New guidelines for NEPA processes unveiled by federal agencies, in alignment with Executive Order 14154 and the Seven County Decision of the Supreme Court
Streamlined NEPA Procedures Reshape Project Development and Judicial Deference
Following President Trump's Executive Order 14154 and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County Colorado, multiple federal agencies have updated their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures to expedite environmental reviews and permitting, affecting project development and judicial deference.
Updated NEPA Procedures:
- Department of Energy (DOE): As of June 30, 2025, DOE rescinded most of its prior NEPA regulations and replaced them with a flexible, guidance-based framework. DOE retains only limited categorical exclusions for low-impact activities, routine actions, and emergency procedures, while moving most compliance actions to an implementation guidance updated outside rulemaking. This aims to simplify reviews, clarify interagency responsibilities, and speed project development for energy infrastructure.
- Department of Transportation (DOT): On June 30, 2025, DOT unified six separate NEPA protocols into a single framework (Order 5610.1D), effective immediately but not retroactively. The revisions narrow the scope of federal actions requiring review by defining “connected actions” more precisely. This change is intended to cut red tape and accelerate major infrastructure projects, minimizing delays and compliance costs.
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other agencies: By mid-2025, several agencies incorporated the Builder Act provisions into their NEPA procedures. The Builder Act imposes strict page and time limits on environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs)—75 pages and one year for EAs, and 150 to 300 pages and two years for EISs. It also narrows the definition of “major federal action” triggering NEPA, limits impact analysis to “reasonably foreseeable” effects, permits project sponsors to prepare EAs/EISs under agency supervision, and encourages use or adoption of categorical exclusions and programmatic reviews.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): On July 3, 2025, USACE rescinded its prior NEPA regulations and issued new regulations consistent with recent reforms aimed at greater efficiency. Additionally, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” enacted July 4, 2025, allows project sponsors to pay fees for expedited EA/EIS reviews, further enhancing permitting speed.
Impact of the Supreme Court Decision and Executive Order:
- The Supreme Court's May 2025 decision in Seven County narrowed the scope of environmental review under NEPA, reinforcing the Builder Act’s more constrained definition of federal actions subject to review and limiting overly broad environmental considerations.
- Executive Order 14154 directed agencies to rescind or revise CEQ’s regulations (which courts have ruled lacked binding authority) and to expedite project approvals, leading agencies to develop tailored, agency-specific implementing procedures rather than relying on a centralized CEQ regulatory baseline.
- Despite these streamlining efforts, significant litigation risks persist that may delay project development. Courts continue to review agency compliance carefully, but Seven County may provide some judicial deference to expedited agency NEPA reviews, potentially reducing protracted lawsuits focused on procedural technicalities.
Summary of Effects on Project Development and Judicial Deference:
| Aspect | Update | Impact | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Regulatory Framework | Shift from CEQ-centric regulations to agency-specific guidance/regulations. | Agencies have more flexibility, but uniformity across agencies decreases. | | Review Scope and Limits | Narrower definition of "major federal action" and "connected actions"; focus on reasonably foreseeable impacts. | Reduces scope of environmental review, potentially shortening NEPA timelines. | | Process Speed and Limits | Strict page/time limits for EAs and EISs; fee-based expedited reviews permitted. | Speeds up project permitting, may reduce uncertainty and administrative burdens. | | Judicial Deference | Seven County decision supports narrower review scope and may limit litigation delays. | Potentially increases deference to agency decisions but litigation risks remain. | | Interagency Coordination | Clarified roles and guidance-based approaches replacing older codified regulations. | Simplifies interagency processes, but adaptability may vary by agency and project type. |
These updates represent a coordinated federal effort to expedite infrastructure and energy project development by reducing regulatory burdens and modernizing NEPA procedures in light of recent legal and executive directives.
- DOI has published a department-wide handbook that provides bureaus discretion regarding whether to publish draft environmental documents and directs bureaus to draw a reasonable and manageable line relating to its consideration of any environmental effects from the proposed action.
- The Supreme Court has found that NEPA grants agencies broad discretion in implementing the statute and indicated that agencies will receive a high level of judicial deference when analyzing proposed actions under NEPA.
- The Department of Defense (DoD), including the Army Corps of Engineers, has rescinded most NEPA implementing procedures and promulgated new regulations for evaluating permit applications under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act.
- The Department of Interior (DOI) has published a department-wide handbook, granting its bureaus discretion to decide on the publication of draft environmental documents and guiding them to draw a reasonable and manageable line in considering any environmental effects from proposed actions.
- The Supreme Court, in its judgment, has acknowledged that NEPA vests agencies with broad discretion in implementing the statute, thus implying that they will receive a high level of judicial deference when analyzing proposed actions under NEPA.
- The Department of Defense (DoD), encompassing the Army Corps of Engineers, has rescinded most NEPA implementing procedures and promulgated new regulations for evaluating permit applications under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act.
- Shifts in regulatory framework from a CEQ-centric approach to agency-specific guidance/regulations have occurred, granting agencies more flexibility, but uniformity across agencies may decrease.
- Updates in project development and judicial deference include narrower definitions of "major federal action" and "connected actions," a focus on reasonably foreseeable impacts, strict page/time limits for environmental assessments and impact statements, fee-based expedited reviews, and potential increases in deference to agency decisions despite continuing litigation risks. Additionally, the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County may provide some judicial deference to expedited agency NEPA reviews, potentially limiting litigation delays concentrated on procedural technicalities.
