Resources for Combating Myths about NEPA 

Interior Department image of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 2025. Its construction was initially challenged under the National Environmental Policy Act on environmental grounds until Congress approved it in Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973, with Nixon’s vice president casting the deciding vote in the Senate. (It would be his last tie-breaking vote before resigning under corruption charges.) Today, its operations are being challenged by a warming climate even as the oil it transports contributes to warming the climate. Oil transported by the pipeline has released 8 billion tons of CO2 emissions over the course of the pipeline’s operation.

The National Environmental Policy Act is under attack by the Trump administration, the Supreme Court, and the Republican-majority Congress. Within the Democratic party as well, there is a faction that seeks to limit the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to usher in a so-called “abundance agenda” of more expedient building.

Abundance advocates like to argue that limiting the scope of review of the environmental impacts of federally permitted energy projects under NEPA will benefit renewable energy. Their counterintuitive claim is that environmental laws are stymying the clean energy transition; that environmentalists are, effectively, a roadblock to climate action. This narrative should not be left unchallenged. Below are a collection of sources that puncture this argument. (For further reading, check out our resource made in collaboration with Friends of the Earth: “Real Solutions for Fast and Equitable Decarbonization.”) 

Most renewable energy projects that receive federal permits aren’t subject to full environmental review.

• “Permitting Reform’s False Choice” by David Adelman (August 14, 2023): This study analyzed the environmental review process for federally permitted energy projects between 2010 and 2021, and found that most faced streamlined review or avoided environmental review altogether. Less than five percent of wind and solar projects required an in-depth environmental assessment, and the number of challenges to federal permits for clean energy projects was “remarkably low”—only 28 cases total over the twelve-year period. 

Renewable energy projects that did undergo full environmental review between 2009 and 2021 had a faster-than-average permitting timeline. 

• “Adding Solar: The Role of the National Environmental Policy Act in Solar Development,” Resources for the Future (December 2023):

• This working paper from 2023 identified 28 solar projects that completed environmental impact statements during their NEPA permitting process—the most complex form of environmental review—and 18 that completed environmental assessments between 2009 and 2021. They found that the average time for solar projects to undergo these more thorough analyses was “substantially shorter” than the average review time across federal agencies. 

• The study found that roughly two-thirds of the projects completed the entire NEPA review process—notice of intent, formal environmental review, environmental impact statement, and record of decision—in 1 to 2 years.

• For ten projects which did encounter delays, the reasons were varied. “For three projects, changes in design as PV emerged as the dominant technology and changes in ownership (including bankruptcy); for four projects, environmental and tribal issues raised during NEPA reviews required design changes and reduced their acreage and capacity; for the remaining three projects, the primary agency EIS review process.”

Large-scale renewable energy projects can have environmental impacts worth assessing, mitigating, and avoiding. Limiting impacts to ecosystems and communities can reduce conflicts over where energy projects are built. 

• “Minimizing habitat conflicts in meeting net-zero energy targets in the western United States” by Grace Wu et al, Sustainability Science (January 19, 2023): “We studied the land and ocean use implications of a national net-zero target in the western United States. We identify multiple options for limiting the land/ocean use impacts of reaching net zero, including energy technology choices and protecting high conservation value areas. The scenario with the highest level of protection and that most rapidly and extensively electrifies buildings, cars, and industry has the lowest overall impacts. We found that strong land/ocean use protections incur a small (∼3%) energy cost premium while greatly reducing siting conflicts that would likely delay renewable energy deployment.”

Permitting agencies have and frequently exercise the authority to establish “categorical exclusions” from environmental review processes for projects whose impacts they deem insignificant. 

• “Categorical Exclusions,” Council on Environmental Quality (2024): “A categorical exclusion (CE) is a class of actions that a Federal agency has determined, after review by CEQ, do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is normally required. The use of categorical exclusions can reduce paperwork and save time and resources.”

• “Notice of Final Rulemaking,” Energy Department (2024): “DOE is revising its NEPA regulations to add a categorical exclusion for certain energy storage systems and revise categorical exclusions for upgrading and rebuilding powerlines and for solar photovoltaic systems, as well as to make conforming changes.”

• “Environmental Impact Statement Timelines (2010-2024),” Council on Environmental Quality (January 13, 2025): “…available data indicates that the vast majority of environmental analyses under NEPA (approximately 99%) are completed through either environmental assessments or categorical exclusions.”

Permitting timelines for the most complex form of environmental review sped up between 2019 and 2024, and even more so compared to 2010 to 2018.

• “Environmental Impact Statement Timelines (2010-2024),” Council on Environmental Quality (January 13, 2025): A CEQ review of actions across federal agencies found that the median time to complete an environmental impact statement, the rarest and most complicated form of environmental review, between 2019 and 2024 was 2.8 years, decreasing by 5 months or 13 percent relative to projects permitting between 2010 to 2018. The review also found that for final environmental impact statements issued in 2024, the median time between notice of intent to final environmental impact statement was 2.2 years: “an improvement of nearly a year and a half from 2019—the first year of newly reported data—when the median time was 3.6 years (43 months). Furthermore, approximately 41 percent of final EISs issued in 2024 were completed in 2 years or less, an improvement from 2019, when only 24 percent were completed in 2 years or less.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) completed rulemakings during the Biden administration to increase the efficiency of building transmission and bringing new energy sources onto the grid. Trump is now threatening to undermine those rules. 

• “Explainer on the Interconnection Final Rule,” FERC (2023): “On July 28, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued a new rule to reform procedures and agreements that electric transmission providers use to integrate new generating facilities into the existing transmission system, sometimes referred to as the “electric grid” or “grid.” Designated as Order No. 2023, FERC adopted these reforms to reduce backlogs for projects seeking to connect to the transmission system, improve certainty in the interconnection processes managed by the dozens of transmission providers around the country, and ensure access to the transmission system for new technologies.” 

• “FERC Takes on Long-Term Planning with Historic Transmission Rule,” FERC (May 13, 2024): “FERC acted today to ensure the transmission grid can meet the nation’s growing demand for reliable electricity with a new rule that outlines how to plan and pay for facilities that regions of the country will need to keep the lights on and power the American economy through the 21st Century. Today’s rule, Order No. 1920, marks the first time in more than a decade that FERC has addressed regional transmission policy – and the first time the Commission has ever squarely addressed the need for long-term transmission planning.”

• “Trump executive order threatens transmission, interconnection initiatives: former FERC commissioners” by Herman Trabish, Utility Dive (March 26, 2025): “White House executive order claiming authority over federal agencies could delay two vital Federal Energy Regulatory Commission initiatives, former commissioners from both political parties agree. FERC Orders 1920/1920A, reforming transmission planning, and 2023/2023A, reforming interconnection rules, are crucial as the U.S. power system confronts spiking demand growth and increasing extreme weather events, former Republican and Democratic commissioners said. But a February 18 presidential executive order, or EO, requires White House review of independent agency rulings, and court battles over its legality are likely, they also agree.”

Permitting delays can be caused by inadequate staffing and resources at permitting agencies.

• “Evidence-Based Recommendations for Improving National Environmental Policy Act Implementation” by John Ruple, Jamie Pleune, and Erik Heiny, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (April 11, 2022): This study analyzed over 41,000 NEPA decisions made by the U.S. Forest Service between 2004 and 2020. They found that less rigorous analysis did not necessarily mean faster permitting decisions, and that most delays were caused by factors like “inadequate agency budgets, staff turnover, delays receiving information from permit applicants, and compliance with other laws.” They concluded that the best way to improve the efficacy of permitting under NEPA would be to increase permitting agencies’ staffing and resources. 

Trump and DOGE’s cuts to permitting agencies’ staff will exacerbate delays. 

• “Trump’s moves to speed energy projects could slow them” by Mike Soraghan, E&E News (May 30, 2025): “People who shepherd big energy projects say shortcutting reviews, firing bureaucrats and demolishing well-established processes is not the way to make such problems go away. Reviews done too quickly can invite errors that opponents seize on in court. Permit backlogs can grow when regulatory agencies are short-staffed. And blowing up longstanding practices can leave developers without landmarks to navigate.”

The Trump administration and Republican-led Congress are causing billions in clean energy projects to be delayed or canceled.

• “$14 billion in clean energy projects canceled in US, analysis says” by Alexa St. John and Isabella O’Malley, AP News (May 29, 2025): More than $14 billion in clean energy investments in the U.S. have been canceled or delayed this year, according to an analysis released Thursday, as President Donald Trump’s pending megabill has raised fears over the future of domestic battery, electric vehicle and solar and wind energy development. Many companies are concerned that investments will be in jeopardy amid House Republicans’ passage of a tax bill that would gut clean energy credits, nonpartisan group E2 said in its analysis of projects that it and consultancy Atlas Public Policy tracked.”

• “Trump administration issues order to stop construction on New York offshore wind project” by Jennifer McDermott, AP News (April 16, 2025): “The Trump administration issued an order Wednesday to stop construction on a major offshore wind project to power more than 500,000 New York homes, the latest in a series of moves targeting the industry. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to halt construction on Empire Wind, a fully-permitted project. He said it needs further review because it appears the Biden administration rushed the approval.”

Several legislative proposals have been introduced to speed up the clean energy transition that do not expedite fossil fuel projects or sacrifice public input or rigorous consideration of environmental impacts under NEPA. 

• “The Democrats’ new consensus bill would supercharge transmission” by David Roberts, Volts (February 14, 2024): “Reps. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) and Mike Levin (D-Calif.) discuss their Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act, explaining where Democrats have found consensus around transmission permitting and community engagement.”

• “Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform Proposals” by Ashley J. Lawson, Congressional Research Service (May 24, 2024): “Permitting reform has been a topic of debate in the 118th Congress. One aspect of this debate addresses the processes for planning, siting, approving, and paying for electricity transmission lines (broadly referred to as transmission permitting in this report). Proponents of transmission permitting reform generally identify two main desired outcomes: (1) increased use of wind and solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience.”

Gutting the National Environmental Policy Act does nothing to improve key bottlenecks for deploying renewable energy, including:

Delays plaguing the grid interconnection queue managed by regional transmission organizations (RTOs):

• “Grid connection barriers to renewable energy deployment in the United States” by Will Gorman et al, Joule (February 19, 2025): “Grid interconnection, defined in this paper as the process of connecting new generators or energy storage to the existing electric grid, has emerged as one of the most recent and significant obstacles to renewable energy deployment. […] Our findings suggest that interconnection reform is needed, and policymakers and regulators should establish tighter links between long-term transmission planning and project-level interconnection processes. More data and outcome transparency would allow key stakeholders to monitor the health of interconnection institutions.”

Misaligned economic incentives for electric utilities:

• “Electric Utilities’ Broken Economic Incentives Are Obstructing the Green Transition,”  Roosevelt Institute (2024): “The shareholder-owned utility Entergy—which serves customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas—provides a clear example of how misaligned economic incentives lead utilities to protect their economic interests at the expense of clean, affordable, and more resilient energy systems. As a regulated utility, Entergy earns a guaranteed rate of return on its investments in generation facilities and grid infrastructure. This allows Entergy to provide a steady financial return to its shareholders, so long as it can continue to expand the scale of investments or increase sales to its captive customer base. The troubling result of this economic model is that Entergy benefits from obstructing other power providers from accessing its market. […] Rather than expect utility companies to make investments that are antithetical to their economic incentives, policymakers must craft rules that align private and public interests.” 

The reluctance of profit-maximizing financiers to invest in solar and wind:

• “We are taking a devastating risk with the green energy sector—one that might cost us our future” by Brett Christophers, The Guardian (February 27, 2024): “Relying on private companies to solve the climate crisis means that the planet’s fate rests in the hands of asset managers. […] Unless firms are forced to invest, limited profit opportunities and expectations usually mean limited investment. And in the context of electricity, limited investment in clean power in turn means that we will continue to rely on dirty energy sources – coal and gas – and hence CO2 emissions will continue to grow. And this is exactly what we are still seeing.”

Local and state-level restrictions on renewable energy construction:

• “Opposition to Renewable Energy Facilities in the United States” by Matthew Eisenson, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (May 2023): “In nearly every state, local governments have enacted laws and regulations to block or restrict renewable energy facilities, and/or local opposition has resulted in the delay or cancelation of particular projects. In this edition, the authors found at least 228 local restrictions across 35 states, in addition to 9 state-level restrictions, that are so burdensome that they could have the effect of blocking a project.”

Misinformation campaigns funded by incumbent oil and gas companies:

• “Unmasking Dark Money: How Fossil Fuel Interests Can Undermine Clean Energy Progress” by Lotus Kaufman (June 20, 2023): “The fossil fuel industry uses anonymous ‘dark money’ contributions to fund misinformation about clean energy and promote nonrenewable resources, influencing legislation and elections and undermining a renewable energy transition.”

• “Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States” by Julia Simon, NPR (March 28, 2022): “Yet every single rural utility-scale wind and solar project needs local or state approval to get built, says Sarah Mills, who researches rural renewable energy at the University of Michigan. And she says it’s in those often-fractious discussions about approval that misinformation is sometimes halting and stalling the installation of the renewables the climate needs.”

NEPA has had many successes in its decades of implementation:

• “NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating 40 Years of Transparency and Open Government,” Environmental Law Institute (2010): “It is fair to say that NEPA brought the environment front and center to federal agencies, and that this can be deemed a success brought about, in no small part, by the many federal employees and citizens who have applied the law over these decades. It also opened up the federal decision making process. No longer could federal agencies say ‘we know best’ and make decisions without taking environmental consequences into account. Nor could they simply pick one outcome or project and deem all others unworthy of consideration. NEPA democratized decisionmaking. It recognized that citizens, local and state governments, Indian tribes, corporations, and other federal agencies have a stake in government actions—and often unique knowledge of hazards, consequences, and alternatives that can produce better decisions.”
  
• “6 Places Where the National Environmental Policy Act Made The Difference,” Earthjustice (2021): “One of the first lawsuits under the National Environmental Policy Act was brought — and won — by Earthjustice on behalf of the Sierra Club in 1971. The legal challenge demanded an environmental study before the government allowed the Gila River, a tributary of the Colorado River in New Mexico, to be turned into a concrete ditch. The project failed to gain approval. The 649-mile Gila River lives to flow on today.”

For more information about real solutions for fast and equitable decarbonization, click here.