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
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 tracking of 'major Federal action being reversed' and settlements creates a metric that could be cited to argue NEPA is 'too litigious' or that environmental review is 'blocking' projects—framing that ignores whether reversals or settlements represent legitimate public-interest victories.
- The bill does not require reporting on environmental outcomes (e.g., whether NEPA-driven changes prevented pollution, protected water, or avoided ecological damage), only on process metrics and litigation. This one-sided data collection may bias future policy toward deregulation.
Who it affects
The bill creates transparency about NEPA enforcement and environmental review timelines, which benefits citizens by exposing how environmental law is working in practice. However, the detailed tracking of litigation outcomes and review delays—disaggregated by sector—appears designed to build a case for weakening NEPA protections by documenting 'burdens' on development, potentially laying groundwork for future deregulation that would reduce public input on major projects.
Who stands to gain
- energy companies (conventional and renewable)
- mining companies
- pipeline operators
- broadband and telecommunications infrastructure firms
- aviation and aerospace contractors
- manufacturing and industrial sectors
- port and waterway operators
Named in the bill
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, House Committee on Natural Resources, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Federal Register, Aviation and space sector, Broadband sector, Carbon capture and sequestration, Conventional energy production, Renewable energy production, Electricity transmission, Manufacturing — and 7 more
Where it stands
2 cosponsors: 2 Democrats.
- Mar 27, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Mar 27, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $226,377 in lobbying spend. A filing names 58 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
John Curtis, the sponsor, reported $431,000 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Associated General Contractors of America — $216,377 on 1 filing
- City of Santa Clara — $10,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the full bill text on Jun 8, 2026; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress quietly builds case to weaken environmental review law” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s1191 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.