www.doi.gov/pressrelease...

And worse, even if they succeed in turning agency regs into guidance that will just give more power to courts to decide whether NEPA has been properly followed!

Reforming NEPA regs will take time and an empowered CEQ. ThomasHochman and I wrote more here ifp.org/potus-ceq-ne...

-Converting agency regs into "guidance" will only serve to confuse everyone including bureaucrats, project devs & courts.

-The process for converting current regs into guidance will get sued, requiring notice and comment and years of litigation... taking time away from reform

But now CEQ is directing agencies to convert the actual agency NEPA regs into guidance. This is significantly different than getting rid of CEQ reg authority (and bad):

-NEPA is a law and it must be followed — agency regs explain how to do that by setting standards, CatExs, etc...

But CEQ not having a chairman is undermining this process. The agency isn't empowered so they can't move forward with new regs.

-The initial EO set a 30 day deadline that was blown past before CEQ had any staff at all.
-Today's EO refers to a Chairman that still doesn't exist!

Repealing CEQ reg authority was a fine step — it softens some regulatory requirements and gives agencies flexibility to redo & improve how they implement NEPA.

But it was always a down payment: The real upside is figuring out how agencies can redo NEPA regs and make them better

A better measure would track pre-NEPA times, NOI to ROD timelines, and time to resolve litigation delays.

What we want to know is how long a project had to wait before beginning construction. (9/9)

Measuring NEPA timelines is very tricky because the process starts well before the NOI and ends well after the ROD

Reforms like the FRA are just squeezing the balloon and pushing delays from preparation to the pre-NEPA phase or post-NEPA litigation. (8/9)

What does the data show? Median time is slightly down, but average is steady:

-Median NOI to FEIS is 2.8 years, down from 3.2 in 2020
-Median NOI to ROD is 3.5, same as 2020.
-Average NOI to FEIS is 4.05, same as 4 in 2020.
-Average (NOI-ROD) is 4.4, same as 4.5 in 2020. (7/9)

If anything, even the average understates NEPA costs. Uncertainty has a chilling effect on investment. Companies can’t know ahead of time when their investments will be built or whether NEPA will be co-opted by political interests seeking to delay their project. (6/9)

Second, CEQ decided to use median time to complete an EIS instead of average time. They argue this better represents the typical EIS.

But median time under-represents the cost to developers in the tail of the graph: the potential to take 5-15 years creates painful uncertainty for developers. (5/9)

Projects cannot move forward until the agency issues a ROD, often several months after the FEIS.

If anything the ROD is too early, we want to know how long a project had to wait before beginning construction which can be years after the ROD if there’s a lawsuit. (4/9)

First CEQ chose to measure NEPA timelines from the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Final EIS rather than NOI to the Record of Decision — the final decision to move forward with a project.

IMO this undercounts the delay in the NEPA process. (3/9)

CEQ headlines the statistic that median EIS timelines (2019-2024) shrank to 2.8 years, down from 3.2 years (2010-2018).

But these findings rely on some questionable methodological decisions. (2/9)

A big thanks to The New Atlantis
for the opportunity! www.thenewatlantis.com/publications...

I-95’s repairs showed the benefits of centralized permitting authority.

The Baltimore Bridge shows the benefit of a quick and painless NEPA process.

Both can be applied to broader reforms (6/7).

Rebuilds don’t offer a direct blueprint to building faster — political unity for rebuilds won’t translate to new projects and regulatory exemptions would be improper.

But rebuilds do offer a glimpse at a better process… (5/7)