Earlier this week, President Trump released the outline of his infrastructure plan, which includes over three dozen proposals intended to reduce delay, inefficiency and redundancy in the project permitting process.  The plan contemplates amendments to major federal environmental statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.

The chief goal of the proposed reforms—highlighted in both the President’s recent State of the Union Address and an earlier Executive Order—is to streamline the permitting process so that federal agencies approve projects in two years or less.  The plan establishes a “firm deadline” for lead agencies to complete environmental reviews and issue a Record of Decision (ROD) under NEPA within 21 months, and requires them (or a state agency acting pursuant to delegated authority) to issue or deny any necessary permits within 3 months thereafter.

The plan lacks detail regarding just how such a deadline would be enforced, stating only that “appropriate enforcement mechanisms” would be established.  What these might be appears to be in flux:  an earlier draft plan, made public about two weeks before the President’s official release, outlined a review process by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council for agencies that missed deadlines.  This process was omitted from the final product.

The guiding principle underlying many of the proposed reforms is eliminating overlapping agency authority and duplicative review in the permitting and review process.  For example, the plan establishes a “One Agency, One Decision” environmental review structure, and requires a single environmental review document and ROD to be signed by all involved agencies.  Agencies would be directed to focus only on their areas of “special expertise,” and would be permitted to rely on the determinations of other agencies that certain projects are categorically exempt from environmental review, instead of having to conduct their own independent assessment.  As another example, the authority to issue dredge and fill permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be consolidated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The Corps would gain final authority to construe the jurisdictional terms “navigable waters”/”waters of the U.S.” under section 404 of the Act—authority that currently rests with EPA, though both agencies currently exercise it pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement—and EPA would lose its current ability to veto a 404 permit.

The plan also contains a number of other provisions intended to speed the infrastructure permitting process, including calling for procedures to expedite review for projects likely to result in positive environmental impacts, and limiting the availability of injunctive relief to stop projects that have already been approved pending a court challenge.  The plan also requests that two pilot programs be established which would exempt projects wholesale from environmental review in lieu of performance-based review or negotiated environmental mitigation.

Several of the proposed changes, including the idea of setting deadlines for agency action, draw from the report Two Years, Not Ten Years: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals, issued by the nonpartisan reform organization Common Good.  Philip K. Howard, Senior Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP, was the lead author of the report, and E. Donald Elliott and Gary Guzy, each a former general counsel of EPA and members of the firm’s environmental practice group, contributed pro bono legal advice.

It remains to be seen which if any of these proposals will be enacted into law.  The President’s plan is merely an outline, and no proposed statutory language implementing these ideas has yet been made public.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of John Mizerak John Mizerak

Jack Mizerak has over a decade of experience advising on safety, environmental, and supply chain issues affecting the manufacturing, transportation, and technology sectors. He has experience with investigations, litigation, and regulatory issues under the Clean Air Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the…

Jack Mizerak has over a decade of experience advising on safety, environmental, and supply chain issues affecting the manufacturing, transportation, and technology sectors. He has experience with investigations, litigation, and regulatory issues under the Clean Air Act, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Clean Water Act, as well as numerous state laws.

Jack has extensive expertise in governmental enforcement, including fact development, government engagement, and the adoption of compliance reforms to address underlying issues and prevent recurrence of violations. He was an integral member of a Covington team that resolved one of the ten largest enforcement matters in the history of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Jack regularly advises Fortune 500 companies on responsibly manufacturing and releasing emerging technology, including agentic AI tools, AI-enabled robotics, autonomous vehicles, and consumer goods.

Jack works extensively with clients in the automotive sector, advising original equipment manufacturers, traditional Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 suppliers, advanced technology and software suppliers, trade associations, and fleet owners on a range of policy, regulatory, compliance, and enforcement issues, spanning both the consumer and freight sectors. He has represented clients facing some of the largest automotive recalls in U.S. history, affecting as much as 15% of vehicles registered in the United States. He also represents clients in the growing micromobility and low-speed vehicle sectors, including manufacturers and fleet operators of personal transportation vehicles, e-bikes, and scooters.

Jack regularly represents clients in the consumer product space more broadly, including manufacturers and online platforms. His work spans the entire product lifecycle, from standard setting for product categories, risk assessments during product development, and litigation and investigations stemming from issues after products have been introduced into commerce.

Photo of Ingrid Rechtin Ingrid Rechtin

Ingrid Rechtin advises life sciences, technology, and other companies on complex transactions, with a practice spanning mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic investments, and other partnering arrangements.

With more than 20 years of experience, Ingrid represents public and private companies through transformative transactions…

Ingrid Rechtin advises life sciences, technology, and other companies on complex transactions, with a practice spanning mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic investments, and other partnering arrangements.

With more than 20 years of experience, Ingrid represents public and private companies through transformative transactions and other critical stages of their development. She draws on broad experience across transaction structures and industries to help clients achieve their strategic objectives, structure durable commercial relationships, and navigate legal and regulatory complexity.

Ingrid has a substantial life sciences practice, advising pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies on acquisitions and divestitures, option-to-acquire transactions, strategic investments, and other transactions that bring together corporate, commercial, intellectual property, licensing, and regulatory considerations. As a co-chair of Covington’s Technology Industry Group, she also advises on transactions involving AI, digital infrastructure, data centers, and other emerging technologies.

Ingrid regularly leads cross-border transactions involving businesses and operations across North America, Europe, Asia, and other key markets. She also has significant experience advising corporate venture capital and other strategic investors, particularly where an investment is coupled with commercial, governance, licensing, or acquisition rights. Her practice also includes global internal restructurings, complex commercial transactions, and acquisitions and divestitures of intellectual property assets.