SPEED Act Slashes Environmental Review Scope, Locking in Permits for Up to 10 Years

The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act—the SPEED Act—is a major overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If you’ve ever wondered why it takes years for a new highway, energy plant, or transmission line to get built, NEPA is a big part of the answer, requiring federal agencies to study environmental impacts before approving major projects. This bill fundamentally changes that process, prioritizing speed and finality over comprehensive review.

The core change is that the SPEED Act clarifies NEPA is purely procedural—it forces agencies to consider environmental impacts, but it can’t stop a project or mandate specific environmental outcomes. Think of it like this: NEPA currently requires the government to check all the boxes and maybe even adjust the plan if the environmental cost is too high. The SPEED Act says, "Just check the boxes quickly, and don't worry about changing the plan much." It also allows agencies to skip a full NEPA review if a state or tribal environmental review has already been done, or if the agency is complying with another statute that serves the same function.

The Fine Print: What Projects Must Now Ignore

This is where things get interesting for people who live near big proposed projects. The bill drastically narrows the scope of environmental review. Agencies are now limited to considering only those effects that have a “reasonably close causal relationship” and are “proximately caused by the immediate project.” They are specifically barred from looking at effects that are “speculative, attenuated from the project, separate in time or place from the project, or related to separate existing or future projects.”

In real-world terms, this means if a new gas pipeline is proposed, the review might focus only on the immediate construction zone and potential local spills. The agency would likely be prevented from considering the long-term, downstream impact of the pipeline’s carbon emissions, or the cumulative effects of that pipeline combined with another one planned five years later. For communities worried about the bigger picture—like climate change or long-term health impacts—this provision cuts those concerns out of the legally required review process.

Permits Become Nearly Permanent

One of the most significant changes for project developers—and for local opposition groups—is the finality this bill grants to completed environmental documents and issued permits (called “authorizations”). Once an environmental review is done, an agency cannot rescind, withdraw, or amend it unless a court orders it or the project applicant agrees. Even more restrictive, once an authorization is issued, the agency generally cannot revoke it unless there is fraud, a material breach of terms, or an immediate threat to life/property.

This means that if a massive factory is permitted based on a five-year-old environmental assessment, and new scientific data emerges showing the factory’s waste is far more toxic than previously thought, the agency’s hands are tied. They cannot revoke or interfere with that permit unless the threat is immediate and substantial—a high bar. This provision gives project sponsors massive certainty but severely limits the government's ability to respond to new information or changing conditions, potentially locking in decisions for a decade, as the use of programmatic environmental documents is extended from five to ten years.

The Clock Starts Now: Tight Deadlines and Limited Lawsuits

The SPEED Act imposes strict, short deadlines on the entire review process. Agencies must determine if an application is complete within 60 days, and then decide on the level of review (full Environmental Impact Statement or a lighter Environmental Assessment) within another 60 days. The lead agency can only extend these deadlines if the applicant approves the extension.

Furthermore, the bill severely limits judicial review. If a court finds an agency made a mistake, the court can only send the action back to the agency for corrections within 180 days; the court cannot cancel or block the project. For everyday citizens or environmental groups, the window to file a claim challenging a project is shrunk to just 150 days after the action is made public, and you can only sue if you submitted a detailed comment during the public review period and have suffered or will imminently suffer direct harm. This dramatically limits who can challenge a project and how long they have to do it.

Perhaps the most concerning limitation involves projects affecting lands held in trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes. For these actions, the bill creates a near-total bar on administrative or judicial review based on non-compliance with NEPA, unless the Tribe itself brings the action. This effectively shields these actions from outside scrutiny, even if they have significant off-reservation impacts.