[4] Several other projects appear sufficiently advanced that passage of the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act would accelerate their ability to get shale gas-based LNG into the global marketplace.The Bill’s Core Provisions The latest version of the proposed Act would force the Secretary of Energy to make a final decision on any application for authorization to export natural gas under Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act within 30 days (versus 45 days for the earlier Barrasso/Heinrich version) of:(1) the conclusion of the review to site, construct, expand, or operate the liquefied natural gas export facilities required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);(2) or the date of enactment of this Act, if the NEPA review for a proposed export project has already concluded.[5]The bill would consider NEPA review “concluded” when the lead agency (typically the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC):(1) Publishes a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS);(2) Publishes a Finding of No Significant Impact; or(3) Determines that an application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.)

ated with offshore wind construction and marine site characterization surveys would result in greater harm to marine mammals that was authorized by the ITAs. Overall, they claimed, the cumulative impacts of the various ITAs would subject the majority of the populations of the North Atlantic right whale and the endangered humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) to taking via elevated noise exposure. The Plaintiffs also asserted that an observed increase in marine mammal deaths in late 2022 and 2023 was caused by ITAs previously issued by NMFS; this assertion contradicts a statement by the Marine Mammal Commission in February 2023 that “there is no evidence to link these strandings to offshore wind energy development,” and a statement by NMFS that “there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause whale deaths.” Last, the Plaintiffs argued that the federal agencies violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., by failing to prepare a cumulative environmental impact statement examining the potential impact of all issued ITAs.The Court found that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the ITAs because they had not demonstrated an “imminent and concrete injury,” instead alleging only that Dr. Stern was concerned about offshore wind development and believed it to be his responsibility to protect natural resources near his home. This “mere academic or philosophical interest” in marine mammals was not sufficient to demonstrate a concrete injury in the absence of any allegations that Dr. Stern used the waters in which the activities authorized by the ITAs would occur beyond living on Long Beach Island. SBLI also lacked standing because it relied on Dr. Stern’s asserted interests.The Court gave the Plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in its opinion. The Plaintiffs had made additional allegations in their briefing about Dr. Stern’s exp

clude a new categorical exclusion for certain energy storage systems and to expand its categorical exclusions for certain transmission lines and solar photovoltaic systems. The general purpose of DOE’s proposal is to accelerate the deployment of clean infrastructure in the United States.[]Role of Categorical Exclusions in Clean Energy TransitionThe Biden administration has set a goal of reaching 100% clean electricity by 2035 in the power sector. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act include funding for DOE programs designed to drive strategic investment in critical electric infrastructure to make the U.S. power grid more resilient to the impacts of climate change and increase access to affordable and reliable clean energy.[] One critical means of accelerating infrastructure delivery and decreasing project costs is to increase the efficiency of the environmental review and permitting process through the strategic use of categorical exemptions.NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposals for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.[] Preparing these environmental analyses can be expensive and time-consuming. A 2020 study by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) found that the median time to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) across all federal agencies is 3.5 years, while the average completion time is even longer, at 4 1/2 years. Of the 1,276 EISs reviewed by CEQ, 1/2 took longer than 3 1/2 years to complete, and 1/4 took more than six years.[] Lengthy completion times for project environmental review and authorization, as well as the associated litigation risk, create uncertainty that discourages private investment and can jeopardize the financial viability of critical projects.In contrast, actions that are categorically excluded from detailed analysis normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment and,

gnificant real-world consequences, most notably excluding from regulation under the CWA wetlands that are separated from covered waters by berms, dikes, levees, roads or other impediments but are still connected to such water hydrologically below the surface. These wetlands have been regulated by the federal government for years and, often in conjunction with covered waters, serve important purposes, such as flood control, storm surge mitigation and pollutant removal, that are necessary to achieve the core policy objectives of the CWA.Furthermore, the narrowing of federal regulatory jurisdiction over wetlands could also have implications for environmental review of projects, such as mining, pipeline and real estate developments, well beyond the regulation of wetlands. For many of these projects, the only applicable federal requirements are wetland regulations under the CWA, triggering the need for federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.) and allowing project opponents to challenge both the NEPA review and wetlands determinations in the federal courts. NEPA reviews and federal court challenges allow project opponents their day in court, but they can be exceptionally time-consuming and expensive.Although clearer, the interpretation of “waters of the United States” in the majority opinion in Sackett II is far from the final word on the matter. The majority’s formulation does not address key questions that will need to be answered when implementing regulatory programs under the CWA. Many of these are listed in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, including whether wetlands that have periodic surface connections to water are covered, how much of an interruption in connection is necessary to mean that wetlands are no longer covered, whether wetlands bounce back and forth between being covered and not covered as their connection to covered waters is severed and rejoined, and whether a surface connection can be establish

in certain defined instances. As a result, NEPA does not require a certain alternative or to meet a particular standard. Nevertheless, in the event NEPA’s procedural requirements are not met, actions of a federal agency can be enjoined.The Complaint alleges that a Forest Service decision approves the prescribed burning, logging, and woodland herbicide treatment of approximately 40,000 for forest within the headwaters of Buffalo River Watershed. This is alleged to include the known habitat of the Indiana bat, an endangered species.Implementation of the project will (as alleged) cause:. . . loss of Cedar, Oak, and Pine trees, destruction of old growth forest as eighty six percent of the Project contains forest stands 70 years old or more, wildlife habitat, and potential degradation of water quality.Based on these alleged facts BRWA requests that the United States District Court order enter and Order:Declaring that the Forest Service’s DN/FONSI for the Robert’s Gap Project violates NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and declaring that the Service’s failure to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (“SEA”) or Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“SEIS”); to account for significant new circumstances or information also violates NEPA, and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and/or not in accordance with law under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and are a continuing failure to act under § 706(1);Declaring that the Forest Service must conduct either a SEA or SEIS;Vacating and setting aside the Forest Service’s illegal DN/FONSI as an illegal agency action under the APA;Permanently enjoining the Forest Service from implementing the Robert’s Gap Project until the agency complies with NEPA;Enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to ensure that the Forest Service complies with NEPA, and specifically to ensure that the Forest Service and its agents take no further actions toward proceeding with the challenged Robert’s Gap Proj

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently published a final rule (Rule) revising the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Quality Act (42 U.S.C.§ 4321 et seq ) (NEPA). Touted as the first comprehensive revision of CEQ’s NEPA regulations since their creation in 1978, the stated goal of the Rule includes facilitating more efficient, effective, and timely NEPA review by federal agencies.The Rule takes effect 60 days after it was published in the Federal Register – or September 14, 2020.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently published a final rule (Rule) revising the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Quality Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq ) (NEPA). Touted as the first comprehensive revision of CEQ’s NEPA regulations since their creation in 1978, the stated goal of the Rule includes facilitating more efficient, effective, and timely NEPA review by federal agencies. The Rule takes effect 60 days after it was published in the Federal Register – or September 14, 2020.

TAKEAWAYSOn July 15, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality implemented sweeping amendments to modernize and streamline NEPA environmental reviews.These amendments stand to have a trickle-down effect on the nuclear industry, given the NRC’s current openness to updating its own NEPA procedures and its longstanding policy of basing these procedures on the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations.The principles reflected in the regulatory amendments mirror those advocated by the domestic nuclear industry and can facilitate NRC licensing actions, including those relevant to the implementation of new reactor technologies, which are an important clean energy solution.On July 15, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated a final rule amending the implementing regulations (40 CFR § 1500, et seq.) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (NEPA). The final rule largely tracks proposed amendments, which the CEQ issued on January 10, 2020.

The Proposed Revisions will make it easier for federal agencies to comply with NEPA, thereby making such legal challenges less apt to succeed. 42 USC § 4321 et seq. 40 CFR § 1502.16https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/ceq-publications/ccenepa/sec1.pdf

Most significantly, the proposal would eliminate the need to study a project’s cumulative or indirect environmental effects; exclude many projects from NEPA review; and shorten the time for completing NEPA review and approvals. The proposed changes mark the first comprehensive update to the NEPA regulations in over 40 years.BackgroundNEPA and the current CEQ regulations (42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) require federal agencies proposing to undertake, approve, or fund “major Federal actions” to evaluate the action’s environmental impacts, including both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects. NEPA also requires agencies to consider alternatives to the proposed action and to discuss cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental effects of the project when added to those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.