Your correspondent is still in San Francisco for the Reboot Conference. And it looks like today's big policy news is tech related, which is that the draft of the House version of the permitting bill has been released.

The person we recommend following on this issue is FAI's Thomas Hochman.

This bill represents a significant step forward in addressing long-standing concerns about the inefficiencies and delays in the federal permitting process, particularly those associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

There are many good provisions in this bill, in particular with regard to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the existing NEPA, federal agencies must conduct environmental reviews for "major Federal actions" that could significantly affect the environment. This has traditionally included projects that receive federal funding, as the provision of funds was considered a federal action. The bill emphasizes that NEPA is a procedural statute intended to ensure federal agencies consider environmental impacts during decision-making, but does not mandate particular results. It amends the definition of "major Federal action" to explicitly exclude federal funding. This change would mean that projects receiving federal funding through grants, loans, or other financial assistance would no longer automatically trigger NEPA review requirements. This has been a major roadblock to implementing large infrastructure bills such as CHIPS and IIJA. Under this proposed change, projects funded by these initiatives would not be subject to NEPA review solely because they receive federal funds. 

The other big NEPA-related change is limits on injunctions. Under the current system, when a lawsuit is filed challenging a federal action under NEPA, courts have broad discretion to issue injunctions that can halt project activities while the case is being litigated. These injunctions can be issued based on procedural violations or potential environmental impacts, even if the harm is not immediate or substantial. The bill creates a higher standard for injunctions. While it doesn't impose a specific time limit on injunctions, it specifies that courts would need to find that the federal action poses a risk of "proximate and substantial environmental harm" before issuing an injunction. This is good language. "Proximate" implies a direct causal relationship between the action and the harm. "Substantial" suggests the harm must be significant, not minor or speculative. This would allow more projects to proceed while litigation is ongoing, not only reducing delays and costs associated with NEPA challenges, but probably deterring lawsuits that might have been filed under the current standard.

The "remand" section of the bill also introduces new rules for how courts should handle cases where they find errors or deficiencies in an environmental document or final agency action. The bill states that a court can't vacate (cancel) or enjoin (stop) an agency action unless it determines that the action "will pose a risk of a proximate and substantial environmental harm" and there's no other equitable remedy available. It would become much harder for a court to halt a project due to NEPA compliance issues.

This reform package has the potential to unleash a new era of infrastructure development, energy projects, and economic growth, all while ensuring that truly significant environmental concerns are still addressed through a more focused and efficient NEPA process.

Overall, it's a very good bill.

Policy News You Need To Know

#FamilyPolicy – Institute for Family Studies' Lyman Stone comments on President Trump's recent proposal that insurance companies be mandated to cover IVF. One issue: free IVF has no impact on fertility.

#Conservatism – Boy, Oren Cass sure triggers people, doesn't he? His and American Compass' proposed redefinition of economic conservatism is serious, responsive to 20th century challenges, and worth taking seriously. But so are the objections to it. Thus, the Pinpoint Policy Institute is out with a new poll they claim shows that voters in the three critical Blue Wall states of PA, MI and WI strongly support pro-growth policies and reject the “new right” populist economic agenda of bigger government and higher taxes.” A big selling point of those new right ideas is that they are popular with working class voters the GOP needs to build a majority. So this is interesting data. 

#AI – RSI's Adam Thierer points us to research by MultiState showing that the number of AI legislative proposals in the US is now up to 876 bills, 114 federal and 762 at the state level. He correctly points out that this is a “completely unprecedented amount of regulatory activity in the history of American technology policy.”

#AffirmativeAction – Since the Supreme Court's ruling banning affirmative action in US colleges, domain experts have been waiting to see how elite colleges' racial mix will change—i.e. whether they are actually complying with the law or whether (as was the case in California when a similar law was passed and in many other places) it is defying the law by trying to get around it. MIT took the lead in publishing its racial stats, showing a stark change in its racial composition, showing the effect of the new law. But it looks like Yale, on the other hand, is defying the Court with its new class.

#Data – The firm AH Datalytics, with support from Arnold Ventures, has launched a new website, Real-Time Crime Index. As the name suggests, it's a repository of crime data. They write: “Crime data is typically reported slowly with national estimates published in October after a year ends. The first information on crimes committed in January, therefore, is formally published nearly two years after the offense occurs. Additionally, certain types of crime are frequently underreported to police while not all agencies report complete or accurate information to the FBI every year.  As a result, national crime estimates are imprecise, even if they deliver an accurate representation of the nation’s crime trends. The RTCI seeks to aid in the need for a faster understanding and visualization of national, state, and local crime trends. The RTCI aggregates and visualizes preliminary monthly crime data from hundreds of local police departments creating a comprehensive view of crime trends across the United States. The data any given agency reports may change slightly over time, but imperfection is inherent in crime data.” Obviously, high quality data is crucial to good policymaking. The Manhattan Institute's Charles Fain Lehman, the best crime expert in America, is already a fan. Very cool stuff.

#Tech - Keri D. Ingraham and Peter Biles of the Discovery Institute with an op-ed going over the data suggesting that smartphones are killing kids' ability to concentrate.

#Redistribution – Very good report from Manhattan Institute's Chris Pope on the efficiency and effectiveness of the American welfare state: unlike in Europe, spending is better targeted, helping people more efficiently without crowding out private sources of help for people who are struggling.