The report contends that NEPA has diverged significantly from its original intent. What was meant to be a procedural review for informed, transparent decision-making and public participation has, in many instances, evolved into a complex, lengthy, and adversarial process. This section explores the key aspects of this transformation.
Intent vs. Reality
NEPA aimed to ensure federal agencies took a "hard look" at environmental consequences, fostering "productive harmony" between development and nature. It's a procedural law, not dictating outcomes but processes.
However, implementation has often led to what the report calls a "tool for obstruction," impeding responsible development rather than facilitating it, creating a system that has "gone awry."
The EIS Labyrinth & Litigation Risks
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is central to NEPA for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." This often triggers multi-year permitting processes.
The pervasive risk of litigation drives agencies to create "litigation-proof" documents, leading to "endless documentation." An estimated 90% of details in NEPA reviews are reportedly for lawsuit defense, not necessarily better environmental outcomes.
NEPA is described as the "single most burdensome federal permitting process," disproportionately affecting large, economically vital projects crucial for energy security.
EIS Completion Timelines
Average and median times for EIS completion, illustrating significant project lead times.
Litigation Landscape
NGOs are a primary source of NEPA-related litigation.
Litigation Rates by Energy Sector
Certain energy sectors, including clean energy, face high rates of NEPA litigation.
"Weaponization" of NEPA
A critical assertion is that NEPA has been "weaponized" by project opponents, particularly environmental NGOs, to intentionally delay or block projects. The report states 72% of NEPA litigation originates from NGOs.
This litigation is often seen as a tactic to delay infrastructure rather than improve environmental quality. Even though agencies win about 88% of these cases, the litigation itself causes an average delay of 4.5 years.
This pattern suggests procedural exploitation, turning environmental review into a de facto veto mechanism, hindering projects and imposing economic burdens.
