“President Trump and Congressional Republicans are Waging an All-Out War on Clean Energy”

Natural Resources Democrats Demand: End War on Clean Energy, Lower Costs, Protect Public Health, and Allow Strong Public Input to Advance SPEED Act

Washington, D.C. – Today, Ranking Member Huffman pushed back against Republicans’ so-called SPEED Act, a sweeping bill that would gut core provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and rig the rules to fast-track polluter projects and silence Americans. Democratic members offered a series of amendments to the legislation that would lower costs, improve public health, support community input, prevent polluter handouts, and stop Trump’s attacks on cheap, clean energy sources.

Excerpts and Highlights from Ranking Member Huffman’s Opening Remarks

“American families are struggling right now to make ends meet. Trump's tariffs have raised prices on everything. Millions of Americans are about to lose affordable health care because Republicans don't have a plan to fix the crisis that they set in motion. The last thing our constituents need right now is higher utility bills because President Trump wants to stop new transmission lines and shut down an entire sector of clean energy that can help us deliver cheap, affordable electricity.”
"While the House was out of session this fall, Democrats met with companies and organizations across the spectrum to discuss this legislation. [And] across these conversations, there was agreement that NEPA provides important benefits: benefits that force the federal government to take a hard look and carefully consider alternatives and impacts, benefits that provide transparency, benefits that provide community input and engagement. These are important pillars of NEPA that, unfortunately, are undermined in deeply disturbing ways by the legislation before us today."
“[T]he SPEED Act [treats] environmental reviews as a nuisance rather than a tool to prevent costly, harmful mistakes. Weakening environmental review won't fix permitting challenges. It certainly won't help us build the clean energy future that we need. Gutting NEPA only invites more risk, more mistakes, more litigation, more damage to communities that already face too many environmental burdens.”

War on Clean Energy

“Wind and solar projects across this country are being shut down by this administration with the approval of Congressional Republicans. We can't ignore that. It is an essential part of the context for any serious conversation in this space. Now, if President Trump and Secretary Burgum weren't illegally blocking wind and solar projects right now, firing permitting staff, cutting funding for agencies – we'd be having a very different conversation about permitting legislation.”
"Donald Trump is not always right, as you have watched him be terribly wrong on the Epstein files, as you've watched him be terribly wrong on redistricting and this race to the bottom that he set in motion. He's not always right. And so, I'm going to urge my colleagues across the aisle to summon your independence, summon a little bit of courage once again this week, and push back on this president when he is terribly wrong – and he is terribly wrong on clean energy right now.”
“This bill is so extreme that there's simply nothing left in a meaningful way of NEPA if this were to become law. Now, Democrats are very interested in working constructively in problem solving. We would love to have a meaningful conversation, but it has to start with ending the war on clean energy, which this bill does not do in any significant way.”
“The promise of American leadership in the green economy is being squandered. In effect, as China dominates the industries and jobs of tomorrow, we're locking ourselves into a fossil fuel stalemate when we should be taking advantage of the clean energy revolution. I will continue to say this: we can't have a real conversation about permitting reform until these attacks stop.”
“Over the past few months, the Department of Energy has terminated $7.6 billion in clean energy awards. Reports show that nearly $23 billion more is on the chopping block right now. Projects that would lower energy costs, strengthen the grid, and provide thousands of jobs. These are straightforward, beneficial investments that serve only to benefit the average American, and there is no rational explanation for targeting them. The only people benefiting are Big Oil billionaires.”

Public Health and Community Input

“This bill would prevent agencies from examining harms that communities across the country are living with right now. So, consider the poster child here: Louisiana's Cancer Alley, where predominantly black neighborhoods face some of the highest pollution related cancer risks in the nation. Those risks result from cumulative emissions from many facilities over decades, impacts that are well documented and directly tied to federal permitting decisions. And under this bill, agencies would be prohibited from considering those cumulative effects because they unfold over time and across multiple sources. That's not streamlining. That's telling federal agencies to look the other way in the face of an obviously foreseeable harm.
"Agencies would be limited to analyzing only the alternatives that meet the applicant's preferred outcomes, and reasonable alternatives that would reduce environmental harm, lower costs, avoid impacts to communities, or better serve the public's interest, are excluded entirely by law. That is not reform. That is enabling biased analysis from the start. That is a thumb on the scale against the public."
"This is an extreme and radical bill. [It’s] just chock full of these things that create an impossible gauntlet for people who are really hurt by bad projects and even illegal projects, from having any chance to challenge them. That is not an honest process. That is not a fine-tuning of NEPA. It's a dramatic, radical change to a law that protects the public.”
“[The] problem is the way the bill goes way too far in constraining environmental reviews, in eliminating, in some cases, transparency and public input. And we don't have to wonder what it looks like when you take away transparency, when you take away public input, when you make it impossible to stop a wrongheaded project that the federal government just decides to do, even if it's illegal, even if it's a crazy idea, when you make it impossible to scrutinize or stop that. We have a perfect example, and it is the East Wing of the White House right here. This is what happens when there's no transparency, when there's no scrutiny, when there's no input, when there's no way to stop a dumb idea from moving forward because you've done something like this to the NEPA process.”

Key Democratic Amendments

Huffman amendment #3 to prevent the bill from taking effect until clean energy grants such as offshore wind port grants that have been improperly rescinded by the Trump administration are reinstated and regulations are in place to prevent similar actions in the future.
Magaziner amendment #6 to clarify that renewable projects are recognized as legitimate multiple-use activities, planned responsibly, reviewed transparently, and coordinated with Tribes, states, fishermen, and local communities.
Ansari amendment #9 to amend the bill’s restrictions on the consideration of new science during much of the environmental review period. This amendment protects communities that would otherwise be put in harm’s way because an agency was forced to ignore new science about flooding, wildfire, pollution, or habitat collapse.
Rivas amendment #11 to ensure that NEPA’s public participation process is accessible and meets the needs of the community so people can have a voice in the decisions that affect their health, safety, and environment.
Rivas amendment #12 to add renewable energy to the list of national policies for the White House Council on Environmental Quality to foster and support.
Huffman amendment #13 to strike the provisions of the bill that dramatically narrows the definition of a “major Federal action” to exempt numerous projects from NEPA review and allow federal agencies to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on major infrastructure, energy, and environmental projects with no environmental review, no public input, and no accountability.
Grijalva amendment #14 to ensure that climate and environmental justice are included as national priorities pursued by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Min amendment #17 to repeal the Department of the Interior’s memo forcing all wind and solar energy projects through a permitting process that requires personal approval from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum at every stage of the permitting process, needlessly adding red tape to stall clean, affordable energy development.
Randall amendment #20 to exempt tribes from the bill’s restrictions that prevent them from getting judicial review, protecting their ability to challenge agency decisions that affect their lands, waters, cultural resources, and treaty obligations.
Randall amendment #22 to ensures that offshore oil and gas lease sales mandated by President Trump’s Big Ugly Bill still go through NEPA review.
Brownley amendment #24 to preserve meaningful accountability and ensure agencies correct significant errors before projects move forward.
Huffman amendment #26 to strike the provision that would prohibit agencies from considering cumulative effects of projects and foreseeable harm like pollution-related cancer risks.
Huffman amendment #28 to amend the judicial review section of the bill to ensure that federal agencies follow the law, listen to communities, and carefully consider the environmental and public-health consequences of their decisions.

What the So-Called SPEED Act Would Do

The SPEED Act would dramatically limit what federal agencies are allowed to consider when evaluating the environmental and public health consequences of major proposed projects, including climate and environmental justice impacts.
Bans the use of new scientific research or updated data that becomes available after a project is proposed—forcing agencies to ignore improved wildfire maps, updated climate models, or newly available health risk assessments.
Greatly limits what projects and actions can be reviewed under NEPA.
Limits public input and legal recourse to make it virtually impossible for communities to raise legitimate concerns or challenge flawed environmental reviews in court.
Tilts the standard for legal challenges even further away from impacted communities towards polluters while greatly limiting the ability of courts to take corrective action or provide relief.