In general, the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, became the law in 1970. The law itself remains intact, but the way the law is implemented is undergoing a big change.
The back story goes like this. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed an administrative order to interpret the provisions of the law to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), the office of the White House administrative structure. Therefore, the law includes terms that require environmental review and permission for the “major federal measures” with “important effects”, but even in the CEQ interpretation, even an environment that is controversial requires environmental review of almost all measures. EFECT. For decades, the court has often treated CEQ interpretation as functionally the same as the law itself.
This contract was held in November. Marin Audubon Society V. Federal Aviation Administration CEQ lacks the authority to interpret the provisions of NEPA. The thin legal line here seems to be able to issue a “guidelines” without the power of the CEQ, but the power of the law, which can be issued. This difference is not rare. For economists, the merger guidelines issued by the Federal Trade Commission and the exclusive prohibition of the US Department of Justice are better known. The court can read the input guidelines, but the court is not bound by how the guidelines were chosen to interpret the law.
The presidential order is not the law, but the president of the future can be ignored. Therefore, it was bold by the decision of the appeal court President Trump signed his executive order withdrawing Carter’s 1977 order.. This command is essentially a question of all court decisions based on the CEQ rules since 1977, except for the establishment of all previous CEQ rules regarding NEPA. Instead, all federal agencies with plans to be affected by the NEPA rules for the next 30 days, “We must develop and implement action plans to stop, revise or withdraw all the agency behaviors identified as burdensome. that CEQ has now announced the temporary final rules to fulfill Trump’s administrative order.Open for public opinion.
Aside from legitimacy, what policy choice is there? It is clear that the Trump administration rolls back the scope of the NEPA, so that the agency needs to submit an environmental impact statement and defend in court and focus on the small major action groups. For those with environmental expectations, this general attitude can clearly look regression. However, the problem is not clear in countries that can be maintained for many years by allowing the Green Energy Project and infrastructure project to be maintained for many years by allowing requirements. Zachaary Liscow places it in “Infrastructure: Law and Economics”. (Economic perspective journalIn the winter of 2025, 151-180).
(All Disclosure: I manage JEP’s editor, so you need to find an article you are particularly interested in.)
As LISCOW pointed out, the other rules that demanded NEPA and environmental permits appeared in the 1960s in the 1960s, approving and promoting and promoting large infrastructure and energy projects. . However, in the state of evolving the environment, the blocking power of small groups has expanded. Liscow wrote: “In the 1960s, the United States did a big job with little public consultation. Now small opposition groups can maintain even small things. ”
For example, if anyone who can hire a lawyer should be a concern if he or she can hire a lawyer if he launches the energy into the market or supports the actual architecture of a mass transportation project with a significant building of a low -carbon energy project. Increase and delay the cost of such a project and even completely block. According to Liscow’s calculation, the average environmental impact statement in 2022 took 4.2 years.
Is there a way to maintain a functional balance between concerns about environmental protection, the importance of public feedback and how to proceed with a project with a highly valuable project? As LISCOW pointed out, the United States determines these questions through the process of “hostile law”, which the other person has driven it out of the court. Clear difficulties in this approach can include serious delays, and most lawyers may be likely to win.
For example, many countries have a mechanism to plan a long -term plan for infrastructure, and once the plan is discussed and approved, it becomes much more difficult to file a lawsuit to block anyone. One study compared this plan. Except that the United States is not included in the study because the United States has no long -term infrastructure plans. European energy companies must cooperate with the national infrastructure plan. In Canada, the government regulates energy companies in the local government, but the federal government controls the decision of the energy infrastructure.
The US system spends much more expenses to the lawyer to controversial in the court than to spend a rule to a lawyer, to actually fall in detail, get public feedback, and how the project can be adjusted to be adjusted. Minimize benefits but minimize costs. Liscow is filled with the following nergets:
In Italy, a country with low transportation construction costs, Milan’s public transportation institutions build a lot of plans and design capacity to consult not only other Italian projects but also overseas projects (Goldwyn. 2023). In contrast, when Boston began expansion of greenline public transportation, only 4-6 full-time employees had “largest capital project management in the history of institutions” (Goldwyn et al. 2023, p. 24) . Design choice, dependence and high cost for consultants. likewise”[i]N NEW YORK, consultants managed the construction and managed construction mainly for the first stage of the Second Avenue subway, and project management and design contracts were 21 %of the cost of construction. ” “The general range is 5-10%, 7-8%is the most common and with Italy It is usually 10%in Istanbul. ”(Goldwyn et al. 2023, p. 25).
LISCOW raises the idea of “green deal”. The concept is that the United States will increase the plan for large -scale infrastructure projects and resources for public participation. The response balance will be placed for the court to accept the results and proceed without any additional investigation. As Liscow wrote
After all, expanding and moving upstream of the public can be a better way to create a result of reflecting public preference rather than a series of public lawsuits brought by small special interests. There are few “democratic” for a small number of people using the court to hold a thoroughly evaluated project using court.
In the current environment, the stage taken by the Trump administration in response to NEPA and CEQ is not about planning and public participation, but to solve constraints. However, it is important to remember that the Trump administration’s problem, that is, the method of allowing the US environment, is a real problem that increases the cost of transportation and energy infrastructure. LISCOW keeps all values balanced while providing a vision of how to solve the problem with various detailed policy proposals.
