Key Takeaways
- A coalition of 89 organizations urged the Department of Energy to reinstate National Environmental Policy Act regulations after they were rescinded in June.
- The rollback of NEPA regulations reduces public participation and environmental protections, according to critics.
- Advocates suggest cities establish local environmental review processes, similar to NEPA, to maintain community oversight.
Environmental Protections Under Threat
A coalition of 89 environmental justice and community organizations submitted a comment letter to the federal government on August 4, calling for the reinstatement of all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. This action follows the Department of Energy (DOE) and other agencies rescinding their NEPA regulations on June 30, in alignment with President Donald Trump’s executive orders and a recent Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the law’s scope.
NEPA, enacted in 1970, is often referred to as the “Magna Carta of Federal environmental laws.” Its purpose is to require federal agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of major federal actions before making decisions, thereby enhancing public awareness and participation. However, the Trump administration’s recent actions prioritize efficiency over environmental protections. According to attorney Rafe Petersen, this regulatory rollback means reduced opportunities for cities to challenge projects they find undesirable.
In a ruling on May 29, the Supreme Court determined that NEPA reviews must focus solely on the direct effects of proposed projects, excluding potential future impacts or related projects. For instance, if the DOE is constructing a pipeline, it is only required to consider the implications of that specific construction, not where the natural gas originates or its final destination.
This ruling significantly limits the analysis of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas effects and reduces the scope for evaluating climate change impacts tied to projects outside agency jurisdictions. Petersen remarked that this could translate into “less red tape” but at the cost of essential environmental safeguards.
The coalition’s letter highlighted several adverse consequences stemming from the rescinded regulations, such as jeopardizing public health and environmental protections and reducing essential community input and transparency. Urban areas stand to be particularly affected, as federal agencies may no longer need to evaluate federally funded projects under NEPA regulations like before. For example, if a city receives funds for a highway project without regulatory strings attached, there may be no NEPA review concerning traffic impacts.
Furthermore, the rollback has led to the elimination of environmental justice reviews that have historically been part of federal processes, albeit not formally codified into law. As a consequence, agencies will likely receive greater deference in decision-making, even when communities express discontent over specific projects. Petersen suggests that in situations like highway construction, agencies may overlook broader community impacts, such as disruption to neighborhoods or implications for urban growth.
KD Chavez, executive director of the Climate Justice Alliance, expressed that the diminished NEPA framework threatens to eliminate community involvement in decision-making processes. He emphasized that neglecting these communities’ input is detrimental, particularly during the climate crisis.
In light of the regulatory changes, Chavez recommended that cities adopt “mini-NEPAs”—local or state-level environmental review practices—to maintain some level of community engagement in project assessments. Some cities, including New York City and Washington, D.C., have already implemented such local provisions to ensure that environmental considerations remain a part of their development processes.
The content above is a summary. For more details, see the source article.
