Proposed Coal Act Demands Interior Secretary Find Environmental Shortcuts in 30 Days

This bill, officially titled the Streamlining NEPA for Coal Act, directs the Secretary of the Interior to move fast—very fast—to find ways to reduce environmental oversight for coal production and export. Specifically, within 30 days of the bill becoming law, the Secretary must identify all existing and potential “categorical exclusions” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that could help increase the amount of coal produced and shipped overseas. For those of us who aren’t policy wonks, a categorical exclusion is essentially a regulatory loophole that allows certain projects to skip the lengthy, detailed environmental review process NEPA usually requires. The goal here is explicitly to find shortcuts to speed up coal operations.

The 30-Day Dash to Find Loopholes

Think of this as a highly targeted administrative search-and-seizure operation aimed at environmental regulations. The Secretary isn’t being asked to conduct a balanced review of environmental policy; they are mandated to find and report back to Congress on every possible environmental exemption that could boost coal production and exports. This short 30-day deadline suggests the process is less about careful consideration and more about rapidly identifying ways to bypass the usual checks and balances. The focus on “categorical exclusions” means the bill is specifically targeting the removal of detailed environmental impact statements for coal projects, which are the primary way the public and regulators assess potential harm before a shovel hits the dirt.

What This Means for Your Backyard

For communities living near coal mines, processing plants, or export terminals, this is a big deal. NEPA reviews are often the only opportunity for local residents to raise concerns about things like air quality, water contamination, and increased truck traffic. If a project gets a categorical exclusion, that environmental impact statement is skipped, and the community loses its primary mechanism for oversight and input. For example, a new coal loading facility that might currently require a detailed study on how it affects local waterways and air quality could potentially move forward with minimal review, increasing risks for local residents and the environment.

The Trade-Off: Speed vs. Scrutiny

The argument for this kind of legislation is usually centered on economic efficiency: faster permitting means lower costs and quicker access to markets for the coal industry. However, the cost is borne by the environment and the public's right to know. By focusing exclusively on identifying ways to increase coal production by reducing environmental scrutiny, the bill sets up a process where regulatory judgment is pre-determined by an economic goal. This move is less about improving the NEPA process generally and more about creating a specific fast lane for one industry—a move that could set a precedent for weakening environmental oversight across other sectors, too.