Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
This bill amends MAP–21 (section 1317(1)) to raise the dollar thresholds that qualify projects for a categorical exclusion from more intensive federal review. It increases one threshold from $6,000,000 to $12,000,000 and another from $35,000,000 to $70,000,000, thereby expanding which projects of limited federal assistance may be excluded from fuller environmental review under existing law.
Progressives emphasize environmental and justice risks from expanded exclusions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory amendment that clearly and specifically changes numeric thresholds in an existing provision.
This bill amends MAP–21 (section 1317(1)) to raise the dollar thresholds that qualify projects for a categorical exclusion from more intensive federal review.
It increases one threshold from $6,000,000 to $12,000,000 and another from $35,000,000 to $70,000,000, thereby expanding which projects of limited federal assistance may be excluded from fuller environmental review under existing law.
Technically narrow and administrable, but environmental opposition and Senate procedure raise barriers unless folded into a larger, bipartisan vehicle.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory amendment that clearly and specifically changes numeric thresholds in an existing provision. It succeeds in precisely defining the textual change but provides minimal contextual, fiscal, or oversight detail.
Progressives emphasize environmental and justice risks from expanded exclusions.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and justice risks from expanded exclusions.
Likely skeptical.
While acknowledging the goal of speeding small projects, this persona would be concerned the bill broadens categorical exclusions and reduces NEPA-level review and public participation.
They would worry about environmental justice and cumulative impacts being overlooked.
Pragmatic and mixed.
This persona sees efficiency benefits from raising thresholds but wants safeguards to prevent meaningful environmental, safety, or equity tradeoffs.
Support would hinge on monitoring, sunset reviews, or reporting requirements.
Generally favorable.
This persona views the change as a reasonable deregulatory step that halves paperwork and accelerates project delivery.
They emphasize federal streamlining and state/local flexibility over procedural bottlenecks.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administrable, but environmental opposition and Senate procedure raise barriers unless folded into a larger, bipartisan vehicle.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental and justice risks from expanded exclusions.
Technically narrow and administrable, but environmental opposition and Senate procedure raise barriers unless folded into a larger, biparti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted statutory amendment that clearly and specifically changes numeric thresholds in an existing provision. It succeeds in precisely defining the te…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.