Streamlining NEPA with the SPEED Act for Energy and Housing Growth

The urgency to build more power infrastructure and housing is undeniable as energy and housing costs continue to rise. Yet, this urgent need often faces significant delays due to bureaucratic hurdles like permits and environmental reviews. These processes, originally designed to protect the environment, are now seen as cumbersome and sometimes ineffective, hindering projects that could generate jobs, reduce costs, and expand opportunities.

A prime example of this regulatory bottleneck is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which, despite its well-meaning origins, has become a significant source of delays and increased costs. NEPA mandates that federal agencies assess the environmental impacts of significant projects, a process that has evolved into a lengthy and costly ordeal. According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, completing a full Environmental Impact Statement can take an average of 4.5 years. The financial burden is equally substantial, with a 2017 Department of Energy survey highlighting that an Environmental Assessment costs approximately $313,000, while a full statement exceeds $6 million. These factors drive up project expenses and can dissuade potential investments.

To address these challenges, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) introduced the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act in July. This bill aims to modernize NEPA by reinforcing its intent as a procedural statute, clarifying that NEPA is intended solely to ensure federal agencies consider environmental impacts without mandating specific outcomes. This clarification helps curb regulatory overreach while maintaining transparency.

Additionally, the SPEED Act responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which dictates that agencies need only consider the direct effects of a project, not hypothetical downstream impacts. By codifying this standard, the Act ensures that environmental reviews focus on direct, tangible, and measurable consequences, avoiding endless speculation about potential second-order effects.

The proposal also tackles the issue of litigation that can stall or halt projects post-approval. It reduces the statute of limitations for lawsuits from six years to 150 days, restricts legal challenges to those involved in the public comment process, and mandates that courts send flawed analyses back to the agency for correction rather than halting construction. These measures provide developers with more certainty and protect projects from being derailed by late-stage legal challenges.

Across the political spectrum, there is growing cooperation on these issues. At the Abundance DC conference, a gathering of elected officials, policy experts, and entrepreneurs, there was a unified aim to make building in America more accessible.

Challenging these construction barriers often involves legal action. The Pacific Legal Foundation, for example, has defended numerous individuals and businesses affected by excessive regulations. Their cases include a Florida retiree blocked from building a horse stable due to an erroneous "wetland" designation by the Army Corps of Engineers, a young entrepreneur forced to pay a hefty mitigation fee unrelated to any environmental impact, and a family-owned Alaska timber company facing financial ruin due to the U.S. Forest and Wildlife Service's refusal to honor a management plan. Learn more about these cases: Florida retiree, young entrepreneur, and Alaska timber company.

When environmental laws hinder rather than help, they fail to protect nature and instead penalize responsible land use. By realigning NEPA with its original purpose and streamlining the review process, the SPEED Act aims to facilitate necessary investments in energy, housing, and infrastructure.

Having passed out of the Committee on a bipartisan basis, the SPEED Act now moves to the House floor. For Congress, passing this bill could pave the way for a more prosperous future.

This op-ed was originally published in Real Clear Energy on December 11, 2025.