April 2025 has been a turbulent time for NEPA. It started with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) circulating a draft template federal agencies on April 8 to assist them in updating their procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); was followed by the repeal of CEQs own NEPA implementing regulations becoming effective on April 11; continued on April 22 with CEQ confirming that federal agencies may retain their regulations for NEPA procedures while they work to individually revise or establish those procedures by the February 19, 2026, deadline, which was in contrast to a directive that CEQ had issued during a phone call just weeks before ordering agencies to get ride of their NEPA regulations and replace them with nonbinding guidance; and rounded off by CEQ announcing on April 30 that it was developing a new “Permitting Innovation Center.”

The Draft Template

The template provided some additional clarity on CEQ’s vision of NEPA going forward, but also introduced multiple new changes to the NEPA process. This template gives agencies a clearer sense of which rules CEQ thinks should generally be incorporated in agencies’ new NEPA regulations and builds upon CEQ’s February 19 memorandum, which encouraged agencies to use CEQ regulations promulgated during the first Trump Administration as “an initial framework” while they worked on revising or establishing their own NEPA implementing procedures for next year. It should be noted though that CEQ included a cover letter with the template clarifying that federal agencies may adopt, modify, or disregard the suggested procedures, which do “not establish new requirements, create legal obligations, or represent CEQ’s final position on how agencies should implement NEPA.” The changes from the draft template included topics such as:

Additional Limitations on the Definition of “Major Federal Action”

NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare a detailed statement for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 USC § 4332(2)(C). The draft template encourages agencies to adopt a “presumptive (but nonbinding) monetary threshold” above which an action would be deemed “major” for NEPA purposes. It states that such a threshold should be “calculated to the extent an agency can substantiate it: 1) by project costs; and/or 2) by overall economic impact, e.g., regulatory costs.” No such monetary threshold currently exists; agencies have simply been required to comply with NEPA for any “major federal action” that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

In 2020, the first Trump Administration implemented CEQ NEPA regulations, which as of April 11 are repealed, stating that a “major federal action” referred to an activity or decision subject to substantial Federal control or responsibility and was generally defined to include certain categories of projects, such as grants of permits; adoption of polices, plans, or programs; or where the Federal agency was “[p]roviding more than a minimal amount of financial assistance” and had the authority to deny that assistance. While aspects of these requirements are retained in the draft template, the template encourages agencies to further create individualized lists of “major” actions based on “examples from agency experience that the agency knows will usually or always trigger an EIS.”

Optional Public Comment and Draft Publication

The template suggests rules that require agencies preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) solicit comments from other federal, state, tribal, and local agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise; however, these suggested rules notably state merely that the preparing agency “may” request comments from the public, except with respect to certain early-stage scoping issues where requests for public comments are still required. This marks a large departure from past practice, where agencies were generally required to solicit public comment at multiple points in the NEPA process: first during the scoping phase; again during the 45 day public comment period after publication of a draft EIS; and finally during the 30 day period between the publication of a final EIS and the issuance of a record of decision.

Strict Adherence to Statutory Timeframes.

The draft template emphasizes that an Environmental Assessment (EA) (a shorter analysis to determine whether a federal action has the potential to cause significant environmental effects) should be completed in one year, and an EIS (a more detailed and rigorous analysis than an EA that is done after a major federal action is determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment) should be completed in two years as reflected in 42 U.S.C. § 4336a(g)(1). However, the draft template reduces the bases under which an agency may extend the deadline. The draft template recommends that agencies adopt a rule that extensions only be given if the EIS or EA is so incomplete that the agency determines it is not able to meet the statutory deadline, and issuance would result in the agency “being fundamentally in breach of the spirit of NEPA’s requirement.”

Permitting Innovation Center

Pursuant to President Trump’s April 15 memorandum directing CEQ to modernize federal permitting by updating technology to expedite permitting and approvals, enhance interagency coordination, and reduce uncertainty, CEQ announced that they were establishing a “Permitting Innovation Center that will design and test prototype tools that could be implemented pursuant to the Permitting Technology Action Plan for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews and other environmental permits and authorizations.” This will include: a unified permitting data system; minimum technology requirements; a standardization of data and performance monitoring; and a governance and implementation timeline consisting of an interagency oversight framework, including a clear schedule for agency adoption. By May 30, CEQ, through the Permitting Innovation Center, plans to “[c]oordinate with relevant agencies on the development of the Permitting Technology Action Plan[, d]evelop an initial NEPA and permitting data and technology standard[, and i]ssue the Permitting Technology Action Plan.

Effects and Takeaways

The procedures outlined in the draft template mark another significant step in the Trump Administration’s departure from historic NEPA practice, especially regarding when NEPA will apply, the timing and circulation of draft environmental documents, and formal opportunities for public comment. If implemented, the procedures in the draft template would likely further limit the applicability of NEPA as well as reduce regulatory burden and timelines for projects subject to NEPA, which aligns with the Trump Administration’s stated objectives of streamlining and deregulation. However, as the draft template is nonbinding and agencies still have until February 19, 2026, to establish new NEPA procedures, it is unclear whether federal agencies will incorporate the template’s recommendations into their procedures. Further, CEQ has characterized the draft template as a preliminary document, and subsequent versions may follow as agencies provide feedback.

The Department of the Interior already announced on April 23, 2025, that it will offer accelerated NEPA review procedures (14-day EA timeline and a 28-day EIS timeline) for fossil fuel, mineral, geothermal, biofuel, and hydropower projects on public lands. While it is unclear how many project applicants will choose to participate in these expedited processes, given uncertainty over their legality and litigation concerns, this is still a strong sign that agencies are actively working to further the Administration’s policies.

As NEPA processes evolve, stakeholders should consider how these changes may affect project planning, documentation strategies, and regulatory engagement. The shift from centralized regulations to individualized agency procedures, combined with the integration of new permitting technology, introduces new dynamics that will influence how environmental reviews are initiated, conducted, and evaluated. Given the uncertainty over the legality of some of these changes and the potential for litigation, applicants with projects that have not entered the NEPA process may be best served by waiting until relevant agencies have updated their NEPA procedures. Additionally, further information on CEQ’s new “Permitting Innovation Center” may be critical for efficient planning by applicants.