barriers. Therefore, for many environmentalist proponents of NEPA reform, reforming the process to fast-track clean energy projects may be preferable to using the statute as a method of blocking harmful projects.

Conclusion

In sum, critics of NEPA reform argue that shortening review timelines undermines public input and risks accelerating fossil fuel development. They highlight that delays are often due to agency capacity shortfalls rather than the statute itself. Supporters, however, see NEPA reform as essential to fast-tracking clean energy infrastructure and meeting urgent climate goals. The debate reflects a broader tension between safeguarding environmental oversight and accelerating the transition to renewable energy.

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement.