House Natural Resources hearing splits over NEPA reform as members and witnesses debate speed versus safeguards

The House Natural Resources Committee heard more than three hours of testimony July 25 on proposals to change the National Environmental Policy Act, with Republicans pressing for limits on review timelines and Democrats defending public participation and environmental safeguards.

Republican Chairman Bruce Westerman said NEPA has "mutated into a significant roadblock" that delays infrastructure and energy projects. He cited agency statistics and court cases he said show environmental impact statements long and litigation-prone. "In 2020, the average length of a final environmental impact statement was 661 pages, and the average time to complete an EIS was a whopping 4 and a half years," Westerman said in his opening remarks.

Ranking Member Jared Huffman responded that NEPA is "a cornerstone of democracy and good governance," arguing the law makes federal decisions more transparent and yields improvements when communities can participate. "NEPA requires agencies to consider the facts, disclose the consequences, and then engage the people who have to live with the results," Huffman said. He and other Democrats stressed that the agency workforce and preserved public input are essential to meaningful reviews.

Witness panels split along predictable lines. Industry and permitting advocates — including Tony Bowles of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, Tony Campbell of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, and Alex Hergot of the Permitting Institute — urged statutory reforms, stronger enforcement of single-lead-agency decisions, time limits on litigation, expanded use of categorical exclusions and more agency capacity to prevent project ‘‘death by delay.’’ Bowles recommended raising the federal funding threshold for categorical exclusion to $10 million and expanding one‑federal‑decision approaches to environmental assessments.

Legal and academic witnesses urged more caution. Andrew Mergen, faculty director at Harvard Law School’s Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic and a former DOJ NEPA litigator, called NEPA a ‘‘look before you leap’’ statute. He told the committee that while some NEPA documents are overly long, the statute’s public‑participation role improves projects and that recent judicial decisions and administrative reforms should be allowed to take effect before Congress acts further.

Members pressed witnesses on several recurring themes: whether litigation is the primary cause of delay, whether staffing shortfalls at agencies explain slow review times, how to handle cumulative and ‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’ impacts, and whether recent administrative steps such as Department of Interior alternative arrangements and secretarial-level review for some onshore wind and solar permits curtail tribal consultation and public input.

Several members and witnesses noted changes Congress enacted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the Supreme Court’s 7 County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County decision, both of which the panel described as reshaping NEPA litigation and agency obligations. Witnesses also described practical problems that occur before a formal NEPA clock is started — what Hergot called a ‘‘bureaucratic limbo’’ where developers often do extensive, expensive pre‑application work to satisfy unspoken agency expectations.

The hearing showcased competing priorities for speeding projects and protecting communities. Members of both parties said they want projects to move, but differed on whether statutory fixes, stronger agency capacity, technology and dashboards, or tighter limits on litigation and the scope of required analyses offer the better path forward.

The committee left the record open for additional materials and signaled interest in follow-up work. No legislative votes occurred during the hearing.

Sources: Committee hearing transcript, testimony by Chairman Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member Jared Huffman, Tony Bowles (American Road & Transportation Builders Association), Tony Campbell (East Kentucky Power Cooperative), Andrew Mergen (Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic), and Alex Hergot (Permitting Institute).