Streamlining Environmental Reviews: The Path Forward for NEPA Reform

Introduction: A New Chapter for NEPA Implementation

The White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is currently reviewing the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) decision to repeal its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations. This step represents a significant shift in how federal environmental reviews are conducted, aiming to reduce delays and litigation risks that have hindered critical energy and infrastructure projects. Once OIRA completes its review, the rule will be published in the Federal Register, marking the beginning of a new era in NEPA’s implementation. This move aligns with President Donald Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, which revoked the 1977 order that originally authorized CEQ’s NEPA regulations. The administration has directed CEQ to replace these regulations with more streamlined guidance, though it’s important to note that this repeal does not eliminate all NEPA-related regulations. Instead, federal agencies will now take on more responsibility for conducting environmental reviews, with a working group established to assist them in revising their own NEPA rules.

The Why Behind the Repeal: Addressing Criticisms of CEQ Regulations

The CEQ’s original NEPA regulations have long been criticized for imposing unnecessary requirements that slow down environmental reviews and expose projects to costly litigation. Under the current framework, federal agencies are required to prepare extensive Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects deemed to have a “reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment.” This broad interpretation has led to years-long delays for infrastructure projects, as agencies must consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a project, including ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health-related effects. Additionally, agencies are required to evaluate a wide range of alternatives, sometimes even those outside their statutory authority. These expansive requirements have created uncertainty and led to legal challenges, such as the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case currently before the Supreme Court. The justices have expressed skepticism about both overly broad and unduly narrow interpretations of NEPA’s scope, signaling an opportunity for the Trump administration to scale back NEPA’s reach.

Next Steps: Agency-Specific Reforms and Streamlined Procedures

While CEQ’s repeal is a significant step, individual federal agencies must now update their own NEPA procedures. The administration has encouraged agencies to consider repealing their NEPA implementing regulations and replacing them with non-enforceable guidance. This approach aligns with the new CEQ framework, as the underlying NEPA statute will remain enforceable in court, but the shift to agency-specific guidelines will reduce the risk of litigation. Beyond this, the administration has several opportunities to further streamline NEPA processes. For example, it can define “major federal action” with clearer thresholds, such as setting a $100 million project threshold to align with other federal definitions of “major” actions. This would exempt smaller-scale projects from rigorous NEPA reviews. Additionally, the administration can establish objective criteria for determining “significant” environmental effects, replacing the current broad and indeterminate definitions with measurable standards, such as acres of land disturbed or emission levels.

The administration can also clarify the concept of “reasonably foreseeable” effects, which has led to speculative assessments of long-term indirect impacts. By setting clear time limits—for instance, requiring effects to manifest within a decade—agencies can reduce uncertainty and focus on more tangible environmental concerns. Furthermore, expanding categorical exclusions could allow low-risk projects to bypass NEPA’s unnecessary analysis requirements altogether. Since the vast majority of NEPA reviews result in a Finding of No Significant Impact, it makes sense to exclude smaller projects from the review process. Finally, the administration can define the scope of analysis more clearly, addressing unresolved questions such as the number of alternatives agencies should consider and whether they should assess factors outside their expertise or jurisdiction.

The Role of Congress in NEPA Reform

While the Trump administration’s deregulatory efforts are a step in the right direction, the best long-term solution lies with Congress. Lawmakers have the authority to amend NEPA itself, providing clearer standards for which decisions are subject to environmental reviews, establishing uniform procedures, and defining the extent of judicial review. Congress could also place limits on judicial injunctions and clarify standing requirements to reduce frivolous lawsuits that delay projects. Until then, federal agencies should aim to make the NEPA process as streamlined and efficient as possible within the existing legal framework. The courts will likely challenge these reforms, but this is true of any changes made by Congress as well. The key is to push for the lightest regulatory burden possible while remaining prepared to adjust based on legal challenges.

Conclusion: A Critical Moment for Environmental Policy

With CEQ’s repeal process now underway, the Trump administration is at a pivotal moment in shaping the future of environmental policy. The coming months will reveal how far this deregulatory push can go and whether it will achieve its goal of reducing delays and litigation risks for critical projects. While the administration’s efforts are focused on streamlining NEPA, the ultimate success of these reforms will depend on the willingness of federal agencies to align with the new framework and the ability of Congress to provide long-term clarity through legislative action. As the nation continues to grapple with the challenges of infrastructure development and energy production, the outcome of this effort will have far-reaching implications for the balance between environmental protection and economic growth.