Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
REPEAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
REVIEW BODIES FROM NREPA
Analysis available at
Senate Bills 393 and 394 (S-2) as reported from House committee http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Sponsor: Sen. Rosemary Bayer
House Committee: Natural Resources, Environment, Tourism,
and Outdoor Recreation
Senate Committee: Regulatory Affairs
Complete to 6-24-24
SUMMARY:
Senate Bills 393 and 394 would amend the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Act (NREPA) by repealing the sections that created the Environmental Science Advisory
Board and the Environmental Permit Review Commission and established the corresponding
duties of each body. The bills would also amend other sections that reference the board and
commission and make other complementary changes.
Senate Bill 393 would repeal Part 26 of NREPA, which contains provisions relating to the
Environmental Science Advisory Board. The board was originally established within the
Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB), 1 but was moved to the
Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and abolished by Executive
Reorganization Order 2019-1. 2
MCL 324.2601 to 324.2611 (repealed)
Senate Bill 394 would repeal sections 1313 to 1317 of NREPA, along with section 88 of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The sections of NREPA proposed for repeal relate to
the Environmental Permit Review Commission, which is housed in EGLE. Section 88 of the
APA addresses contested cases for a permit issued by EGLE and subject to the review
commission.
The bill would amend three other sections of NREPA as follows:
Sections 1301 and 1307 would be amended to remove references to definitions or
substantive provisions relevant to the sections that would be repealed by SB 394.
Section 1311 would be amended to change the date by which the director of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) must submit an annual report to the standing
committees and appropriations subcommittees of the House and Senate with
jurisdiction over issues overseen by the department. This report contains information
about the number and types of permits applied for and granted by the department, as
1
Public Act 269 of 2018: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billanalysis/House/pdf/2017-HLA-
0652-E214064B.pdf
2
ERO 2019-1: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-324-99923
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 3
 well as information on reasons for denial of permits. The bill would change the deadline
for the report’s submission from December 1 to January 15.
MCL 324.1301, 324.1307, and 324.1311 (amended)
MCL 324.1313 to 324.1317 and 24.288 (repealed)
BRIEF DISCUSSION:
According to testimony presented by EGLE, the Permit Review Commission is viewed as a
significant use of resources that slows down the permitting process without adding value for
the department, industry stakeholders, or the public. The department estimates that each
petition received by the commission results in over 100 hours of staff time dedicated to its
review so the commission can make its determination.
Additional testimony from an individual who served on the review commission noted that
petitions often ask the commission to make a judgment on one or more technical issues that
are beyond the scope of the commissioners’ collective expertise and knowledge. Individuals
who serve on the review commission also do so without compensation, and the process takes
up hours of their time. The former review commission member testified that, for the petitions
the commission received, none resulted in the commission’s disagreeing with EGLE’s initial
decision that was the basis for the permit review request.
By EGLE’s account, for most cases up for pre-decision review, the commission agreed with
the department actions. For appeals filed after a contested case hearing, the commission may
be asked to weigh in on legal issues where they do not have the expertise to properly assess the
validity of the decision that is the subject of the petition. While the three-person panel decision
becomes the final decision of department, if that decision is still unsatisfactory to the petitioner,
the petitioner can still appeal a legal issue to circuit court, meaning that the panel decision did
not achieve a final resolution of the issue for either the department or the petitioner.
Because EGLE approves more than 99% of permits submitted, and (according to testimony
from a review commission member concerning the cases they served on) the committee did
not overrule EGLE’s decisions, existence of the permit review commission appeared to be only
slowing a final decision. Since the law creating the commission went into effect, there have
been 40 pre-decision cases and 15 in the post-administrative law judge category. An additional
25% of filings were determined to be ineligible for the process.
Supporters of the repeal bills say the review panels were unnecessary when created in 2018
and that the testimony presented by EGLE during committee hearings confirms this. Repealing
the laws would enable the department to issue final decisions on permit requests faster, while
also allowing applicants to move complaints about the permitting process to the judicial system
to find a final remedy in a more efficient way.
Opponents of the repeal include business and industry groups that had required representation
on the review panels and believe that the review panels’ decisions are irrelevant to gauging
their impact. The purpose of the panels, they say, is to require review by interests that have not
historically been part of the department’s decision-making process. Doing this adds needed
transparency to the permitting process.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 393 and 394 as reported Page 2 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT:
Senate Bills 393 and 394 are unlikely to affect costs or revenues for EGLE or local
governments.
POSITIONS:
Representatives of the following testified in support of the bills (1-25-24):
• Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy
• Michigan Chapter of the Sierra Club
The following entities indicated support for the bills (1-25-24):
• Michigan Environmental Council
• Michigan League of Conservation Voter
• Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
• Michigan Lakes and Streams Association
• For Love of Water
The following entities indicated opposition to the bills (1-25-24):
• Michigan Aquatic Managers Association
• National Federation of Independent Business
• Michigan Farm Bureau
• Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Legislative Analyst: Josh Roesner
Fiscal Analyst: Austin Scott
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency SBs 393 and 394 as reported Page 3 of 3


Statutes affected:
Substitute (S-2): 324.1301, 324.1313, 324.1317
Senate Introduced Bill: 324.1301, 324.1313, 324.1317
As Passed by the Senate: 324.1301, 324.1313, 324.1317