Latest news with #EIS
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Utah railroad project on Thursday, setting a precedent that could make it easier to build things in the United States. The case at hand—Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County—involved an 88-mile-long railroad track in an oil-rich and rural area of Utah. The project would have connected this area to the national rail network, making it easier and more efficient to transport crude oil extracted in the region to refineries in Gulf Coast states. In 2020, a group of seven Utah counties known as the Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition submitted its application to the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the project. During its review process, the board conducted six public meetings and collected over 1,900 comments to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS)—which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—that spanned over 3,600 pages. The board approved the project's construction in 2021. Before construction could begin, however, Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental groups filed suit, challenging the STB's approval. Specifically, this coalition argued that the STB did not consider the downstream environmental effects of the project—such as increased oil drilling in Utah and refining in the Gulf Coast. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and vacated the railroad's construction approval. In an 8–0 decision on Thursday (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling. In its majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court clarified that under NEPA the STB "did not need to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the separate upstream and downstream projects." The Court concluded that the "proper judicial approach for NEPA cases is straightforward: Courts should review an agency's EIS to check that it addresses the environmental effects of the project at hand. The EIS need not address the effects of separate projects." This statement "is particularly significant for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines or transmission lines, and should help reduce NEPA's burdens (at least at the margins)," wrote Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in The Volokh Conspiracy. "The opinion will also likely hamper any future efforts, perhaps by Democratic administrations, to expand or restore more fulsome (and burdensome) NEPA requirements." One recent example is former President Joe Biden, who finalized rules requiring federal agencies to consider a project's impacts on climate change—a global issue that is incredibly complex and hard to forecast—in their NEPA analyses. The Trump administration recently rescinded this requirement. Kavanaugh's opinion also clarified that courts should "afford substantial deference" to federal agencies in their EIS reviews and "should not micromanage" agency choices "so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness." This point could reduce one of the largest delays caused by NEPA: litigation. Since its passage in 1969, NEPA has been weaponized by environmental groups to stunt disfavored projects—which has disproportionately impacted clean energy projects. On average, these challenges delay a permitted project's start time by 4.2 years, according to The Breakthrough Institute. The increased threat of litigation has forced federal agencies to better cover their bases, leading to longer and more expensive environmental reviews. With courts deferring more to agency decisions, litigation could be settled more quickly. "NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents (who may not always be entirely motivated by concern for the environment) to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects," wrote Kavanaugh. "All of that has led to more agency analysis of separate projects, more consideration of attenuated effects, more exploration of alternatives to proposed agency action, more speculation and consultation and estimation and litigation." Projects that receive the necessary permits to start "often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary, both for the agency preparing the EIS and for the builder of the project," he added. "And that in turn means fewer and more expensive railroads, airports, wind turbines, transmission lines, dams, housing developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, and the like." For years, NEPA has delayed, or outright canceled, projects. The Court's decision could be a significant step in reducing the regulatory labyrinth that has stymied America's economy and environment. The post Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects appeared first on
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court limits judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns
The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the authority of judges to block infrastructure projects due to environmental concerns. The nine justices handed down the lone decision Thursday morning, slightly curbing judicial authority at a time when President Donald Trump's administration is loudly complaining about alleged judicial overreach. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, relates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the requirement for environmental impact statements (EIS) in infrastructure projects supported by the federal government. "NEPA does not allow courts, 'under the guise of judicial review' of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion of the court. "Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness," the opinion continued. Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court To Review El Salvador Deportation Flight Case Kavanaugh went on to state that agencies should not be expected to consider the environmental impact of any project aside from the one they are currently working on, "even if" the environmental impacts "might extend outside the geographical territory of the project or materialize later in time." Read On The Fox News App "The fact that the project might foreseeably lead to the construction or increased use of a separate project does not mean the agency must consider that separate project's environmental effects," the court ruled. Thursday's decision was an 8-0 ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch taking no part in the consideration of the case. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined with Kavanaugh's opinion. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a separate concurring opinion, onto which joined Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Trump, having a history in major construction projects, has repeatedly complained about environmental impact statements and the roadblocks they can cause. Number Of Injunctions Halting Trump Policies Trounces Predecessors By Double Republicans have also widely criticized what they see as judicial overreach in federal judges unilaterally blocking major aspects of Trump's agenda. "Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month. "Just this past week, a D.C. district judge issued a universal injunction blocking the president's executive order requiring voter ID or proof-of-citizenship prior to voting in national election," he continued. "Judges are not policymakers." The Supreme Court is considering the wide use of universal injunctions in a separate case that will be handed down in the coming article source: Supreme Court limits judges' authority to block infrastructure projects over environmental concerns
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court overturns block on Utah railroad project
May 29 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a ruling from a lower court Thursday that had stopped a proposed Utah railroad line based on possible environmental effects for which it wouldn't be directly responsible. "We reverse," wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in the case, in regard to a previous decision by the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C., which had halted a group of local Utah counties from the creation of a railroad to move oil in 2020. The counties, aligned as the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, had applied to the U. S. Surface Transportation Board to create an 88-mile rail line that would connect Utah's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network, in order to transport crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Despite the preparation and presentation of an environmental impact statement, or EIS, as required by federal law via the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, the project was derailed by a lawsuit. Eagle County, Colo., along with a contingent of environmental groups, sued on the basis that the coalition's EIS didn't properly analyze the potential impacts of increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin and subsequent crude oil refinement. The Board had approved the project, but the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, on a judgement that declared the EIS violated NEPA due to its lack of information in regard to the drilling and refinement and vacated the whole project. Kavanaugh wrote that the "D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the [proposed] Uinta Basin Railway." He further called the creation of NEPA a "legislative acorn," which he says grew into a "judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development 'under the guise" of just a little more process." Kavanaugh wrote that Supreme Court's reversal of the D.C. Court's ruling served as a "course correction of sorts" that would bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with "common sense." Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case due to his links to the owner of an oil and gas procurement company who had included a brief of support that backed the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
UPI
4 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court overturns block on Utah railroad project
May 29 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a ruling from a lower court Thursday that had stopped a proposed Utah railroad line based on possible environmental effects for which it wouldn't be directly responsible. "We reverse," wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in the case, in regard to a previous decision by the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C., which had halted a group of local Utah counties from the creation of a railroad to move oil in 2020. The counties, aligned as the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, had applied to the U. S. Surface Transportation Board to create an 88-mile rail line that would connect Utah's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the national freight rail network, in order to transport crude oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast. Despite the preparation and presentation of an environmental impact statement, or EIS, as required by federal law via the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, the project was derailed by a lawsuit. Eagle County, Colo., along with a contingent of environmental groups, sued on the basis that the coalition's EIS didn't properly analyze the potential impacts of increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin and subsequent crude oil refinement. The Board had approved the project, but the U.S. Court Of Appeals for D.C. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, on a judgement that declared the EIS violated NEPA due to its lack of information in regard to the drilling and refinement and vacated the whole project. Kavanaugh wrote that the "D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the [proposed] Uinta Basin Railway." He further called the creation of NEPA a "legislative acorn," which he says grew into a "judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development 'under the guise" of just a little more process." Kavanaugh wrote that Supreme Court's reversal of the D.C. Court's ruling served as a "course correction of sorts" that would bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with "common sense." Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case due to his links to the owner of an oil and gas procurement company who had included a brief of support that backed the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
I-794 Lake Interchange Study; WisDOT holding public update meeting
The Brief Rebuild a raised freeway or something at ground level. That's the debate the Wisconsin Department of Transportation wants you to weigh in on. The department is hosting a meeting on Thursday evening for anyone looking to learn the latest on I-794 Lake Interchange Study. MILWAUKEE - The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) will provide an update on the I-794 Lake Interchange Study on Thursday evening. They're debating whether to re-build a raised freeway or build something at ground level. What we know The elevated freeway is roughly 55 years old. The Wisconsin DOT says more than 70,000 drivers travel on the interchange every day. The meeting is an opportunity for the public to learn the latest about the study, understand the process, preview the defined alternatives and engage with WisDOT staff and representatives. The meeting will be held from 4 p.m. – 7 p.m. at the Milwaukee Marriott Downtown. FREE DOWNLOAD: Get breaking news alerts in the FOX LOCAL Mobile app for iOS or Android The alternatives advancing include options from each concept group: No Build, Replace in Kind, Freeway Removal and Freeway Improvement. Later this year, WisDOT, in collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), plans to issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News During this process, WisDOT will host a series of public involvement meetings to share additional details of the alternatives, and provide detailed findings on traffic, multimodal accommodations and other analyses, and gather public feedback. Additional information about the I-794 Lake Interchange. What you can do The study can be found on the study website at The Source The information in this post was provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
