QuorumCivic. Hidden in plain sight Get the app
Bill intelligence

Congress quietly builds case to weaken environmental review law

S. 1191 — Studying NEPA’s Impact on Projects Act · Filed by John Curtis (R-UT) · 2 cosponsors · Introduced Mar 27, 2025 · Referred to committee

75%
Transparency
Typical bill: 82%
45/100
Hidden-provision risk
Typical bill: 15/100
High concernEnvironmental Compliance Tracking /…

Your members of Congress

Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.

Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.

What it does

This bill requires the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to publish annual reports tracking NEPA lawsuits, environmental review timelines, costs, and document lengths across federal agencies and economic sectors. The reports must detail litigation outcomes, whether projects were delayed or blocked, and trends in how long environmental reviews take—creating a public database of NEPA's operational impact on infrastructure and development projects.

Why we flagged it

The bill ostensibly creates transparency by mandating detailed annual reporting on NEPA litigation and environmental review timelines. However, the specific focus on documenting delays, costs, and litigation outcomes—disaggregated by development sector—suggests the underlying purpose is to build empirical ammunition for future NEPA weakening by framing environmental review as a burden on infrastructure and energy projects.

What the text implies

  • The bill creates a detailed, sector-specific database of NEPA litigation outcomes and environmental review timelines. This data could be weaponized in future legislative efforts to weaken NEPA by arguing that environmental review 'delays' projects in energy, mining, pipelines, and other extractive sectors.
  • By requiring disaggregation by 'covered sector' (which includes conventional energy, mining, pipelines, and carbon capture), the bill systematically highlights NEPA's impact on fossil-fuel and development projects while omitting analysis of whether NEPA protections prevent environmental harm or save public money through avoided cleanup costs.

The full analysis lists 4 implications of this text.

Who stands to gain

energy companies (conventional and renewable); mining companies; pipeline operators

Correlative observation from public records — not evidence of coordination or wrongdoing, and not financial advice.
This page is the record as of today. The app tells you when it changes.
Quorum analysis of the full bill text · 119th Congress · public record