Hot NEPA summer: Permitting reform and the biggest four-letter word of 2025
- Laura Mahrenbach
- Aug 5
- 7 min read
Developments around permitting reform and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to date in 2025
NEPA is having its moment in the sun–and many policymakers are finding it hasn’t aged well. The permitting review process is cumbersome and many feel it is not meeting the needs of a country that needs more electric transmission, new roads, data center, and general 21st century infrastructure upgrades.
At the same time, a recent Supreme Court decision and several executive orders are reshaping how NEPA is implemented.
A growing bipartisan contingent in Congress sees opportunity for substantial NEPA reform legislation. Bruce Westerman, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, has reportedly made NEPA reform his top priority for 2025.
Given the recent and potential changes to the statute – and how it’s implemented – Cascade pulled together an overview of NEPA, current debates, and actions taken since the November 2024 election.
Background
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1969 and signed into law by President Richard Nixon in January 1970. It requires federal agencies to consider the environmental implications of major projects. These analyses must be made available to the public in the form of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EA). NEPA also mandates public consultation during the assessment process and created a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which has traditionally overseen NEPA implementation. The long-term impact of NEPA is that it has become a standard practice within U.S. government project management and investment.
NEPA has faced substantial legal challenges since its enactment but was not modified by Congress until 2023, when several provisions were updated or altered as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Most of the 2023 revisions focused on systematizing the NEPA review process. For instance, the law sets page limits for EISs and EAs, clarifies stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and formalizes procedures for interagency cooperation. Beyond that, the revisions required the CEQ to determine how digital technologies could be used to enhance review efficiency and transparency and codified that EISs must include discussion of reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed action, discussion of effects that cannot be avoided if the action occurs and discussion of a “reasonable range of alternatives” to the proposed project (more on this later).
Current debates around NEPA and permitting reform
Two key issues dominate current policy and political discussions. Since NEPA is seen as a “procedural law,” most NEPA policy discussion and litigation focuses on procedural issues regarding who should implement NEPA, who should oversee NEPA compliance, and how NEPA should be implemented.
Appropriate scope of EAs and EISs
This issue relates to the question of what constitutes a “reasonable range or alternatives” to be considered in an EIS. One side argues for a narrow scope limited to, for instance, investigating the environmental impact(s) of a specific project and rejecting investigation of any related projects’ potential impact unless those projects fall within the investigating agency’s purview. This is the current administration’s interpretation, appearing in via EO14154, and was also apparent in recent legal decisions (e.g., Marin Audubon Society v. FAA, Iowa v. CEQ) and in the June 2025 Supreme Court ruling (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County).
The other side promotes a broader scope and more comprehensive reviews. For instance, they argue for considering the environmental impact of any projects which a proposed project could foreseeably generate as well as the cumulative impact of the proposed project and potential affiliated and/or geographically similar projects on the environment. This interpretation is generally associated with issues of climate change and environmental justice and was codified in EO 14008 as well as the Phase 1 (2022) and Phase 2 (2024) rules issued by the CEQ during the Biden administration.
Relevant questions here include:
How does the content of a given EIS/EA relate to the reviewing agency’s mandate? Should the agency only consider projects within their regulatory authority? Or must they also consider foreseeable projects that fall outside their authority but relate to the project under review?
What constitutes a “reasonable range of alternatives” to be included in the EIS/EA? Should agencies only consider the direct impact of the proposed project, the cumulative impact of all related future actions, or something in between?
Who makes NEPA and permitting regulations: CEQ or federal agencies?
The second issue relates to whether CEQ or federal agencies should make NEPA regulations. Traditionally, CEQ has overseen NEPA implementation and compliance and issued regulations to standardize the process across federal agencies. However, President Trump’s EO 14154 withdraws this authority and indicates future NEPA regulations should be made exclusively at the agency-level, albeit in consultation with CEQ.
Recent legal decisions also encourage the courts to defer to agency decisions in their rulings, implying federal agencies are currently responsible for determining how NEPA will be implemented, not CEQ.
While this approach has the potential to streamline NEPA implementation within a single agency, it could lead to coordination problems when a single project needs multiple federal permits or approvals and will definitely increase the complexity of meeting NEPA requirements. Should this happen, the Congressional Research Service recommends Congress “explicitly authorize and direct CEQ to issue binding NEPA regulations.”
While partisan positions are evolving, traditionally policymakers position themselves towards these issues along party lines. Democrats tend to prefer a broader scope and a stronger role for CEQ. Republicans tend to favor a narrower scope and a weaker role for CEQ.
Key events since the 2024 presidential election
Nov 12, 2024 - The DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration that CEQ does not have the legal authority to issue NEPA regulations. This creates uncertainty regarding how and if agencies will determine compliance with NEPA.
Jan 20, 2025 - President Trump’s EO 14154 revokes President Jimmy Carter’s EO 11991, the EO giving CEQ authority to force federal agencies to comply with NEPA by issuing binding rules, and instructs CEQ to revoke NEPA regulations issued to date. It also instructs CEQ to provide guidance within 30 days on future NEPA enforcement at the agency-level that can “expedite and simplify the permitting process.” This reaffirms previous judicial decisions that CEQ is not a rule-making body.
Feb 3, 2025 - North Dakota federal district court reaffirms the Marin Audubon Society decision in Iowa v. CEQ, ruling CEQ lacks Congressional authority to issue rules and censuring CEQ for “pervasive errors” and trying “to change NEPA into something it is not.” This ruling invalidates CEQ’s Phase 2 Rule, issued in 2024 under President Joe Biden as part of his administration’s effort to modernize NEPA and incorporate requirements from the Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed by Congress in 2023.
Feb 19, 2025 - CEQ issues guidance instructing federal agencies to revise or establish NEPA procedures to “expedite permitting approvals” within one year in consultation with CEQ. The guidance also encourages agencies to continue to follow “existing practices and procedures for implementing NEPA” while revisions are underway and forbids agencies from considering environmental justice in new regulations as per recent EOs.
Feb 25, 2025 - Following on the issuance of EO 14154, CEQ issues an interim final rule rescinding the NEPA implementing regulations put in place in 1977. This rule is effective April 11, 2025, and opens a request for comments period on the interim final rule through March 27, 2025.
Mar 27, 2025 - CEQ request for comments period ends, having received 108,385 comments. This indicates strong public interest in the rule change.
April 11, 2025 - CEQ interim final rule rescinding its NEPA implementing regulations goes into effect.
Apr 23, 2025 - In line with EO 14156, the Department of Interior introduces emergency permitting procedures that reduce EA reviews from 1 year to 14 days and EIS reviews from 2 years to 28 days for listed “domestic energy resources and critical minerals.”
May 28, 2025 - CEQ withdraws guidance requiring federal agencies to consider climate change and environmental justice when performing NEPA reviews, including the Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules issued under President Biden in 2022 and 2024, respectively.
May 29, 2025 - US Supreme Court issues a unanimous decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. The decision (1) reaffirmed NEPA’s procedural nature, implying its procedures should be consistent across presidential administrations; (2) indicated courts should give “substantial judicial deference” to federal agencies’ assessments of an EIS as long as agency decisions are reasonable and no glaring factual errors or omissions are evident; and (3) granted agencies the right to determine the scope of the EIS, making it possible for agencies to limit consideration to the direct impact of the project and to the effects of foreseeable, related projects within an agency’s regulatory remit.
Ongoing as of June 2025 - The White House is reviewing NEPA rule updates proposed by a variety of agencies that indicates how they each plan to implement NEPA in the wake of recent changes to CEQ and to NEPA itself. Interim final rules have recently been released by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
July 4, 2025 - The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains a variety of provisions impacting NEPA, including the ability to pay a fee to expedite NEPA review.
July 22, 2025 - The House Natural Resources Committee holds an all-committee oversight hearing on NEPA as part of the chairman’s effort to advance NEPA reform.
July 25, 2025 - House Natural Resources Committee chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR-04) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME-02) introduced bipartisan NEPA reform legislation.
Key terms
Categorical exemption (CE) - A stage of the NEPA review where projects with no “known, minimal, and non-cumulative [environmental] impacts” are fast-tracked to an agency decision without additional analysis
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) - Created in NEPA (1970) to oversee NEPA’s implementation. This has traditionally happened via CEQ-issued binding rules but the current judicial setting implies future guidance will occur via consultation rather than binding rules.
Cumulative impact - NEPA defines this term as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” A failure to clarify how to assess that impact has led to substantial NEPA litigation over the past 50 years and the term continues to be a partisan trigger, with Republicans generally referring to it as an unnecessary criterion created to support environmental activism and Democrats characterizing it as a scientific necessity for determining “true” environmental impact.
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) - NEPA requires EIS for projects which clearly have a significant impact on the environment. EIS reviews were limited to 2 years by the Fiscal Responsibility Act (2023) and related CEQ rules but that timeline is evolving as agencies take the lead in determining NEPA procedures.
Environmental Assessments (EA) - EAs are required when it is unclear whether a proposed project will have a significant environmental impact. If they determine it will, an EIS will be required. If they determine no significant impact, the agency can make its decision based on already available information.
Comments