Trump Administration puts permitting back in its proper place

And EV grifter Nikola declared bankruptcy. Couldn't have happened to a better company.

It’s Monday again, and there was some incredible news about the federal permitting process last week, which is the subject of this edition of Montalbano Mondays. But it was a busy week in other ways, too:

• EV grifter Nikola files for bankruptcy, February 21, 2025, Center of the American Experiment. I’d welcome your opinions on hydrogen, economics or physics-wise - the company went downhill as soon as its drivetrain-less scam vehicle rolled downhill, so I’m not sure it’s a fair test of the technology.

• ‘Culture of risk aversion’ drives MN permitting, February 20, 2025, Center of the American Experiment. The Minnesota Chamber analyzed permitting times and found that complex projects are routinely missing their goals.

• Multiple-Use Mandate Is Back at Bureau of Land Management, February 19, 2025, Independent Women’s Forum Center for Energy and Conservation. BLM has an obligation to manage lands for “multiple uses and sustained yield,” and a recent Congressional hearing showed how BLM had lost its way under Biden.

• 75 percent of Indonesian nickel mining dominated by China, February 19, 2025, Center of the American Experiment. With these two countries controlling most nickel mining and refining, how will the U.S. get enough nickel to keep the economy humming if things turn sour?

In HUGE (or rather, YUGE!) news:

The Trump administration [last] week signaled that it may roll back almost 50 years of regulations that created the lengthy and litigious permitting process in the U.S. That would be welcome news not only for traditional energy producers but for any project that has to undergo federal permitting.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to study the environmental impacts of projects that require federal permits. That applies to more projects than one might think, including energy from oil and gas projects, nuclear, hydropower, and solar and wind; infrastructure projects including roads, transmission lines, and pipelines; and manufacturing facilities as well as data centers.

The interim final rule is titled, “Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations.” The text of the rule has not been released, and it is currently undergoing review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The Washington Examiner reports that the rule “seemingly would undo all current regulations under the bedrock environmental law.”

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is the agency that interprets NEPA. However, there are open questions as to whether it should have been able to issue binding regulations in the first place. Originally, the CEQ was intended to serve in an advisory role to the president, but a 1977 executive order by President Jimmy Carter changed that. President Trump revoked that executive order on his first day in office, and the interim final rule is likely implementing that order.

In November 2024, the U.S. Circuit Court for DC ruled in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration that “the provisions of NEPA provide no support for CEQ’s authority to issue binding regulations.” The U.S. District Court of Appeals for North Dakota heard Iowa v. Council on Envtl. Quality and ruled similarly.

Under the interim final rule issued by the Trump administration, federal agencies would be expected to write new NEPA regulations relating to their departments, and the CEQ would return to its advisory role. As the Washington Examiner reports:

“I pretty strongly believe that this is a win for literally everything,” [Foundation for American Innovation Infrastructure Director Thomas Hochman] said. “I mean, it’s a win for our ability to build, and indeed, it’s a win for clean energy deployment, and it’s a win for things like forest protection activities. … It’s not controversial to say that [the NEPA] doesn’t offer subjective environmental protections and it slows down everything. And so I think this is sort of probably extremely positive.”

It is unlikely that speeding up the permitting process would harm the environment. NEPA is a Policy act, not a Protection act. NEPA was always intended to be a procedural law that assesses environmental impacts, not a litigation and paperwork morass that delays important projects for a decade or longer.

The U.S. already has stringent environmental laws that set a high bar for the protection of the nation’s air, surface water, groundwater, endangered species, and cultural resources. These laws would continue to protect America’s natural resources if NEPA were sped up.

This piece was originally published by Independent Women’s Forum Center for Energy Conservation on February 21, 2025.