NEPA by the Numbers: New Insights on Environmental Reviews for Energy Infrastructure

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The analysis reveals that 91% of energy-related federal actions use categorical exclusions, while programmatic and tiered reviews for decarbonization technologies remain rare despite their potential to speed up timelines. The Department of the Interior acts as the central hub in a multi-department network for decarbonization reviews, alongside the Departments of Defense and Energy. While the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 has led to modest reductions in EIS page lengths, the report highlights significant structural limitations in data quality and transparency across federal agencies.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The vast majority of federal actions related to energy—91%—utilize categorical exclusions (CEs), avoiding higher levels of NEPA review. In the solar sector, larger projects are more frequently subjected to higher levels of scrutiny than smaller ones.
  • Programmatic and tiered reviews are rarely used for decarbonization technologies, although data indicates that a median tiered EA is faster than a full EIS, and a tiered EIS is faster than both standard and programmatic EISs.
  • Environmental reviews for decarbonization involve a collaborative network of federal departments, with the Department of the Interior serving as the primary hub, supported by the Departments of Energy and Defense.
  • The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which introduced page limits for environmental reviews, has resulted in a modest decrease in the length of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for energy technologies.
  • Comprehensive analysis is hindered by structural limitations in data availability and quality, particularly regarding the lack of published categorical exclusion determinations across all agencies.

Cite the original document

APA
Zapatka, K. (n.d.). NEPA by the Numbers: New Insights on Environmental Reviews for Energy Infrastructure. Clean Air Task Force. https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/NEPA-insights-fact-sheet.pdf
Chicago
Zapatka, Kasey. NEPA by the Numbers: New Insights on Environmental Reviews for Energy Infrastructure. Clean Air Task Force, n.d. https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/NEPA-insights-fact-sheet.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Zapatka |first1=Kasey |title=NEPA by the Numbers: New Insights on Environmental Reviews for Energy Infrastructure |publisher=Clean Air Task Force |url=https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/NEPA-insights-fact-sheet.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{zapatkandnepa, author = {Zapatka, Kasey}, title = {{NEPA by the Numbers: New Insights on Environmental Reviews for Energy Infrastructure}}, institution = {Clean Air Task Force}, url = {https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/NEPA-insights-fact-sheet.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated