SPEED Act Passes House: Streamlining NEPA, Tightening Timelines, And Reframing Litigation

The House of Representatives has passed the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act (the "SPEED Act," H.R. 4776), which now moves to the Senate. If enacted, the SPEED Act would consolidate front end agency discretion, set firm deadlines for agency decision making, and recalibrate standards in judicial review.

Clarifying Major Federal Actions

The bill would refine what qualifies as a "major Federal action." An agency action may not be deemed major solely because it involves federal funding (e.g., grants, loans, loan guarantees, or funding assistance). At the same time, the bill would reinforce that "authorizations"- including leases, permits, licenses, and other approvals - remain within the scope of a major Federal action, preserving NEPA review where federal decisions meaningfully shape projects.

Substituting Other Processes for NEPA

Where a "major Federal action" exists, the SPEED Act would reauthorize agencies to forgo a NEPA document where the agency determines that compliance with another federal statute "serves the function" of NEPA for the action. Likewise, a NEPA document would be unnecessary where a project has already undergone review under a State or Tribal environmental law and the lead agency determines that the review meets NEPA's requirements.

In addition, the bill would promote the reuse of prior work, allowing agencies to rely on completed environmental assessments ("EAs"), environmental impact statements ("EISs"), or categorical exclusion determinations for actions that are "substantially the same." Where a new action differs, the agency would be able to modify earlier documents rather than start from scratch. Together, these tools may minimize duplicative analyses and foster interagency coordination.

Synchronizing Reviews and Enforcing Deadlines

The SPEED Act would require agencies to focus their analysis on effects with a reasonably close causal relationship to the immediate project. It would also compel agencies to conduct other required reviews concurrently with NEPA.

Against that backdrop, the bill would impose the following deadlines:

• Within 60 days of receiving an application for authorization, the agency would have to acknowledge receipt and either (i) deem the application complete or (ii) request specific additional information.
• Within 60 days of determining an application is complete, the agency would have to notify the applicant whether (i) the action is categorically excluded or not a major Federal action, (ii) an EIS notice of intent will be issued, or (iii) an EA will be prepared.
• Within 30 days of completing an EIS or EA, the lead and any cooperating agencies would have to issue final agency action(s).

By combining a narrowed scope of analysis, concurrent reviews, and fixed milestones, the bill may deliver predictability for applicants and consistency for agencies.

Reshaping Judicial Review and Limiting Claims

The SPEED Act would materially reshape NEPA litigation in the following ways:

• Deference. Courts would have to afford "substantial deference" to agency determinations and would be precluded from substituting their judgment for that of the agency regarding identified environmental effects.
• Remedies. If a court finds a NEPA violation, the sole remedy would be remand. During a 180-day cure period, the agency action would remain in effect, limiting disruption to projects.
• Claim Limits. Challenges would generally have to be filed within 150 days of publication of the final agency action. Where a public comment period occurred, only parties who submitted a substantive and unique comment - sufficiently detailed to put the agency on notice and limited to the same subject matter - by the deadline would be able to sue.

While these provisions would favor agency decisions in third party challenges, a House floor amendment aims to constrain post issuance agency reversals by limiting the ability to revoke, amend, or otherwise interfere with authorizations absent a (1) court order; (2) material breach of the authorization or evidence of fraud; (3) request from the applicant; or (4) new finding that the action would cause "specific, immediate, substantial, and proximate harm or damage to life, property, national security, or defense."

Conclusion

Four days after the SPEED Act passed the House, the Trump Administration paused offshore wind project leases that were already under construction. Perhaps in consideration of the House floor amendment, the Department of the Interior referenced "national security risks" in the announcement as its reason for the action. In response, Senate Democrats have halted SPEED Act negotiations.

If the SPEED Act overcomes this hurdle, it would consolidate lead agency control, promote substitution and reuse of environmental reviews, and enforce concurrent processing deadlines. Applicants may see clearer thresholds, reduced duplication, and tighter timelines. Although the bill may evolve in the Senate, its direction is clear: a purely procedural NEPA process that does not dictate outcomes.