Why Repealing CEQ Regulations Will Delay Infrastructure and Energy Development

• Pages: 26-37
• Date: 01 July 2025
• Published date: 01 July 2025
• Author: John C. Ruple,Justin Pidot,Jamie Pleune
• Subject Matter: Administrative & Public Law

55 ELR 10378 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER JULY/AUGUST 2025

On March 27, a group of 28 professors of envi-

ronmental law from across the United States

submitted joint comments to the White House

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ ).1 ese com-

ments responded to an interim nal rule (IFR) published

on February 25, rescinding all CEQ regulations imple-

menting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).2

e rule became eect ive on April 11, 2025.3 Since then, for

the rst time in nearly 50 years, t here are no government-

wide regulations in place to provide consistent direction to

all federal agencies on how to implement the government-

wide procedural obligations established by NEPA.

is Comment is an outgrowth of that submission, and

details how the comment letter’s lead authors came to the

conclusions discussed in the letter.4 It explains the costs

of eliminating the common oor that the CEQ reg ula-

tions had established for federal agencies conducting t he

environmental analyses required to comply with NEPA’s

statutory mandate, and why those costs need not have

been incurred.

Part I provides general context and background on

NEPA to lay a foundation for understanding the role the

CEQ regulations played. Part II incorporates the com-

ment letter, revised only slightly to build on the founda-

tion established in Part I and to conform to ELR style.  is

part proceeds in ve sections: an overview; a description

1. Robert Abrams et al., Public Comment to CEQ, Docket #CEQ-2025-

0002, Interim Final Rule, National Environmental Policy Act Implement-

ing Regulations, RIN 0331-AA10 (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.regula-

tions.gov/comment/CEQ-2025-0002-87881.

2. Removal of National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations,

90 Fed. Reg. 10610 (Feb. 25, 2025).

3. Id. at 10610, 10611.

4. While we believe our analysis in this Comment is consistent with the opin-

ions expressed by our cosigner colleagues in the March 27, 2025, letter, we

do not speak for them here.

of how CEQ’s NEPA procedures created stability and pre-

dictability across the federa l government; a discussion of

how eliminating CEQ regulations will decrease predict-

ability and eciency, burden agencies, and invite litiga-

tion; an examination of the president’s authority to issue

governmentwide NEPA implementation pro cedures, and

the related ability of the president to delegate that authority

to CEQ; and an explanation of why eliminating govern-

mentwide NEPA regulations is inconsistent with biparti-

san permitting reform eorts. Part III concludes.

President Donald Trump initiated repeal of the CEQ

NEPA regulations through the Executive Order he signed

on the rst day of his second term to “unleash America’s

aordable a nd reliable energ y and natural re sources.”5 e

analysis in this Comment, and in the letter submitted to

CEQ, reveals that abandoning the CEQ regulations com-

promises those goals because critical federal activities wil l

experience delay, uncertainty, and litigation as a result of

this decision. e Administration can reverse course and

reestablish a consistent, governmentwide framework for

NEPA compliance. If not, the U.S. Congress should inter-

vene as part of any future permitting reform legislation.

I. NEPA

NEPA has been described as the “Magna Carta” of envi-

ronmental laws because of its central role in federal a gency

decisionmaking.6 NEPA “does not mandate a particular

re sul t,”7 but rather requires federa l agencies to look before

they leap, by identifying and analyzing the impacts of

5. Unleashing American Energy, Exec. Order No. 14154, 90 Fed. Reg. 8353,

8353 (Jan. 29, 2025).

6. D R. M  ., NEPA L  L §1:1 (2d ed.

2024).

7. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989).

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S

SELF-INFLICTED PROBLEM:

WHY REPEALING CEQ REGULATIONS

WILL DELAY INFRASTRUCTURE

AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

by John C. Ruple, Justin Pidot, and Jamie Pleune

John C. Ruple is a Research Professor of Law and Director of the Wallace Stegner Center’s Law and Policy

Program at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law. Justin Pidot is the Ashby Lohse Chair

in Water & Natural Resources and Co-Director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of

Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law. Jamie Pleune is an Associate Research Professor of Law at the S.J.

Quinney College of Law and Deputy Director of the Wallace Stegner Center’s Law and Policy Program.

Copyright © 2025 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org