Building large infrastructure projects in the U.S. is both expensive and time-consuming. The cost of constructing a mile of interstate highway tripled in the latter part of the 20th century, and building urban transit in the U.S. is three times more costly than in other developed countries. Additionally, essential projects like renewable energy generation often face delays or cancellations due to lengthy permitting processes, despite their clear environmental and societal benefits. Environmental impact statements take over two years to produce on average, and even unsuccessful litigation can delay projects by additional months or years. These inefficiencies impede economic growth and the green energy transition, and they likely exacerbate inequality. Wealthier communities can more effectively advocate for project changes, while poorer communities often bear the brunt of limited energy, transportation, and other development.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a significant factor contributing to these issues. Enacted in 1970, NEPA aimed to integrate environmental considerations and democratic accountability into public infrastructure decisions. While it has achieved many positive outcomes, NEPA now imposes complex procedural requirements that can take years to fulfill. Recent legislation has imposed time limits for environmental reviews, but it has not addressed the underlying causes of procedural bottlenecks, high costs, and inequitable outcomes.
This paper proposes legislative actions to reform NEPA. The goal is to streamline permitting by balancing a reduction in back-end litigation with more robust and inclusive front-end planning, thereby preserving NEPA’s core values while adapting it to modern needs. The reforms are organized into four key solutions:
1. Shifting Legal Power
Judicial oversight should be curtailed to reduce excessive litigation. This includes reforming the “hard look” standard courts use to assess agency actions, limiting the range of alternatives agencies must consider, shortening statutes of limitations for lawsuits, restricting standing to sue, and limiting the scope of judicial injunctions. These changes aim to ensure that legal challenges are more focused and less likely to cause significant delays.
2. Facilitating Popular Decision-Making and Negotiated Agreements
The permitting process often pits government agencies against fragmented community opposition. New tools are needed to foster popular decision-making and negotiated agreements that would preclude litigation. Mechanisms such as local legislative approval, compensation through community benefit agreements, or more experimental models in which the government designates a representative set of interest groups to negotiate on the public’s behalf could be effective. These approaches would help ensure that community concerns are addressed early in the process, reducing the likelihood of disputes later on.
3. Strengthening State Capacity
A well-functioning permitting regime requires well-resourced institutions. Agencies should be able to expand staffing, collect better data, coordinate their efforts, and make greater use of categorical exclusions and expedited reviews, especially for critical clean energy and transit projects. Enhanced capacity would enable agencies to process permits more efficiently and effectively, reducing delays and costs.
4. Improving Public Participation
A more democratic and equitable permitting process requires early and broad-based outreach. This outreach should include not only the most vocal opponents but also previously marginalized groups and those who would stand to benefit from planned development. Experimentation with new models to ensure diverse stakeholder involvement should be encouraged. By involving a wider range of stakeholders from the outset, the permitting process can be made more inclusive and less contentious.
Taken together, these reforms comprise a “green bargain.” This approach would speed up construction, lower costs, and facilitate the building of infrastructure needed for the green transition. It would also empower the broader public, especially lower-income communities that are most affected by failing infrastructure, over narrow interests. By pairing efficiency-enhancing changes with deeper community engagement, the proposed legislative package charts a path forward that honors NEPA’s original spirit while adapting it to today’s economic, environmental, and social realities. This balanced approach ensures that infrastructure projects are not only completed more quickly and cost-effectively but also in a manner that is equitable and environmentally responsible.
