New Federal Report Mandates Tracking NEPA Review Costs, Lawsuits, and Timelines Starting 2025

The Studying NEPA’s Impact on Projects Act doesn't change a single environmental rule, but it sets up a massive new data collection effort designed to show exactly what it costs—in time and money—to comply with federal environmental protection laws. Essentially, this bill forces the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to start producing a highly detailed annual report by July 1, 2025, tracking every aspect of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.

The Bureaucratic Deep Dive: What Agencies Must Track

Think of this as the government installing a highly detailed time clock and expense tracker on every major federal project review. The CEQ report must cover five key areas, and it has to break down all this data by project type, focusing on sectors like Energy Production, Transportation, and Broadband. First, the CEQ must catalog every lawsuit filed against agencies claiming they messed up their NEPA compliance. This means tracking who sued (the lead plaintiff), which agency was sued, and what the final outcome was—did the project stop? Did the agency have to redo the paperwork? This puts a bright spotlight on litigation that slows down projects.

Second, the report demands metrics on the length and cost of environmental paperwork. We’re talking average and median page counts for Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs). More importantly for the taxpayer, the CEQ must detail the total money spent preparing these documents, including staff time (measured in full-time equivalent hours) and contractor fees. If you’ve ever wondered why that new highway takes forever, this is the bill that tries to put a dollar figure on the regulatory process.

The Real-World Impact: Time is Money

For anyone working in construction, manufacturing, or infrastructure, the most critical part of this bill is the mandated timeline tracking. The CEQ must report exactly how long it takes to complete EISs for major projects, tracking the time from when a project sponsor applies for a permit to when the agency finally gives the green light (the Record of Decision). This means we’ll get concrete data on the average time a new energy plant, bridge, or transmission line sits in regulatory limbo. If the data shows that the average time for an EIS is five years, that’s a huge signal to policymakers about potential bottlenecks.

Finally, the bill mandates transparency. Not only does the CEQ have to publish this comprehensive report, but it also has to release the raw data used to create it. For the average person, this means that if you want to know how often a specific agency gets sued over their environmental process, or what the going rate is for an environmental consultant, the data will be publicly available and searchable online. This level of mandated transparency is a big deal for researchers, industry groups, and citizens who want to hold the permitting process accountable.

The Trade-Off: Transparency vs. Administrative Burden

On one hand, this bill is a huge win for transparency. It forces the government to quantify the costs and timelines of environmental review, moving the discussion from anecdotal complaints to hard data. On the other hand, the federal agencies responsible for collecting this hyper-detailed information—tracking every lawsuit outcome, every contractor cost, and every step of the timeline—will face a significant administrative burden. This means staff time and resources will be diverted to data collection and reporting, which is a common trade-off when Congress mandates new government accountability measures. While this bill doesn't change the rules of the road, it installs a mandatory dashboard that forces everyone to look at the speedometer and the gas gauge.