Trump Advisors Support Needed NEPA Reforms: However, Reducing the Scope of Environmental Reviews Would Be Better Than Waiving Them Completely

     There is no doubt that NEPA environmental reviews take up too much time and resources and are burdensome to many projects. There is a good argument to be made that these lengthy reviews are regulatory overreach and  need to be streamlined, made briefer, more concise, and faster. If you think about these Environmental Impact Statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are more or less like a detailed form of environmental due diligence. There is also little doubt in my opinion that the scope of these reviews can be reduced and the process quickened in a way that does not increase environmental risk. Currently, the process is too time-consuming and too detailed.

     It was recently reported that Trump advisors are recommending waiving NEPA reviews for mining minerals projects with funding from the U.S. government. With the current perceived importance of critical minerals and the ‘mineral security’ risks of overdependence on China, which recently banned exports of certain critical minerals, the need for scaling up domestic mineral projects is clearly present. According to the article:

“During Trump's first term, he introduced stringent controls on NEPA, limiting its reporting to 300 pages and requesting that it be done faster.”

“Seeing as these changes have been rolled back under President Biden, it would not be a surprise if Trump returned for a closer trim.”

     Breakthrough Institute’s Nikki Chiappa has detailed several “NEPA Nightmares,” projects that got locked up in NEPA delays and NEPA-based litigation. These include important electricity transmission projects. She noted the irony of these NEPA snags affecting Biden’s BIA and IRA-funded projects. Breakthrough produced a report in July 2024 that provided some statistics on NEPA litigation case types and results. Public lands management projects made up the most litigation followed by energy projects.

     Chiappa offers more data and analysis:

“The most contentious NEPA challenges filed between 2013 and 2022, on average, delayed clean energy projects by just under 4 years. The majority of those lawsuits were filed by a small set of national NGOs who lost upwards of 70% of their cases.”

“In most cases, NEPA litigation functions to delay and add cost to infrastructure development, not to improve environmental outcomes.”

     I believe that a reasonable bipartisan agreement to streamline permitting is achievable and that Congress should act to limit review times and scopes as recommended by bipartisan sponsors of previous bills. This would be better than changing back and forth via executive orders. The reforms should be enacted by Congress. These challenges affect many different types of projects, including both fossil energy and clean energy projects.  

 

 

 

References:

 

Trump advisers recommend waiving environmental reviews for mines. Evan Williams. Tag24 News. December 19, 2024. Trump advisers recommend waiving environmental reviews for mines

Understanding NEPA Litigation: A Systematic Review of Recent NEPA-Related Appellate Court Cases. Breakthrough Institute. Nikki Chiappa, Ted Nordhaus, Alex Trembath, and Elizabeth McCarthy. July 11, 2024. Understanding NEPA Litigation | The Breakthrough Institute

NEPA Nightmares: Tales from the Litigation Doom Loop. Nikki Chiappa. Breakthrough Institute. August 28, 2024. NEPA Nightmares | The Breakthrough Institute

NEPA Nightmares III: The Surry-Skiffes Creek-Whealton Transmission Line. Nikki Chiappa. Breakthrough Institute. September 25, 2024. NEPA Nightmares III: The Surry-Skiffes… | The Breakthrough Institute