Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects

Background

Before it was rescinded, Executive Order 13807 integrated several critical operational strategies aimed at streamlining the federal environmental review and permitting processes for infrastructure projects. Central to its framework was the "One Federal Decision" policy which mandated that all environmental and permitting analyses be encapsulated in a singular, consolidated Record of Decision. This initiative sought to expedite the bureaucratic processes by coordinating multiple federal agencies under a unified schedule, thereby reducing redundancies and accelerating project timelines. The order also specified a goal of completing reviews within two years for major infrastructure endeavors, a stark shift from the protracted timelines observed previously.

The impact on federal agencies was significant. Agencies involved in infrastructure project approvals were directed to align their goals and performance metrics with the cross-agency priority goals for permitting modernization established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This meant a greater emphasis on inter-agency cooperation and synchronization, which steered agencies to streamline internal processes and foster more dynamic communication across traditional silos. Some agencies also revisited their internal guidelines and operational structures to adapt to the order’s requirements, often resulting in enhanced training for staff involved in environmental review mandates.

Socially, the executive order sparked controversy and debate. Proponents argued that it peeled away unnecessary bureaucratic layers, saving taxpayer money, and fostering economic growth through enhanced infrastructure. Critics, however, saw it as prioritizing speed over environmental protection, reducing public and interagency scrutiny in the review processes, and potentially compromising environmental stewardship and public health. The executive order also included measures for transparency via a "Dashboard" to project milestones and timelines, thereby offering a public accounting of project progress, though critics argued the functionality and accessibility of this measure were limited.

Reason for Revocation

President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s decision to repeal the directive can primarily be understood within the context of broader policy reversals aimed at restoring and enhancing environmental protections. Biden's administration underscored a commitment to rigorous environmental governance, scientific integrity, and community involvement, as manifested in multiple executive actions taken during his first days in office. The rescindment was part of a revocation spree targeting several Trump-era policies perceived as weakening federal environmental protections.

The ideology underlying this shift centers on a commitment to addressing climate change more wholeheartedly, embedding sustainability into federal policy frameworks, and ensuring that environmental reviews do not merely become procedural hurdles but serve as substantive checks on potential ecological harm. In this vein, the Biden administration prioritized holistic and integrated evaluations that consider long-term environmental impacts, public health, and social implications alongside economic factors.

Another reason for the revocation was the need to reposition the federal regulatory landscape to reflect contemporary scientific understandings and public expectations regarding environmental protection. There was a renewed emphasis on lessening greenhouse gas emissions and adopting resilient infrastructural practices to combat the adverse effects of climate change. These values are reflected in Biden’s broader infrastructural goals which include clean energy transformations and inclusive public consultations.

Biden’s action to rescind the order aligns with commitments to fortify America’s environmental laws, re-engage with global climate pacts, and empower advisory bodies that integrate scientific findings into regulatory decisions. These priorities highlight an ideological departure from the economic-centric focus that marked the previous administration's infrastructural policies, aiming instead for a balanced approach emphasizing ecological and community well-being.

Winners

The revocation of Executive Order 13807 primarily benefits environmental advocacy groups and communities concerned about ensuring robust environmental assessments for infrastructure developments. By restoring more detailed reviews and checks, these groups are ensured that potential environmental impacts, ranging from ecological degradation to public health risks, are seriously considered and mitigated before projects proceed. This allows them to have greater confidence in how such projects are evaluated from an environmental perspective.

Communities disproportionately affected by pollution and industrial development, often minority and low-income groups, stand to gain from the enhanced scrutiny that follows from Biden's policy shift. These populations are more likely to benefit from the enforcement of environmental justice measures, wherein infrastructure projects must consider the cumulative impacts on communities historically bearing the brunt of environmental negligence. Enhanced consultations also offer these communities a louder voice in decision-making processes, thus safeguarding their interests more equitably.

Industries specializing in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure development also stand to gain a competitive edge due to the Biden administration’s focus on clean energy transformations. Companies that align with environmental sustainability goals are more likely to benefit from regulatory incentives and government contracts in line with the administration’s ambitious clean energy targets. This strategic alignment creates financial opportunities for corporations invested in green technologies and practices, reflecting a market shift towards sustainability.

Losers

Conversely, certain sectors within the fossil fuel industry, as well as traditional infrastructure and construction firms, may perceive the revocation as a setback. The streamlined processes under the prior executive order afforded these industries a faster and more predictable regulatory pathway, reducing the costs and delays commonly associated with intricate environmental assessments. Without such streamlined approvals, these industries are likely to face longer lead times and increased expenses, potentially affecting their profitability and operational efficiency.

Federal agencies tasked with infrastructure project approvals will also face increased demands to allocate resources towards more comprehensive reviews, potentially straining already limited agency budgets and capacities. This may especially impact agencies that expanded operations under the compliance expectations of Executive Order 13807. They must now recalibrate their procedural priorities, deal with potential backlogs, and integrate more complex interdisciplinary assessments into their workflows.

State and local governments that had capitalized on the expedited processes to jump-start local projects might encounter setbacks due to extended timelines and additional compliance requirements. These governments could experience delays in the economic and social benefits anticipated from new infrastructure projects, such as job creation and improved service delivery. As more thorough federal oversight is reinstated, state and local entities might need to enhance coordination efforts and manage community expectations regarding project timelines.