HR 4776119th CongressIntroduced

SPEED Act

Introduced: Jul 25, 2025

Infrastructure

Standard Summary

Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

The SPEED Act is a proposed amendment to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) intended to speed up and standardize federal environmental reviews for proposed actions. It reframes NEPA as a strictly procedural statute that does not mandate any particular environmental outcome, and it tightens the scope and timing of analysis. Key elements include narrowing the range of environmental effects agencies must consider, increasing the use of programmatic documents and previously established categorical exclusions, extending or clarifying review procedures and deadlines, and establishing a faster, more tightly defined path for judicial review. The bill seeks to reduce delays and provide clearer rules for agencies, applicants, and courts, with an emphasis on predictability and pace in the permitting process. In short, the SPEED Act aims to make NEPA reviews more efficient by clarifying process, limiting certain kinds of information and effects that must be analyzed, expanding streamlined document options, and creating expedited judicial review while preserving a court-based mechanism to correct procedural errors.

Key Points

1NEPA reform is codified as a purely procedural statute. NEPA’s requirements would be framed to ensure agencies consider environmental impacts during decisionmaking but would not be read to require substantive environmental outcomes or confer substantive rights.
2Narrowed scope of review (Section 106, and related definitions):
3- The environmental review would focus on effects that have a close causal relationship to the immediate project and would exclude speculative, remote, or downstream effects or those tied to separate future projects.
4- The lead agency may determine that certain actions are sufficiently covered by another statute or by a state/tribal review, potentially avoiding NEPA review for those actions.
5Required efficiency in process (Section 107 and related provisions):
6- Cooperating agency comments would be limited to matters within their jurisdiction; if a lead agency determines no environmental document is required, another agency may not prepare one.
7- Agencies would not be required to consider new scientific or technical research published after key deadlines (e.g., after application receipt or after notice to prepare an environmental document), and cannot delay final action waiting for such new data.
8- Provisions to prevent unnecessary delays by awaiting new information not available by specified deadlines.
9Increased use of programmatic documents and exclusions:
10- The number of programmatic environmental documents would rise (from 5 to 10).
11- Agencies may adopt categorical exclusions that are either established by law or by Congress, with clarifications to the exclusion language.
12Expanded and clarified definitions (Section 111):
13- Adds statutory language to recognize actions that may be excluded from major federal action determinations based on other statutory authority.
14- Adds exclusions related to certain types of funding mechanisms (e.g., farm loans and loan guarantees) from automatically triggering NEPA review.
15- Defines “reasonably foreseeable” environmental effects to align with the narrowed scope (proximate cause, not speculative or remote).
16Expanded duties to consider energy aspects (Section 204): Includes energy in the scope of health-and-safety considerations.
17Judicial review overhaul (new Section 113; appended to NEPA’s Title I):
18- Standard of review tightened: courts may overturn a final agency action for NEPA only if the agency abused substantial discretion and would have reached a different result absent that abuse.
19- Courts must not substitute their own judgment for the agency’s assessment of environmental effects.
20- Remand process defined with specific instructions and a bounded deadline (up to 180 days for new schedule), and the remanded action remains in effect during correction.
21- Limitations on claims: time limits (e.g., 150 days to file after action is public), criteria tying claims to substantive and unique public comments, and restrictions on challenging certain categorical exclusions.
22- Deadlines for resolution and appeal are explicit, with expedited timelines (final judgment within as expeditiously as practicable, generally within 180 days after the agency record is filed; appeals within 60 days and decision within 180 days if appealed).
23Final agency actions and sequencing (Section 113 and related definitions):
24- Certain NEPA-related actions (e.g., an Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Statement, Finding of No Significant Impact, or categorically excluded action) would not itself be treated as a “final agency action” for purposes of review under the typical administrative-law framework.
25Interaction with other deadlines (no impact on certain reviews): The bill preserves the ability to seek review of other deadlines under existing statutes where applicable.

Impact Areas

Primary affected groups/areas:- Federal agencies responsible for NEPA reviews (e.g., those approving infrastructure, energy, transportation, and other large federal actions).- Project proponents and developers seeking faster permitting timelines for federal action.- States and tribes that rely on state/tribal environmental review mechanisms and on cooperation with federal agencies.Secondary affected groups/areas:- Environmental organizations and communities seeking robust environmental review and consideration of broader or cumulative impacts.- Legal and regulatory professionals who practice or advise on NEPA and related environmental litigation.- Industry sectors with major federal permitting needs (energy, infrastructure, manufacturing) that may benefit from clearer deadlines and streamlined documents.Additional impacts:- Potential reduction in consideration of indirect, cumulative, or long-term environmental effects, depending on how narrowly “reasonably foreseeable” effects are interpreted.- Greater predictability and speed in permitting processes, which could accelerate project delivery but may raise concerns about thoroughness and environmental safeguards.- Changes to how federal funds and loan guarantees are treated in NEPA analysis, potentially reducing NEPA triggers for certain funding actions.- A new, more structured judicial pathway that emphasizes procedural correctness and timeliness over sweeping environmental adjudications.

Generated by gpt-5-nano on Oct 2, 2025