Last week, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced a discussion draft focused on modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA, one of the most influential environmental laws in U.S. history, has been instrumental in requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their actions. However, critics argue that the review process has become overly slow and bureaucratic, hindering the progress of critical infrastructure projects, including clean energy initiatives.

During Wednesday’s legislative hearing on the bill, Rep. Westerman explained that the proposed legislation aims to address inefficiencies by streamlining the NEPA review process, seeking to “strike a careful balance that supports both the need for critical infrastructure development and responsible environmental stewardship.” Although the bill is still in its early stages, it’s evident that some of the proposed changes will generate significant debate in the coming weeks, as highlighted in the hearing itself.

Chair Westerman’s bill is part of a broader effort by Congress to address inefficiencies in the permitting process. While this particular bill is focused on NEPA and its effects across sectors such as energy, transportation, housing, other permitting bills target the energy sector specifically and address a range of permitting challenges, including NEPA reviews. In the Senate, Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV) and John Barrasso (R-WY) introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA) which addresses a broad range of energy projects with Article 1 addressing NEPA litigation timelines. In the House, Representatives Sean Casten (D-IL) and Mike Levin (D-CA) introduced the Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act (“CETA Act”), aimed at streamlining permitting for clean energy projects.

Overview of the provisions of the Bill

The draft bill focuses on increasing the speed of federal reviews while still aiming to maintain key environmental protections. The most notable provisions include:

  • Clarifying NEPA’s Role: The bill redefines NEPA as a procedural statute, clarifying that while it mandates agencies to consider environmental impacts, it does not require specific outcomes. This change aims to prevent NEPA from being used to unnecessarily delay projects while still ensuring that agencies conduct thorough reviews.
  • Limiting the Scope of Reviews: By narrowing the scope of environmental reviews to impacts within the agency’s direct jurisdiction and control, the bill seeks to eliminate the need to assess speculative indirect or cumulative effects outside of an agency’s area of expertise.
  • Streamlining the Use of Science: The bill proposes limiting the consideration of new scientific data to early stages in the review process, ensuring that only peer-reviewed data essential for decision-making is taken into account. However, a key exception allows for the inclusion of new research if a federal agency determines it is essential for determining the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects. This provision aims to prevent delays while still ensuring decisions are made using the best available scientific research.
  • Judicial Review Reforms: The draft imposes a 120-day statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging NEPA decisions and restricts who can file lawsuits, requiring participation in the public comment process. This aims to reduce bad-faith litigation and offer project developers greater certainty.
  • Expanding Categorical Exclusions: The bill broadens the use of categorical exclusions for low-impact projects, allowing certain federal actions to bypass detailed environmental reviews. This helps agencies focus their resources on complex projects with more significant environmental risks.

Anticipated impact on clean energy infrastructure

As a broad federal statute, NEPA changes will impact a wide range of federal reviews. A key motivator behind the proposed reforms is the need to expedite the development of critical transportation and energy infrastructure, including clean energy projects. The U.S. faces an urgent need to expand its clean energy capacity through initiatives such as geothermal, wind, solar, and transmission lines that transport clean energy across states. However, these projects often face the same lengthy NEPA review processes as traditional infrastructure projects, resulting in delays.

Clean energy infrastructure is subject to a complex web of regulations, with state and local permitting playing a crucial role. Transmission lines, in particular, encounter numerous permitting-related obstacles, many of which extend beyond the scope of NEPA reviews. While NEPA inefficiencies are not the only regulatory hurdle that clean energy projects face, streamlining the process could significantly accelerate their development. Reducing unnecessary delays could speed clean energy project completion overall, helping the U.S. transition to low-carbon technologies, and meet its climate goals. The current NEPA process, though designed for environmental oversight, can slow down environmentally beneficial projects. For instance, long-distance transmission lines that could connect clean energy sources in rural areas to population centers often face years of environmental reviews, despite their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

If passed, this bill could make it easier to fast-track low-impact clean energy projects, helping to ensure that the U.S. can build the infrastructure it needs to combat climate change.

Conclusion

Rep. Westerman’s draft bill to modernize NEPA offers some pragmatic solutions to the inefficiencies that have long plagued the environmental review process. While NEPA is not the only permitting process that causes delays to essential clean energy projects, streamlining reviews without sacrificing necessary protections can accelerate the development of such projects while maintaining the environmental oversight necessary to safeguard ecosystems and communities.

While some opponents have expressed concerns about the potential weakening of NEPA’s core protections, these must be weighed against the urgent need to build out clean energy infrastructure. Without meaningful reform, the very projects crucial to combating climate change and spurring economic growth may continue to be delayed by a slow and inefficient process. A balanced approach is needed–one that preserves the environmental protections that NEPA was designed to uphold while ensuring that the U.S. can build the infrastructure it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century.