The SPEED Act Slashes Environmental Review Timelines, Limits Lawsuits, and Narrows Scope of Project Impact

The aptly named Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act—the SPEED Act—is a major overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 50-year-old law that requires federal agencies to study the environmental consequences of major projects like highways, pipelines, and dams. Essentially, this bill is designed to put the permitting process on fast-forward, but it does so by fundamentally changing who gets a say and how much environmental homework the government has to do.

The Environmental Checklist Gets Way Shorter

Right now, when the government or a private company needs a federal permit (an “Authorization,” in bill speak) for a big project, NEPA requires them to look at all the foreseeable environmental effects. The SPEED Act severely limits this scope. Under the new rules (Section 2), agencies can only consider effects that have a “reasonably close causal relationship” and are “proximately caused” by the immediate project. They are explicitly told not to consider effects that are “speculative, attenuated from the project, separate in time or place from the project, or related to separate existing or future projects.”

Think of it this way: If a company wants to build a new oil pipeline (the immediate project), the agency might only have to study the environmental impact of the construction site itself. The downstream effects—like the cumulative climate impact of burning the fuel the pipeline carries, or the long-term risk to water quality miles away—could be easily dismissed as too “attenuated” or “separate in time.” For anyone concerned about climate change or cumulative pollution in their neighborhood, this is a massive change. It also clarifies that NEPA is a “purely procedural statute,” meaning it’s just about doing the paperwork, not actually guaranteeing a good environmental outcome.

The Express Lane for Permits: Deadlines and Waivers

This bill is obsessed with speed, setting concrete, non-negotiable deadlines for nearly every step of the review process (Section 2). For example, after an agency receives a project application, it has just 60 days to decide if it’s complete. Once the final environmental document is done, the agencies must issue their final decision within 30 days. These strict timelines are great for developers who want certainty, but they put immense pressure on agency staff who are already juggling complex science and engineering reviews. If you’re a local resident trying to submit detailed concerns about a project, a rushed review process means your input is less likely to be fully considered.

Furthermore, agencies can now skip a full NEPA review entirely if they determine that compliance with another statute or even a state or tribal environmental law “serves the same function” as NEPA (Section 2). This means a federal agency could greenlight a project based on a state review that might have weaker standards, effectively outsourcing the environmental due diligence.

Once It’s Done, It’s Done: Locking In Decisions

One of the most consequential changes is how the bill treats finalized permits and environmental documents (Section 2). Once an environmental review is complete, the agency cannot rescind or amend it unless the project applicant agrees or a court orders it. Similarly, once a permit (Authorization) is issued, it’s incredibly difficult for the agency to revoke it—even if new, critical environmental information comes to light later. An agency can only revoke a permit under five narrow conditions, such as fraud or an immediate threat to life, and they must provide “clear and convincing evidence” to do so. This provision essentially locks in initial decisions, making it nearly impossible for the government to course-correct if a project turns out to be more damaging than anticipated.

Courts Get Their Hands Tied

The SPEED Act doesn't just change the administrative process; it guts judicial review (Section 3). If citizens or environmental groups sue over a flawed permit, the court must give “substantial deference” to the agency and “may not substitute its own judgment” on the environmental effects. Most importantly, if a court finds the agency violated the law, the only remedy is to send the action back to the agency for correction—without vacating or stopping the project.

What does this mean in practice? If a court finds a highway permit was issued illegally, the construction doesn't stop. The agency has up to 180 days to fix the paperwork while the bulldozers keep running. This removes the primary leverage citizens have to ensure compliance: the ability to halt a harmful project until the law is followed. The bill also limits who can sue, requiring that plaintiffs must have submitted a “substantive, unique, and sufficiently detailed comment” during the public comment period, effectively raising the bar for entry into the courthouse.