Bill Overview
Title: Stop NEPA Expansion Act
Description: This bill provides statutory authority for the revisions to the Code of Federal Regulations made pursuant to a final rule of the Council on Environmental Quality titled Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and published on July 16, 2020. Among other requirements, the rule issued regulations to modify the process for conducting reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by federal agencies in connection with proposals for agency action.
Sponsors: Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2]
Target Audience
Population: People globally concerned by changes in U.S. environmental policy
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to federal agencies in the United States, which are required to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions. Thus, the primary population affected includes those living in the U.S.
- NEPA affects federal decision-making processes concerning construction, infrastructure, and development projects. Therefore, people residing in areas where such projects are proposed are part of the affected population.
- Environmental regulations and reviews are critical for safeguarding natural resources and the environment, which are of concern to all U.S. residents due to impacts on public health, ecosystems, and climate change.
- The rule would affect how environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are conducted, potentially expediting or limiting them, which can have knock-on effects for communities and environments where federal projects may take place.
Reasoning
- The policy targets environmental review processes and primarily impacts communities close to federal projects, environmental professionals, and businesses reliant on these processes.
- Variation in effect is expected based on geographical location and proximity to federal projects and reliance on environmental reviews for economic opportunities.
- The policy impacts regulatory frameworks, thus influencing economic, environmental, and social wellbeing differently based on individual circumstances.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Consultant (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the revisions could cut corners on environmental impact assessments, potentially harming ecosystems.
- There's a risk to my consulting business if reviews will be less thorough or fewer are required.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Construction Project Manager (Houston, Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster approvals mean our projects can move forward without long waits, which benefits our timelines and budgets.
- I am concerned about potential long-term environmental impacts that may affect the community negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Regulatory Agency Official (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The revisions could undermine procedural integrity, causing future legal challenges and reducing environmental protections.
- Maintaining public trust through rigorous review is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Tech Startup CEO (San Francisco, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reduced review times could be beneficial for tech real estate developments.
- Environmental sustainability is crucial; rushed reviews may compromise long-term viability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Urban Planner (New York, New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlined processes might benefit urban development but potentially at the expense of green spaces.
- Balancing development with environmental concerns is my priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Automotive Industry Executive (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential for faster project approvals could benefit the auto industry by facilitating rapid infrastructure improvements.
- We must remain cautious about possible negative environmental impacts that could arise from these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Community Activist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy revisions might weaken protections, potentially affecting community health and sustainability.
- Activism will play a key role in ensuring local voices are heard.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that changes could prioritize corporate interests over small farmers, pushing through projects that harm our environment.
- We depend on clean water and land for our livelihood, which should always be protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might undermine efforts to study and protect vital ecosystems, especially in vulnerable coastal areas.
- Environmental science needs to be a priority to ensure the long-term survival of our diverse ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
Solar Energy Technician (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster approval processes could benefit solar energy projects.
- There are concerns about environmental reviews being insufficient, which could backfire long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- The main cost and savings effects are contingent on how significantly the NEPA process is streamlined and the resultant effects on litigation and project approval timelines.
- The extent to which any policy-induced environmental changes might later require mitigation or correction can impact long-term costs and savings.