Inside the NEPA Process for Federal Infrastructure Projects

Published February 9, 2026

The federal environmental review process has long played a central role in shaping how infrastructure projects move from proposal to construction in the United States. In early 2026, the White House highlighted new digital tools designed to improve coordination and transparency in federal permitting and environmental reviews. While these announcements drew attention to concerns about project timelines, they also renewed focus on the underlying system itself. At the center of that system is the National Environmental Policy Act, commonly known as NEPA, which governs how federal agencies evaluate environmental impacts before making major decisions.

What NEPA Is and Why It Was Created

NEPA was signed into law in 1970 during a period of growing public awareness about environmental degradation, air and water pollution, and the impacts of large-scale development. The statute established a national policy requiring federal agencies to consider environmental effects as part of their decision making processes. Unlike regulatory laws that mandate specific environmental outcomes, NEPA is primarily procedural. Its core requirement is disclosure. Agencies must assess and publicly document the environmental consequences of proposed actions before proceeding.

NEPA applies to a wide range of federally connected activities. These include projects carried out directly by federal agencies, projects receiving federal funding, and projects requiring federal permits or approvals. As a result, NEPA reviews commonly apply to highways, rail projects, ports, pipelines, transmission lines, renewable energy facilities on federal land, and large water infrastructure investments. The law also emphasizes public involvement, ensuring that communities have opportunities to review and comment on proposed actions that may affect their environment.

The Structure of the Federal Environmental Review Process

The NEPA process is structured around different levels of environmental review, depending on the scale and potential impact of a proposed project. At the lowest level are categorical exclusions. These apply to actions that an agency has determined, based on past experience, do not individually or cumulatively have significant environmental effects. Projects that qualify for categorical exclusions typically move forward with limited documentation.

For projects with uncertain or potentially moderate impacts, agencies prepare an environmental assessment. An environmental assessment evaluates whether a proposed action is likely to have significant environmental effects. If the assessment concludes that impacts are not significant, the agency issues a finding of no significant impact and the process ends. If significant impacts are anticipated, the agency proceeds to a more detailed review.

The most comprehensive level of review is the environmental impact statement. An environmental impact statement examines a project’s potential effects on resources such as air quality, water, wildlife, land use, cultural sites, and nearby communities. It also requires agencies to analyze reasonable alternatives, including a no action alternative. Draft statements are released for public comment, followed by a final statement that responds to feedback and supports the agency’s final decision. Environmental impact statements can take several years to complete, particularly for complex projects involving multiple jurisdictions or legal challenges.

Interagency Coordination and Public Participation

One reason NEPA reviews can become lengthy is the number of entities involved. Large infrastructure projects often require approvals from multiple federal agencies, as well as coordination with state, local, and tribal governments. Each agency may have distinct statutory responsibilities related to endangered species, historic preservation, water quality, or land management. Aligning these requirements within a single review timeline can be difficult.

Public participation is another defining feature of the NEPA process. Agencies are required to provide opportunities for public input, especially for environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. This includes comment periods, public meetings, and formal responses to substantive comments. While public engagement is intended to improve decision quality and accountability, it can also introduce delays if agencies must address extensive feedback or revise analyses in response to concerns.

How CE Works Fits Into the NEPA Process

Oversight of NEPA implementation is coordinated through the Council on Environmental Quality, which sits within the Executive Office of the President. The council issues regulations and guidance that establish consistent procedures across federal agencies and plays a central role in aligning environmental review practices across the federal government. Over time, these rules have been updated to reflect changes in policy priorities, court decisions, and administrative practices.

One recent example of this administrative focus is CE Works, a digital platform developed by the Council on Environmental Quality as a pilot tool for federal environmental reviews. CE Works is designed to function as a centralized tracking and coordination system rather than a replacement for existing NEPA requirements.

The platform allows participating agencies to monitor project milestones, review timelines, and interagency responsibilities in a single shared environment. For projects that require approvals from multiple federal entities, CE Works is intended to improve visibility into where reviews are progressing and where delays may be occurring. By consolidating information that is often dispersed across agencies, the tool aims to reduce duplicative efforts and improve coordination.

Importantly, CE Works does not change the substance of environmental analysis or public engagement obligations. Agencies must still complete environmental assessments or environmental impact statements as required, provide opportunities for public comment, and comply with other environmental statutes. The tool is positioned as an internal management aid that supports consistency and accountability rather than a mechanism for accelerating approvals by narrowing review scope.

Supporters of the pilot view CE Works as a way to bring greater predictability to infrastructure development, particularly for energy, transmission, and climate related projects that depend on multiple federal decisions. Large scale energy investments such as offshore wind, utility scale renewable generation, transmission buildout, and other capital intensive infrastructure often face layered federal reviews under NEPA, making schedule certainty a critical factor for developers, financiers, and energy management providers. Its effectiveness will depend on agency adoption and how well it integrates with existing review practices, but it illustrates how technology is increasingly being tested as part of broader efforts to modernize the federal environmental review process.

Conclusion

More than five decades after its enactment, NEPA remains a cornerstone of federal infrastructure decision making. The law shapes how projects are planned, evaluated, and communicated to the public, influencing everything from transportation networks to energy systems. While concerns about review timelines continue to drive calls for reform, recent developments suggest an emphasis on process efficiency rather than substantive rollback. Understanding how the NEPA process works is essential for project developers, policymakers, and communities navigating the future of federal infrastructure investment.