This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/climate/trump-nepa-environment.html

The article has changed 15 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Trump Moves to Exempt Big Projects From Environmental Review Trump Moves to Exempt Big Projects From Environmental Review
(32 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — The White House on Thursday will introduce the first major changes to the nation’s benchmark environmental protection law in more than three decades, moving to ease approval of pipelines and other major energy and infrastructure projects without detailed environmental review. WASHINGTON — The White House on Thursday introduced major changes to the nation’s benchmark environmental protection law, moving to ease approval of major energy and infrastructure projects without detailed environmental review or consideration of climate change.
Many of the changes to the law — the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark measure that touches nearly every significant construction project in the country — have been long sought by the oil and gas industry, whose members applauded the move and called it long overdue. Many of the changes to the law — the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark measure that touches nearly every significant construction project in the country — had been long sought by the oil and gas industry as well as trade unions, which have argued that the review process is lengthy, cumbersome and used by environmental activists to drag out legal disputes and kill infrastructure projects.
White House officials on Thursday morning declined to comment on the proposed regulations, which will be formally released later in the day. One person familiar with the announcement said the administration would highlight a replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge in North Carolina, which took more than 20 years because of federal reviews. Administration officials will argue that the changes will help projects like that one move faster. Under the law, major federal projects like bridges, highways, pipelines or power plants that will have a significant impact on the environment require a review, or environmental impact statement, outlining potential consequences. The proposed new rules would narrow the range of projects that require such a review.
Under the law, major federal projects like bridges, highways, pipelines or power plants that will have a significant impact on the environment require a review, or environmental impact statement, outlining potential consequences. The proposed new rules, which guide the way the law is implemented, will narrow the range of projects that demand such a review. It will do that by creating a new category of “non-major” federal actions that can move forward without any assessment, according to two government officials familiar with the regulation. “The step we’re taking today, which will ultimately lead to final regulations, I believe will hit a home run in delivering better results to the American people,” the Interior secretary, David Bernhardt, said on Thursday.
It will do that, he said, by creating a new category of federal actions, which Mary B. Neumayr, the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, described as having “minimum federal funding or involvement.” Projects in that category could move forward without any assessment.
The changes would also eliminate the need for agencies to consider the “cumulative impacts” of projects, which in recent years courts have said include studying the planet-warming consequences of emitting more greenhouse gases. And they would set hard deadlines of one year to complete reviews of smaller projects and two years to complete reviews of larger ones.
Mr. Bernhardt, a former oil and gas lobbyist, said he had seen reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act take more than ten years. He maintained that the law had prevented the timely construction of schools on tribal lands and visitors centers at national parks and hindered the ability of farmers to secure water supplies.
“I have a wildlife deer management plan that has been in the NEPA process for over eight years,” he said.
The proposed changes, which would affect the regulations that guide implementation of the law but not the law itself, are expected to appear in the federal register on Friday. There will be a 60-day window for public comment and two public hearings before a final regulation is issued, most likely in the fall.
Legal scholars and environmental groups, which are almost certain to sue to block the changes, said the proposals threatened to undermine the safety of communities by letting agencies ignore how rising sea levels might affect a given project as well as the consequences of higher emissions on the atmosphere.
Richard L. Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, said he did not believe the changes would hold up in court. The Environmental Policy Act requires that all the environmental consequences of a project be taken into account, he said, and that core requirement cannot be changed by fiat.
“A regulation can’t change the requirements of a statute as interpreted by the courts,” Mr. Revesz said. In fact, he argued, it is more likely that federal agencies will be sued for inadequate reviews, “thereby leading to far longer delays than if they had done a proper analysis in the first place.”
Ms. Neumayr stressed that the changes did not prevent or exclude consideration of the impact of greenhouse gases; consideration would no longer be required.
Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, called the changes a giveaway to the fossil fuel industries.
“These changes mean polluting corporations will have an easier time doing whatever they want, wherever they want, with even less consideration for climate change or local concerns than they’ve shown so far,” he said in a statement.
One person familiar with the announcement said President Trump, who will address the proposal, is likely to highlight a replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge in North Carolina, which took more than 20 years because of federal reviews. Administration officials will argue that the changes will help projects like that one move faster.
In some cases the federal government merely funds studies for small infrastructure projects, which triggers a required environmental review.In some cases the federal government merely funds studies for small infrastructure projects, which triggers a required environmental review.
But the proposed regulation does not set a dollar threshold for what constitutes a large federal footprint, which one official said could also allow major mining, drilling and other projects to avoid environmental assessments. That lack of definition is highly likely to prompt lawsuits from environmental organizations. But the proposed regulation does not set a dollar threshold for what constitutes a large federal footprint, which one official said could also allow major mining, drilling and other projects to avoid environmental assessments.
“Our country is at a pivotal time for American energy,” said Anne Bradbury, chief executive of the American Exploration & Production Council, which represents independent operators. “Our country is at a pivotal time for American energy,” said Anne Bradbury, chief executive of the American Exploration & Production Council, an oil and gas trade association.
She praised the administration for clarifying the regulations and creating what she described as a more-efficient process that “removes bureaucratic barriers that were stifling construction of key infrastructure projects.”She praised the administration for clarifying the regulations and creating what she described as a more-efficient process that “removes bureaucratic barriers that were stifling construction of key infrastructure projects.”
Environmental groups said the revisions would threaten species and lead to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The proposed regulations also will relieve federal agencies of having to take climate change into account in environmental reviews. Representative Rob Bishop of Utah, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, said he believed the changes would bring “rationality” to federal bureaucracy.
The proposal will not mention the words “climate change” but will say that agencies no longer must consider the “cumulative” consequences of new infrastructure. Courts have interpreted that requirement as a mandate to study the effects of allowing more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It also has meant understanding the impacts of rising sea levels and other results of climate change on a given project. “There has been nothing more detrimental to the development of transportation, clean water, and energy infrastructure than America’s broken environmental review and permitting process,” he said.
That means agencies will not have to examine whether a pipeline, mine or other fossil fuel project would worsen climate change. It also means there will not be any requirement to understand how or whether a road or bridge in a coastal area would be threatened by sea-level rise. Mr. Bishop in particular praised the hard deadlines for completing reviews, though he said “fringe-left special interest groups will continue to scream bloody murder.”
Richard L. Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, said he did not believe the changes would hold up in court. He noted that the Environmental Policy Act requires that all the environmental consequences of a project be taken into account, and that core requirement cannot be changed by fiat. Environmental groups said the revisions would threaten species and lead to more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
“A regulation can’t change the requirements of a statute as interpreted by the courts,” Mr. Revesz said. In fact, he argued, it is more likely that federal agencies will be sued for inadequate reviews, “thereby leading to far longer delays than if they had done a proper analysis in the first place.” The proposal does not mention the words “climate change,” but courts have interpreted the requirement to consider “cumulative consequences” as a mandate to study the effects of allowing more planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. It also has meant understanding the impacts of rising sea levels and other results of climate change on a given project.
That means agencies will not have to examine whether a pipeline, mine or other fossil fuel project would worsen climate change. It also means there will not be any requirement to understand how or whether a road or bridge in a coastal area would be threatened by sea-level rise.
For more climate news sign up for the Climate Fwd: newsletter or follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.For more climate news sign up for the Climate Fwd: newsletter or follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.