White House Gives Agencies Playbook on Permitting Shortcuts

The White House on Thursday clarified how federal agencies should use categorical exclusions in the environmental permitting process, part of its ongoing quest to get more projects built faster.

The Trump administration has been promoting the wider use of categorical exclusions, which are agency findings that a certain type of project doesn’t have a significant effect on the environment. If an exclusion can be used, it can trim the permitting timeline down from several years to, in the most extreme cases, just a few weeks.

The new guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality is meant to standardize the way agencies establish, revise, adopt, and apply the exclusions, and also to encourage as much use as possible.

Katherine Scarlett, chair of the CEQ, said in an interview on Wednesday that she has been working with agencies to adopt a “CE first” posture when reviewing new projects.

“I’m trying to simplify that process,” Scarlett said. “Is there a categorical exclusion? 
If there’s not one, can I establish a categorical exclusion for this action? Is there one from another agency that I can adopt and apply?”

The new guidance details a clear process for establishing categorical exclusions, at one point encouraging agencies to look through their own records to find opportunities to establish new ones.

The guidance also lists best practices for agencies to invoke other agencies’ categorical exclusions—something the Trump administration has strongly encouraged.

An agency doesn’t have to consult with CEQ before adopting another agency’s exclusions, according to the document.

Agencies can also save time and resources by establishing joint categorical exclusions for activities that involve multiple agencies, CEQ said.

“For example, where one agency provides funding for a category of actions that requires a permit from another agency, the agencies may be able to establish a categorical exclusion that covers both the funding and permitting aspects of that activity,” according to the guidance.

Environmentalists have pushed back against the broader use of categorical exclusions, saying they can be abused to ignore needed reviews of a project’s impacts on the air, water, land, wildlife, or cultural resources.