In my previous analysis, I explained how NEPA—the law requiring environmental reviews—evolved from simple disclosure rule to monstrous veto point. Today's question is, what happens to that same process when government agencies have access to AI that can generate unlimited bureaucratic text? It turns out, maybe not as much as one would anticipate. While AI could revolutionize how agencies write environmental reports, transformation will likely happen outside the government. Examining the impact of AI on the most time consuming parts of the process—drafting reports, processing public comments, and defending decisions in court—reveals why. Together, they show a private sector set to capture serious benefits, and a public sector set to become a punching bag.
A Brief Overview of the NEPA Process
To understand how these models will affect the NEPA permitting process, it is useful to understand the process itself. An exceedingly condensed version of the process (in chronological order) follows:
1. Proposed Action
2. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Determination
3. Project Timetable + Agency Coordination
4. Notice of Intent (NOI)
5. Scoping/Preparing Draft EIS
6. Public Comment
7. Prepare Final EIS (respond to comments)
8. File Final EIS
9. Record of Decision (ROD)
10. Mitigation & Monitoring Implementation
11. Supplemental EIS (if triggered)
12. EPA/CEQ Dispute Resolution (if needed)3
13. Judicial Review
Of all these steps, the three bolded consume the most time.
The EIS process starts when an agency determines that a federal action—issuing a permit, releasing funds, building a dam—might significantly affect the environment. The agency then spends years drafting a comprehensive report. Once complete, the draft goes public. Citizens submit comments. Then, the agency responds to each substantive comment and revises the report accordingly. Only after can it issue a ROD approving or denying the project.
