The SPEED Act Drastically Limits Environmental Reviews: What It Means for Local Projects and Lawsuits

The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act, or the SPEED Act, is a major overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This bill is laser-focused on speeding up federal project approvals—think pipelines, highways, or large energy projects—by strictly limiting how much environmental review federal agencies have to do. Essentially, it changes NEPA from a law that might have forced agencies to choose less damaging options into a law that simply requires them to check a box saying they thought about the environment before making a decision. It’s all procedure, no required environmental outcome.

The Environmental Review Diet: What Gets Cut?

If you’ve ever worried about the long-term impact of a new development in your area, this section is key. The SPEED Act severely narrows the scope of what agencies must consider during an environmental review (SEC. 2). Agencies are now specifically barred from looking at effects that are “too speculative, too far removed in time or place, or effects related to other, separate projects.” This means if a new gas pipeline is proposed, the agency might only look at the immediate impact of the pipe laying itself. They can skip analyzing the cumulative impact of that pipeline alongside a new processing plant built nearby, or the long-term climate effects of the fuel it will carry. For people living near these projects, this is a massive shift, potentially removing the requirement to analyze the full, long-term costs of development.

When Speed Trumps Scrutiny

For project developers, this bill offers certainty and speed. For everyone else, it means fewer opportunities for effective oversight. If an agency misses a deadline for review, the applicant can challenge the delay unless the agency is just waiting for necessary information (SEC. 2). This puts the applicant in the driver's seat for setting the pace. Furthermore, the bill clarifies that federal funding—like grants or loan guarantees—doesn't automatically trigger a full environmental review, which is a major win for projects that rely on federal money but want to avoid the NEPA process.

The Courthouse Door Gets Smaller

The most significant changes are found in the section on judicial review (SEC. 3), which makes it much harder to successfully sue an agency for cutting corners on environmental review. To win a lawsuit, you can’t just show the agency made a procedural mistake; you must prove the agency committed an “abuse of significant discretion” AND that the agency would have reached a different outcome if they hadn't messed up. That’s a very high bar.

If a court does find an error, the agency's original decision stays in place while they fix the problem, which means construction could continue even while the environmental review is deemed flawed. The bill also slashes the time limit for filing a lawsuit to just 150 days after the final agency action is made public. Crucially, if you want to sue, you must have submitted a detailed public comment during the review process that specifically raised the issue you are suing over. If you didn’t comment or your comment wasn't precise enough, you lose your right to challenge the decision later. This essentially penalizes citizens who might not have the legal expertise to frame their concerns perfectly during the public comment period, limiting the ability of local groups to hold agencies accountable.