The amendment does not apply to onshore wind or solar energy projects, but the bill also did not explicitly address new administration rules that complicate their federal approvals.

The original legislation, introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), would have limited the executive branch’s ability to reverse earlier decisions to advance projects following reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Other key provisions include narrowing the scope of what is considered a “major federal action” for triggering NEPA, and establishing a 150-day limit for NEPA claims and challenges. 

Environmental advocates were sharply critical of the legislation even while acknowledging that there is room to streamline project reviews. Matthew Davis, former federal environmental scientist and League of Conservation Voters vice president of federal policy, said in a statement that “the extreme amendments to the SPEED Act fueled by misinformation that explicitly attack clean energy reveal the bill for what it always has been: a fossil fuel giveaway that cuts out community input and puts our health and safety at risk.” He added, “Congress should be focused on real solutions to skyrocketing energy prices starting with stopping Trump’s effort to ban clean energy and speeding up the approval of grid improvements and clean energy projects that are cheap and quick to deploy.”

Natural Resources Defense Council President and CEO Manish Bapna said in a statement that although there could be a “conversation to be had” about reforming the review process, the SPEED Act should be a “non-starter” in the Senate. 

Construction Industry Support 

Construction industry groups generally support the legislation. Associated Builders and Contractors’ vice president of government affairs Kristen Swearingen said the SPEED Act would “provide project sponsors and contractors with greater certainty to plan, invest and deliver even the most complex construction projects—certainty that is essential to meeting the nation’s infrastructure needs.”

Sean O’Neill, senior vice president of government affairs for the American Cement Association (formerly known as the Portland Cement Association), told ENR that the bill would expedite construction of necessary energy, transportation, flood control and other kind of essential infrastructure projects. 

He noted that in the cement manufacturing sector, cement is not only a vital material for construction projects, but that also, many cement suppliers are considering reducing carbon emissions at their manufacturing facilities by adding carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Those upgrades can themselves trigger NEPA reviews, he said. “It can be a bit arduous … so something like the SPEED Act could help expedite the process.” 

Eleven Democrats voted for the bill in the House, including chief cosponsor, Rep. Golden. “Being a good steward of our environment doesn’t mean we must tolerate a years long permitting process that is onerous, overly complex and ripe for litigation abuses,"  he said after the passage. "We need robust power production that does not discriminate between energy sources. These investments will create jobs, support our economy, keep prices down and help us maintain energy independence.” 

Trump loyalists Andy Harris (R-Md.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), who proposed the amendment, said a legislative fix was essential to allow the administration to continue to be able to cancel offshore wind projects, particularly in Maryland and New York, where many efforts are under development but face hostile opposition from the administration. Many actions to cancel or hamper offshore wind projects have also been met with state lawsuits or renegotiations to allow them to proceed.