The SPEED Act: NEPA Reform Limits Environmental Review Scope and Restricts Lawsuits to 150 Days

The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act, or the SPEED Act, is all about fast-tracking federal project approvals. This bill takes aim squarely at the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is the law that requires federal agencies to review and consider the environmental impacts of major projects like highways, pipelines, or large construction before they get the green light. The core message here is that NEPA is only a procedural checklist—it doesn’t force a specific environmental outcome, only that agencies check the boxes. The bill introduces major changes to how, when, and by whom these reviews can be conducted and challenged.

The Environmental Review Sandbox Shrinks

One of the biggest shifts is the new, narrow definition of what agencies can actually consider when reviewing a project. Right now, agencies look at how a project might affect the environment broadly. The SPEED Act (Sec. 2) changes this by restricting the review to only those effects that are “proximately caused” and have a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the immediate project. If you’re worried about the long-term, cumulative effects—say, a new highway segment contributing to sprawl and climate change over the next 30 years—this bill says the agency doesn’t have to look at that. It specifically excludes effects that are “speculative, attenuated from the project, separate in time or place from the project, or related to separate existing or potential future projects.” For everyday people, this means that the full, long-term picture of environmental damage might not be part of the official decision-making process, which could be particularly concerning for communities already dealing with pollution.

Project Speed Trumps Public Input

If you’re a developer, this bill is great news for your timeline. The SPEED Act sets hard deadlines for environmental reviews and makes it much harder for agencies to drag their feet. Crucially, it hands control over extensions to the applicant: a lead agency can only extend a review deadline if the applicant approves the extension (Sec. 2). Furthermore, agencies are prohibited from delaying a final decision while waiting for new scientific research or information that wasn’t available when the application was first received. This means the review process prioritizes speed and certainty for the applicant, potentially at the expense of incorporating the most up-to-date science, which could affect local residents if, for example, a new study reveals previously unknown risks associated with the project site.

Closing the Courthouse Door on Challenges

This bill dramatically changes who can sue and how courts can intervene, making it significantly harder for the public to challenge a project. To even file a claim, you must have submitted a “substantive, unique, and sufficiently detailed comment” during the public comment period, showing you would be directly harmed if your comment wasn’t addressed (Sec. 3). This is a high bar that essentially locks out general public interest groups or concerned citizens who didn't navigate the complex regulatory process perfectly. On top of that, the deadline to file a lawsuit shrinks to just 150 days after the final agency action is made public.

If a court does find the agency messed up the procedure, the agency action—the permit for the pipeline, for example—remains in effect while the agency fixes the errors. The court is also severely limited in its judgment; it must find that the agency not only “abused its substantial discretion” but also that the agency “would have reached a different result” absent that abuse. This is a massive hurdle that essentially forces courts to defer to the agency’s judgment, even when procedures were clearly violated. For people relying on the courts to hold regulators accountable, this provision fundamentally weakens judicial oversight, making it a procedural rubber stamp rather than a meaningful check on power.