The SPEED Act proposes streamlined permitting reforms to cut delays, reduce lawsuits, and accelerate US energy and infrastructure projects while maintaining environmental protections.
The Purple Line is a 16-mile light rail line that will connect Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties in Maryland. Hailed as a new, environmentally responsible option for commuters, the line is also one of the poster children for why our country is in desperate need of permitting reform.
Delays and Legal Challenges
Initial surveys for the project have begun, and the light rail line is expected to be operational by 2027. Of course, large-scale infrastructure projects take time—studying environmental risks, engaging with communities, and determining the best location. However, the project faced several delays, mainly due to frivolous lawsuits filed by NIMBYists trying to block it.
In the first lawsuit, plaintiffs argued that the agencies responsible for assessing environmental risks did not consider the impact of the project on a tiny, shrimp-like creature that’s about half the length of a fingernail. Two of the plaintiffs claimed they had a “special and unique bond” with the amphipods.
That’s a questionable assertion on its face. Still, it’s even more questionable considering the plaintiffs lived in Chevy Chase, Maryland, where the project is located. At the same time, the amphipods are only found in Washington, DC’s part of Rock Creek Park. It is also worth noting that the agencies did in fact study whether the project’s route would adversely affect the shrimp or its habitat and did not find any.
The plaintiffs lost the lawsuit but managed to delay the project by a year. Two more lawsuits followed, and now the project is seven years behind schedule and $4 billion over budget.
Regrettably, delays caused by the Purple Line are common and happen across many sectors of the economy—from infrastructure and clean energy to conservation projects. And litigation is not the only source of frustration. Confusing, redundant, and drawn-out permitting processes create a massive amount of uncertainty for project developers of all stripes.
The Role of NEPA in Project Gridlock
The main culprit for creating lengthy environmental reviews and painting a lawsuit on the backs of targets is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enacted in 1970, NEPA is a procedural law that requires federal agencies to conduct environmental reviews for various projects, such as highways, energy development, federally funded projects, and activities on federal land, among others.
President Richard Nixon signed NEPA into law over 55 years ago. Since then, many federal, state, and local environmental regulations have been enacted. The result is a tangled web of unclear, overlapping, and complex requirements that delays reviews and hinders investment without delivering meaningful environmental benefits.
The purpose of the original statute was to “declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.” In far too many instances, NEPA is failing at both.
For instance, judicially active groups use NEPA to block forest restoration projects that could lower the economic and environmental costs of wildfires. Yet when the fire burns through, as it did in Klamath National Forest in California in 2021, it destroys the very habitat the activists aim to protect. In this case, the project was delayed by more than ten years, which is concerning given that the United States has 63 million acres of forests at high or very high risk of wildfires, and this was a 9,000-acre forest thinning project.
Furthermore, solar, wind, and transmission projects face some of the highest rates of litigation, as documented by Stanford researchers in 2023. They also disproportionately require the most comprehensive environmental review under the NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A recent study by the R Street Institute reviewed EISs conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). DOE had twice as many clean energy projects requiring EISs compared to fossil fuels (36 percent vs. 18 percent), while BLM projects had nearly four times the number of clean energy projects compared to fossil fuels (66 percent vs. 18 percent).
The SPEED Act: A Bipartisan Solution
There has been bipartisan support for improving permitting processes, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have acknowledged the need to modernize NEPA. At a recent House Natural Resources Committee hearing, I testified to explain how narrowing the scope of environmental reviews and reining in the delays imposed by protracted litigation would help deliver more affordable power, reliable infrastructure, and a healthier environment.
Introduced by Congressman Bruce Westerman (R-AK) and Congressman Jared Golden (D-DE), the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act (H.R. 4776) would make several meaningful changes to NEPA.
Section 2 of the SPEED Act would eliminate the need for a NEPA analysis if the proposed agency action is reviewed under another federal statute or if a review by a state or tribal entity serves a purpose that is similar to that of NEPA. This change would not only reduce redundancies but also enable states and tribes to conduct more efficient reviews that better address the needs and concerns of local communities. States, tribes, and local communities have strong incentives to perform environmental reviews effectively because they stand to gain economically when energy, infrastructure, and conservation projects are carried out quickly. At the same time, they face significant environmental risks if the projects are poorly managed.
Section 2 would also narrow the scope of environmental assessment to the “reasonably close causal relationship to and are proximately caused by” the project or agency consideration. This would eliminate the need to consider speculative, downstream, and indirect effects, which adds substantial time to the analysis and forces agencies into rabbit holes of “butterfly effects” for projects and actions. This was a critical aspect of the recent Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, that clarified and narrowed the scope of NEPA reviews. In recent testimony, the Permitting Institute’s Alexander Herrgott highlighted instances where exhaustive consideration (or failing to do so) added considerable time or sparked lawsuits. For example, a semiconductor plant in Ohio faced a lawsuit for “failing to analyze indirect emissions from silicon suppliers in Taiwan,” and a hydrogen hub was questioned for “its hypothetical impact on fertilizer prices in South America.”
Section 3 of the SPEED Act would also implement several vital fixes to the judicial review process. The SPEED Act would limit the court’s power to invalidate an agency action only if the agency abused its “substantial discretion,” and the “agency would have reached a different result on said action without the abuse.” The bill states that any inadequate NEPA analysis (such as a deficiency or error in an environmental impact statement) does not require a court to vacate the agency’s approval of a project. Instead, the agency’s action will remain in effect, and the project can move forward as the agency corrects any errors or deficiencies.
Clarifying Legal Standing
Regarding legal standing, the SPEED Act would require individuals to have actively participated in the NEPA process—such as through public comments—before filing suit, and to demonstrate direct harm, as outlined in the comments. Additionally, the bill shields categorical exclusions from lawsuits. It would also shorten the statute of limitations to 150 days, down from the current 6-year limit.
Clarification on standing and shortening the statute of limitations preserves citizens’ and communities’ right to challenge a project in court without misusing the process or imposing a constant threat of lawsuit on a developer for years. Genuine community engagement and addressing legitimate concerns are essential to the permitting process, but they can be conducted more reasonably and efficiently.
Why Permitting Reform Matters
The benefits of modernizing NEPA through the SPEED ACT will be considerable. A clearer and more predictable process will provide the certainty American businesses need to innovate, invest, and build. Permitting reform will help ensure that energy and infrastructure projects are completed on time and within budget, which is essential not only for private sector growth but also for taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. Increased energy supplies will reduce prices, helping American families and businesses alike. Permitting reform will also allow innovative technologies to enter the market more quickly, generating positive economic and environmental spillovers.
To support our nation’s growth, ensure energy security, achieve our environmental goals, and stay competitive globally, policy reform must enable companies to build in America. We cannot afford to let this opportunity for permitting reform pass us by.
About the Author: Nick Loris
Nick Loris is the Executive Vice President of Policy at C3 Solutions. Loris studies and writes on topics related to energy and climate policies, including natural resource extraction, energy subsidies, nuclear energy, renewable power, energy efficiency, as well as the ways in which markets will improve the environment, reduce emissions, and better adapt to a changing climate.
Image: alexkich/shutterstock
