The regulatory landscape for environmental reviews is shifting, creating new uncertainties—and potential opportunities—for developers and construction professionals navigating the federal permitting process, according to Alexaida Collet, an attorney at MZLS, a San Juan, Puerto Rico-based law firm that advises businesses and public sector clients in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and Puerto Rico.

In a recent analysis, Collet highlighted the significance of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) rescission of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Regulations, a move that became effective on April 11. This decision marks a significant change in how environmental reviews will be conducted nationwide and sets the stage for what could eventually become a more streamlined process for approving development projects.

“The removal of NEPA Implementing Regulations does not eliminate NEPA or exempt any projects from its requirements,” Collet explained. “Projects that require federal permits or licenses, or that utilize federal funds, will still undergo environmental review. What’s changing is the framework governing how those reviews are conducted.”

For over four decades, CEQ’s regulations—established in 1978—served as a unified set of rules for environmental reviews across federal agencies. With those baseline rules rescinded, each federal agency is now required to either revise or create its own NEPA implementing regulations within the next year.

Collet noted that this development presents both opportunities and challenges for developers. On one hand, the change is part of a broader effort to reduce regulatory delays that have historically extended project approval timelines. “The goal is to accelerate the federal permitting process and reduce regulatory burdens,” she explained, citing President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which instructs agencies to “expedite and simplify the permitting process.”

In line with that directive, CEQ issued a guidance memorandum on February 19 encouraging agencies to use the streamlined 2020 NEPA regulations as a starting point for their revised procedures.

This guidance, combined with NEPA amendments under the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act, has the potential to improve efficiency by enforcing stricter page limits, tighter review timelines, and a more structured approach to multi-agency reviews led by a designated lead agency. “If agencies adopt these efficiency-focused measures, the development community could eventually benefit from faster approvals and reduced regulatory burden,” Collet said.

Little immediate impact

Despite the ambitious goal of streamlining reviews, Collet cautioned that developers should not expect immediate changes to the process. “CEQ has instructed agencies to maintain their existing NEPA procedures during the transition and not delay ongoing environmental reviews,” she said. “For projects already in the pipeline, the process will essentially look the same as it has in recent years.”

The more significant effects will likely emerge once agencies begin issuing their revised or new NEPA regulations. Whether these agency-specific frameworks will truly simplify the process—or simply re-create the complexities of the previous system—remains an open question. “The real test will come as agencies begin rolling out their new or revised regulations,” Collet said. “Will they seize this opportunity to create a more efficient environmental review process? Or will the resulting regulations merely replicate the now-rescinded CEQ Implementing Regulations?”

Complicating matters is NEPA’s reputation as the most litigated federal environmental statute in the U.S. Each agency’s new rules will be subject to public notice-and-comment and could face legal challenges from stakeholders. Agencies must find a balance between streamlining goals and maintaining legally defensible environmental review standards.

For developers working on projects that involve multiple federal agencies, Collet warned that the absence of a single governing framework could lead to inconsistent approaches across agencies. “A project requiring approvals from multiple federal bodies might face different documentation requirements, impact analysis scopes or timelines from each agency,” she explained.

Managing inconsistency

CEQ is aware of the potential for regulatory fragmentation and has created a NEPA Implementation Working Group and monthly agency coordination meetings aimed at promoting consistency. Still, Collet acknowledged the difficulty of achieving “true regulatory harmony across all federal agencies,” noting it remains a formidable challenge.

One example of how quickly these changes can create tension emerged on April 23, when the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued emergency procedures that allow certain energy and critical minerals projects to bypass standard NEPA timelines. Under the new directive, environmental impact statements may be completed in just 28 days, and environmental assessments within two weeks—a dramatic acceleration from standard timelines. “This emergency move applies specifically to DOI-managed lands,” Collet said, “but it illustrates the broader tensions agencies now face between speed and scrutiny.”

Critics worry that such rapid reviews could be vulnerable to legal challenges if environmental assessments are perceived as insufficient or rushed.

Looking ahead

In the near term, Collet advised developers to expect continuity in how NEPA reviews are conducted, while remaining vigilant for agency-specific updates that could affect future projects. “In the short term, expect continuity while staying alert to transition developments,” she said. “In the longer term, anticipate a potentially more streamlined process, but one that may vary significantly depending on the federal agencies involved in your project.”

She recommended that developers prepare for regulatory variability across agencies and stay closely engaged with rulemaking processes and streamlining initiatives. “Smart developers will prepare for variations in construction permitting requirements across different federal agencies while staying engaged with regulatory streamlining initiatives,” Collet said. “Those who closely monitor upcoming agency rulemaking processes and maintain flexibility in their permitting strategies will be best positioned to navigate the changing NEPA landscape successfully.”

Originally reported by Alexida Collet in Construction Dive.