Bill Overview
Title: Determination of NEPA Adequacy Streamlining Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior to use a previously completed environmental assessment or environmental impact statement required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for a proposed transmission, pipeline, or renewable energy facility project if the proposed project is substantially the same as one addressed in the previous assessment or statement.
Sponsors: Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-21]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by environmental policy changes
Estimated Size: 200000000
- The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) affects projects that have significant environmental impacts, particularly transmission lines, pipelines, and renewable energy facilities.
- The bill aims to streamline the NEPA process by allowing for the use of previously completed environmental assessments, which could speed up project approvals.
- By affecting the speed and process of environmental assessments, the bill can directly impact developers and workers involved in constructing transmission, pipeline, or renewable energy projects.
- Environmental organizations and activists may also be affected, as the bill could alter the scrutiny projects receive.
- Local communities where these projects are deployed might experience environmental and economic changes, impacting their wellbeing.
- Energy consumers could see impacts in terms of energy prices or availability depending on the outcome of faster project deployments.
- The global population may indirectly be impacted because major US infrastructure projects can have significant environmental consequences.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints require focusing on individuals directly connected to the energy sector or living in areas impacted by these projects, thus affecting a relatively small fraction of the general population.
- The policy primarily benefits project developers and workers by potentially reducing delays and costs associated with environmental assessments. This could also lead to more rapid job creation in the sector.
- Environmental groups and local community members may express concerns about reduced opportunity for public scrutiny of environmental impacts, but could benefit if the projects are sustainable and create jobs.
- The impact on energy consumers may include potential reductions in energy prices due to increased infrastructure efficiency and availability.
- Given the project's scope, interviews focused on a variety of stakeholders are necessary to balance perspectives, including those potentially against the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Engineer (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that streamlining might overlook critical environmental considerations.
- Faster project approvals can increase job opportunities, which is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Pipeline Construction Worker (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could speed up projects and provide more job security.
- I hope it doesn't sacrifice environmental safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Activist (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining NEPA is problematic if it reduces checks on potentially harmful projects.
- I'm worried corporate interests will overshadow community and environmental interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Rancher (Nevada)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Quicker project approvals mean we could get infrastructure updates sooner, which might benefit my business.
- I hope the environmental assessment remains thorough regardless.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Urban Planner (Pennsylvania)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining could assist in completing projects more efficiently, provided that sustainability doesn't take a backseat.
- Public engagement and transparency must be maintained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Farmer (North Dakota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems to help projects like pipelines get finished sooner, which could be positive for the local economy.
- I'm wary of potential environmental effects on my land.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Renewable Energy Consultant (South Carolina)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could accelerate the deployment of renewable energy projects, which is crucial.
- It must not compromise environmental standards in the rush.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Electrician (Ohio)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Faster project approvals could mean more work opportunities for those in the trades.
- My primary concern is whether these opportunities come swiftly enough to make a difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Energy Company Executive (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlining the NEPA process is absolutely necessary to reduce costs and start projects faster.
- We must ensure compliance doesn't get compromised and stays rigorous.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
State Environmental Officer (Montana)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can help make processes more efficient, but it must not lower the quality of environmental assessments.
- I fear resource constraints might pressure us to cut corners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $31000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $42000000)
Year 3: $32000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $44000000)
Year 5: $33000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $48000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $65000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between expedited project approvals and ensuring adequate environmental protections is crucial.
- Stakeholder engagement and potential litigation risks need to be managed to avoid delaying projects contrary to the bill’s objectives.
- There could be public perception issues regarding environmental impacts that may need to be addressed.