The House approved the SPEED Act to streamline NEPA permitting, codify recent Supreme Court clarifications, expand exemptions, and dramatically shorten the statute of limitations for NEPA lawsuits from six years to 150 days. Supporters say the changes will reduce multi-year delays in construction projects; critics warn the shorter legal window could limit community challenges and may favor certain energy projects. The bill passed 221–196 and now heads to the Senate, where key Democrats seek additional provisions to safeguard clean-energy and transmission build-out.
House Passes SPEED Act To Shorten NEPA Lawsuits and Accelerate Construction
The House Just Passed a Bill To Curb Environmental Lawsuits and Speed Up Construction Projects
The House of Representatives has passed the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, a bill intended to streamline federal permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and reduce delays that have long slowed construction projects.
What the bill would do:
The SPEED Act would codify recent Supreme Court clarifications, expand the list of projects that could avoid full NEPA review, and, most notably, sharply shorten the time window for filing NEPA-related lawsuits. Under current rules, parties can challenge approvals up to six years after a project is authorized; the SPEED Act would cut that statute of limitations to 150 days and impose strict deadlines for courts to resolve cases.
Why supporters say reform is needed
Supporters argue NEPA reviews and litigation have become a major drag on project delivery. While Congress adopted page and time limits for NEPA reviews in 2021, the average environmental impact statement (the most comprehensive NEPA review) still takes about 2.4 years to complete, according to the Council on Environmental Quality. The Breakthrough Institute reports that NEPA-related lawsuits delayed projects by an average of 4.2 years from 2013 to 2022.
Concerns from critics
Opponents — including some House Democrats — warned the shortened statute of limitations could limit communities’ ability to seek judicial review of projects that affect them. Supporters counter that NEPA requires public hearings and comment periods before reviews are finalized, and that the majority of NEPA suits have been brought by national nonprofits rather than local residents: the Breakthrough Institute found 72% of challenges from 2013–2022 were filed by national nonprofits, while only 16% came from local communities.
Some Democrats also argued the changes could disproportionately benefit fossil fuel interests. Proponents note that NEPA litigation has been used to slow both fossil fuel and clean energy projects, and an early version of the bill attracted support from a broad cross-section of energy groups. However, later changes to the bill’s language prompted some clean-energy groups to withdraw support — notably, the American Clean Power Association pulled its endorsement after amendments gave presidents more discretion to rescind certain permits approved between January 20 and the bill’s enactment date.
Political outlook
The House passed the bill 221–196 with bipartisan votes, and it now proceeds to the Senate. Senate Democrats who prioritize an aggressive clean-energy buildout have said they will support permitting reform only if it guarantees the expansion of transmission and affordable clean energy — conditions they say the SPEED Act, in its current form, does not meet. Lawmakers from both parties have signaled willingness to negotiate further changes.
Whether the SPEED Act becomes the vehicle for meaningful permitting reform remains uncertain, but supporters hope it will kick-start broader negotiations to make permitting faster and more predictable.
What to watch next: Senate debate and possible amendments, responses from renewable and fossil-fuel stakeholders, and any changes that reconcile judicial timelines with protections for community input and environmental review.
