Covington和Burling与Good公司、双党政策中心及国家制造商协会联合主办活动周二集专家讨论基础设施审批过程,并讨论如何改善或改革当前系统以提高效率半天论坛展示新视角并对话为何需要大修推动经济并改进环境结果可并发,但当前架构和监管屏障可防止范式变换论坛还包括介绍其他国家的最佳做法和合并决策标志和及早审议环境影响所创造的机会PhilipHoward,Covington和Burling公共良好和伙伴周二召集活动,确认“没有人设计我们现在拥有的系统-它刚刚壮大 ” 。 论坛的目标是探索大胆建议简化、加速和改善基础设施审批过程美国想从新基础建设项目中获取所有利益 — — 增强竞争力、数以百万计的工作和绿化环境足迹。

基础设施审批系统与其他国家相对照 。Nick Malyshev是OECD监管政策司司长,观察美国拥有强大的系统制定法律法规,我们可以做更好的工作评价现有法规。他和其他小组成员Parsons Brinckerhoff和Shawn DensstettOsler,Hoskin & Harcourt(Canada)讨论了加拿大、澳大利亚和许多欧盟国家如何在监管框架和审批流程方面比美国先光年。Denstedt discussed how Canada in particular revamped its environmental review process in 2012 to make it more consistent and timely and the outcomes more predictable.  All of the panelists remarked on how the convoluted approval process, not necessarily the substance of projects, is dragging down the infrastructure system here in the United States, and how there must be better coordination between federal and state entities to reduce overlap and inconsistencies.

A second panel discussed the environmental review process and the devolution of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  While the original intent of the act was to balance interests and understand the consequences of different choices in infrastructure projects, panelists remarked on how the process has become cumbersome, with overlapping oversight authority and review processes that have resulted in delays, escalation of costs, and an overall burden on the American economy.  Attendees were reminded that the law was only 7 pages when enacted in 1970!several panelists commented that it is time to go back to the law's original intent.  There was also a consensus among panelists that there needs to be more of an evidence-based discussion around environmental review.  There is little analytical data on NEPA policy, but a better model could exist that is based on metrics and outcomes that can better inform decisions.  Covington & Burling's Don Elliott discussed the judicial review process under NEPA, which he said has become a process for stopping projects, rather than facilitating how a project gets done.  One fix he noted was for preliminary injunctions to be done away with and for CEQ to issue guidelines for judicial standing.

The final panel discussed the challenges and bright spots in the current permitting process.  Joann Papageorgis of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey discussed the Bayonne Bridge navigational clearance project as an example of how complicated the review process can be and how inefficiencies can be solved.  This project in particular required approximately 50 permits from 20 different agencies.  They found the complicated regulatory review contained multiple duplicative regulatory processes and conflicting federal requirements.  She outlined several strategies and recommendations based on the experience of this project, many of which were echoed by the other panelists, including how important it is to enforce early coordination and synchronization between agencies, and to work on a schedule.  Shoshanna Lew from DOT agreed there is no reason certain processes cannot happen simultaneously, and multiple agencies could participate as part of the same review, rather than duplicating it multiple times.

There was broad consensus across these three panels and participants that all parties should work toward permanent solutions that increase efficiencies, improve outcomes, and balance interests to advance our infrastructure systems and meet the current and future demands of our country.