Committee Hearings Held
The bill amends NEPA to require lead federal agencies to annually submit detailed reports to the Council on Environmental Quality on NEPA-related civil actions, lengths, costs, and timelines of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). CEQ must publish those reports and underlying data, disaggregated by specified sectors, and submit them to relevant congressional committees.
Liberals worry data will be used to weaken NEPA; conservatives see reform justification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting statute: it clearly delineates data elements, timelines, responsible parties, and publication duties, and it integrates into existing statutory structure.
The bill amends NEPA to require lead federal agencies to annually submit detailed reports to the Council on Environmental Quality on NEPA-related civil actions, lengths, costs, and timelines of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
CEQ must publish those reports and underlying data, disaggregated by specified sectors, and submit them to relevant congressional committees.
Reports must include litigation details, EIS page counts, cost estimates, and ten-year project timeline metrics, with certain pre/post comparisons to the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
Content is administrative and low-cost so plausible bipartisan support, but Senate hurdles and agency pushback create moderate uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting statute: it clearly delineates data elements, timelines, responsible parties, and publication duties, and it integrates into existing statutory structure. The primary shortcomings are absence of resourcing or appropriation language, limited guidance on data standards and handling of privileged or unavailable information, and no enforcement or quality-control mechanisms.
Liberals worry data will be used to weaken NEPA; conservatives see reform justification.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry data will be used to weaken NEPA; conservatives see reform justification.
Generally supportive of increased transparency and agency accountability, but cautious.
Will see value in data about administrative burden, yet worry the report could be used to justify rolling back NEPA protections or to chill public interest litigation.
Likely to view the bill as a pragmatic, evidence-building measure to inform policy.
Supports better data on timelines, costs, and litigation to evaluate NEPA's functioning, while wanting safeguards for data quality and reasonable administrative burden.
Favorable, viewing the bill as a tool to document NEPA-driven delays and litigation that impede infrastructure and energy projects.
Sees the reporting as a step toward streamlining permitting and holding agencies accountable for unnecessary obstacles.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is administrative and low-cost so plausible bipartisan support, but Senate hurdles and agency pushback create moderate uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry data will be used to weaken NEPA; conservatives see reform justification.
Content is administrative and low-cost so plausible bipartisan support, but Senate hurdles and agency pushback create moderate uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting statute: it clearly delineates data elements, timelines, responsible parties, and publication duties, and it integrates into existing st…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.