Latest news with #EagleCounty
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
The Supreme Court Got the Environmental Policy Act Case Right
There's an old Hollywood joke where a screenwriter goes to pitch a romantic comedy, and the producer listens in silence, then exclaims, 'Sounds great! Throw in a couple of car chases, and you've got a movie!' The joke has endless variants: the screenwriter is pitching a zombie thriller, or a period biopic — whatever the writer pitches, the producer's punch line remains the same. That humoresque comes to mind in light of Thursday's decision by the US Supreme Court in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, which is being described, correctly, as sharply circumscribing the ability of litigants to use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to stack new review requirements on projects already approved by federal agencies. Because if you ask anybody who's trying to build, say, new infrastructure to support the power needs of AI — or just the growth of the digital world generally — the worry isn't having to get agency approval to break ground. It's all those car chases that the courts might insist they've got to add in before they've 'got a movie.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Deals a Body Blow to Bedrock Environmental Law
On Thursday, the Supreme Court dealt a body blow to America's bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act. The court issued a unanimous decision that will buttress the Donald Trump administration's efforts to gut the law and fast track fossil fuel projects. Environmental advocates contend that the result of Thursday's opinion over a proposed oil train will be more Americans exposed to preventable environmental, health, and climate harms, a well as reduced public participation in key government decision-making. The largest and most immediate beneficiary is the fossil fuel industry. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado is now the latest in a growing list of radical opinions issued by the Supreme Court that undercut the nation's foundational environmental and civil rights protections. At issue is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 1970 law requires federal agencies to consider the potential impacts on 'the human environment' prior to issuing authorizations for major projects, such as pipelines, refineries, and highways, and to inform and allow the public to weigh-in on its decision. The public is also empowered to bring legal action against the federal government if it fails to comply with these rules. 'NEPA has proven to be a vital civil rights tool that empowers those who have historically been excluded from decision-making processes,' writes the Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic in a friend of the court brief. 'NEPA ensures that all people with a stake in federal action — regardless of race, color, national origin, tribal affiliation, or income — can have a voice.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for the conservative supermajority, ruling to severely circumscribe the law to focus only on the most immediate impacts of a given project. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreeing with the majority's decision to reject a lower-court ruling, but arguing for a much more limited finding in the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself, likely due to his fossil fuel industry ties. 'It really underscores the extent to which seemingly unanimous opinions can actually conceal a lot of disagreement,' constitutional law professor Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School tells me. Litman is the author of Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes and a cohost of the popular Supreme Court podcast, Strict Scrutiny. 'It's clear that the three Democratic appointees diverge pretty sharply from the majority opinion in their views about NEPA. They fault the majority opinion for writing unnecessarily broadly.' 'The court certainly ruled against the plaintiffs, but it went far beyond that to mount a broad attack on NEPA itself,' says Sambhav Sankar, senior vice president for programs for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, a respondent in the case. 'This administration is going to treat this ruling as permission to ignore the environment entirely as it promotes fossil fuels, attacks clean energy, tries to roll back sensible pollution regulations, [and] claim that it can entirely ignore the reality of climate change when it makes its decisions.' The Seven County case involves a dispute over construction of a new 88-mile stretch of railway to carry 'waxy' crude oil out of Utah's Uinta Basin by connecting to an existing national railway. The oil would travel from Utah through Colorado, and on to Texas and Louisiana where the oil would be refined. Eagle County, Colorado, and five environmental organizations argued that, in granting authorization for the Uinta Basin Railway, the federal U.S. Surface Transportation Board during the previous Trump administration failed to conduct a full analysis required under NEPA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit largely agreed. It found that the board ignored key 'upstream' and 'downstream' harms, such as from increased oil production in Utah, from increased rail traffic in Colorado, and increased refining in the Gulf Coast. The proponents of the railway appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn the attention of the nation's most powerful legal operatives, from the conservative lawyers group, the Federalist Society, to the nation's largest oil industry and business lobbies, including the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The majority opinion leans heavily on the amicus brief submitted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business organization, which often spends more money on federal lobbying than any other group. ExxonMobil holds a leadership position in the Chamber. Justice Samuel Alito participated in the decision despite owning stock in several oil and gas companies as recently as September 2024 and recusing himself from prior fossil fuel-related cases, presumably because of these potential conflicts. Last term, Alito agreed with the Chamber in 73 percent of cases. Justice Kavanaugh quotes the Chamber in describing NEPA as 'a 1970 legislative acorn [that] has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' The opinion then describes new limits on the scope of NEPA, allowing that 'an agency may decline to evaluate environmental effects from separate projects upstream or downstream from the project at issue' particularly where 'those separate projects fall outside the agency's regulatory authority.' In an effort to limit future litigation, the opinion then calls for significant deference to be given by the courts to the government agency conducting the NEPA review. The effect of the ruling is to allow agencies to focus their analysis only on the immediate project proposal before them — in this case, the 88 miles of new rail. Major infrastructure projects, however, rarely have such circumscribed effects, particularly when considering impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions. Backers of the railway, for example, anticipate its construction will facilitate a quintupling of overall oil production in the Uinta Basin, creating a new colossal oil fracking hub. Uinta's oil is described as 'waxy oil' due to its uniquely thick viscosity and must be heated to be transported. The Uinta Railway would carry an estimated 350,000 new barrels of this waxy oil per day, sent in two-mile-long trains hauling 110 oil tanker cars, from Utah and on to Colorado, through an at-times treacherous 100-mile track along the Colorado River. It would travel down to refineries located in some of the hardest-hit environmental justice communities in Texas and Louisiana's Cancer Alley, in areas already overburdened by pollution. Opponents predict health harms from increased pollution for people living in states along the entire route. They cite increased pollution from more oil fracking in Utah and the risk of train derailments leading to oil spills into the Colorado River, which would threaten the drinking water supply of 40 million people in seven states across the Southwest, including 30 Native American Tribes. The climate impacts of burning an extra 350,000 barrels of oil a day would produce 53 million tons of carbon dioxide, roughly the equivalent of six coal-powered power plants. Writing a letter in opposition to the railway, communities in Louisiana where the oil would be refined say, 'We have worked hard to reduce the disproportionate burdens of pollution and environmental injustice on our communities caused by the fossil fuel industry. The massive influx of oil via train from Utah will only make our situation worse.' The majority opinion seeks to limit NEPA review to a consideration of only the immediate impacts on people and the environment along the 88-miles of new railway. 'It is disastrous,' says Wendy Park of the ruling. Park is a senior attorney at the national environmental protection organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, another respondent in the case. She has personally been litigating against the Uinta Basin Railway since 2018. The ruling 'draws artificial boundaries around the scope of NEPA review, ignoring decades of precedent and the plain language of NEPA, which says that agencies are required to consider the reasonably foreseeable effects of their proposed actions. This decision essentially allows agencies to bury their head in the sand and ignore harmful effects to air, water, and wildlife, and it will mean more pollution, more habitat destruction, more unhealthy communities.' 'This decision will embolden agencies to ignore the climate consequences of their proposed actions.' Park adds, 'It is probably just the worst possible outcome that we could have imagined.' A key reason for Park's concern is the context within which the ruling is taking place. The Trump administration is actively working to gut NEPA by taking out its legs. In April, the administration repealed the regulations used to implement the law across federal agencies. The administration also told agencies that they should no longer consider climate, environmental justice, or cumulative impacts of operations when conducting their analyses. 'Basically, the administration is stripping all substance from NEPA,' Andrew Mergen tells me. Mergen spent some three decades at the environmental division of the Department of Justice and has likely litigated more NEPA cases than any other lawyer in history. He is the Faculty Director of the Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School. He describes Seven Counties as the most significant NEPA case in twenty years. Mergen calls NEPA, 'a profoundly important statute' and 'the most copied and emulated environmental statute of all time,' influencing the way the states, other countries, and international financial institutions approach environmental disclosures. 'The NEPA process results in countless projects that are redesigned in a way that avoid stupid, ill-intentioned, unnecessary harms to the environment.' He recently co-authored a paper (and shared another) dispelling many myths about NEPA and environmental permitting as the objects of undo infrastructure obstruction. He supports deference to agency experts in decision-making, but questions the Supreme Court's timing, because 'those people are, by and large, gone, the agencies are being hollowed out,' because 'Trump is in the process of completely gutting the federal agencies.' There is also more than a little bit of irony in the majority's adoption of agency deference, given its repeatedly articulated disdain for federal agencies as the backbone of the 'administrative state.' Less than one year ago, the Supreme Court's ultraconservative supermajority ruled to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which had instructed courts to generally show deference to how federal agencies implement and enforce the law. The case, known as Loper Bright, was argued by lawyer Paul Clement. Clement also argued on behalf of the railway in Seven Counties, this time asking for more agency deference, which the majority agreed to. Mergen also shares the concerns voiced by the environmental justice community of constraining NEPA's lens. 'For decades, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities have borne the brunt of environmental hazards, breathing in polluted air, living near toxic waste, and facing the worst effects of climate change. NEPA has served as a key tool for advocates to combat these injustices,' said Lourdes M. Rosado, President and General Counsel, LatinoJustice in a statement. 'Rolling back NEPA's regulations is an outright attack on communities of color.' Responding to Thursday's ruling, John Beard, Jr. who lives in Port Arthur, Texas — a small majority Black and Hispanic community and the site of a Valero refinery expected to receive the new Uinta Basin Railway oil trains — asks me, 'Who is ultimately going to be held responsible if these NEPA concerns are not addressed and looked at? That's the question.' Beard says that the matter is ultimately about the lives and health of people in his community and all along the rail, and the ruling 'seems to be a way of deferring responsibility and marginalizing those communities that are going to be adversely affected, so that their voice can't be heard.' 'At the end of the day, [the conservative justices] are hostile to industry regulation, and particularly regulation of polluters and the fossil fuel industry,' says Litman, the Lawless author. If that means that the justices have to come up with 'made-up' rationales to explain away their twists and turns of logic, they will, she explains. Michael Burger is the Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. He argues that the impact of the ruling will be determined by how it is interpreted by the courts, but a likely casualty will be future consideration of the climate. 'The legacy of this case is going to depend on how it's treated by agencies and courts in the future,' he says. 'Certainly, it seems geared toward granting this administration in particular greater leeway to go faster in fossil fuel development and to do less environmental review than it otherwise would have had to do.' He adds, 'I don't think there's any question that this decision will result in less climate-related disclosure in NEPA reviews.' 'Right now, the courts are the only thing standing between the planet, the people, and an administration that essentially represents the fossil fuel industry and other polluters, Earthjustice lawyer Sankar warns. The Supreme Court's ruling will have far reaching impacts on U.S. environmental, public health, environmental justice, and climate policy for decades to come, particularly when combined with Trump's simultaneous decimation of the law. But the ruling does not greenlight the Uinta Basin Railway. It returns the case to the lower court for further review under more limited parameters. The railway is then subject to additional permitting and reviews before it can be built and faces innumerable internal hurdles, including a perennial lack of funding and a missing rail operator. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition is the public partner of the Uinta Basin Railway. It is an independent political subdivision of the state of Utah composed of seven Utah counties. The Coalition held its most recent public meeting on May 8 at the Carbon County Commission Chambers in remote Price, Utah, which I attended via Zoom. Board Co-Chair Jack Lytle presided over the meeting and is a dead ringer for actor Sam Elliott, who, among other classic western characters, plays The Stranger in The Big Lebowski. Tall, wiry, and lanky with a shock of white hair and a mustache to match, Lytle even has the baritone voice and cowboy drawl to match Elliott's. There was an almost giddy excitement at the meeting on the fervent expectation that a favorable Supreme Court ruling was on the horizon. 'It's very exciting times,' Executive Director Keith Heaton said repeatedly. But there was also a more sober recognition that the rail project had largely been in stasis as the court cases proceeded, and it was now time to rapidly get things moving again. The first step is to secure federally subsidized tax-exempt bonds to pay for construction of the rail. In 2017, the same year that the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition took up the idea of oil train, Utah State Treasurer David Damschen questioned if the coalition's hefty appropriations of federal dollars were resulting in any material benefits for the rural communities it was designed to help, noting the 'significant' salaries and fees paid to board members and consultants, including lawyers and engineers, with little to show in outcomes, the Salt Lake City Tribune reported. On May 8, the coalition's financial advisor, Cody Deeter, seemed to confront these same concerns, explaining that the benefits of applying bonds to pay for the Railway include providing the coalition with 'political legitimacy throughout the state to show that you are, in fact, doing what your charter suggested you would do.' The price of the railway has ballooned over the years. Originally priced at $1.4 billion, it is closer to $3.4 billion today, 70 percent of which is to be paid for with the federal bonds. Bond attorney, Tim Stratton, whose fee, he explained, is $600 an hour, said 'given the passage of time, supply chain, issues, inflation, those sorts of things, the estimated costs have changed on the rail project' with the developer now asking the coalition 'to go with a dollar amount of $2.4 billion instead of the original $2 billion' for the bond request. If the coalition receives the request, it will effectively zero-out the U.S. Department of Transportation's Private Activity Bond program, which has exactly $2.4 billion left out of its original $30 billion allocation made in 2006. Originally known as Drexel Hamilton Infrastructure Partners, LP and then DHIP Group, the opaque Florida-based private asset manager that owns the Uinta Basin Railway now does business under its subsidiary's name, Uinta Basin Railway Holdings, LLC. It is also now the sole corporate partner after Texas-based Rio Grande Pacific Corporation, a private railroad holding company that was to be the rail operator, pulled out of the project back in 2023. Two years ago, the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition's effort to apply for bonds was met with a fierce public backlash, which is sure to be repeated when the coalition brings the proposal to a public meeting planned for June. Deeda Seed is the senior Utah campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity where she has been leading organizing efforts against the Uinta Basin Railway for five years. 'If we don't have a healthy environment, what do we have?' Seed asks me from her home in Salt Lake City, Utah. 'From our perspective, from the community perspective, we're going to continue to fight the railway project, we're not going away,' Seed says. More from Rolling Stone Elon Used So Much Ketamine He Couldn't Pee Right: Report Senator Dismisses Medicaid Cuts Killing People: 'Well, We're All Going to Die' Vets Are Working Out of Closets Because of Trump's Nonsensical War on the VA Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
CBS News
3 days ago
- Business
- CBS News
Supreme Court deals blow to opponents of plan to move oil along Colorado river
The United States Supreme Court, in a decision out Thursday, overruled a lower court in favor of a plan to construct an 88-mile railroad in Utah that would link with Colorado rail lines as a route to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil daily to the Gulf Coast for refining. The plan calls for trains loaded with waxy crude extracted from the Uinta Basin area of Utah to pass along rail lines along the Colorado River, including through Glenwood Canyon. Uinta Basin Railway The unanimous ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch abstaining, deals a blow to a consortium of environmental groups and Eagle County, which oppose the plan. The Supreme Court cited a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that indicated the Surface Transportation Board, which has oversight in approving the rail construction project, did not adequately include a study of all important issues relating to the environmental effects of the project, including oil drilling and refining at its eventual destination. Such a study is required under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA. The completed study was 3,600 pages, and the Supreme Court said the requirements called for by the lower court were too much. CBS Writing the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated, "Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it." "They definitely told the circuit courts to, 'Hey, you need to knock this off.' But it was all based off of Supreme Court decisions that have been going on for quite some time," said Jonathan Stearmer, legal counsel for a seven-county group backing the rail line construction. A past ruling, Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, called for lessening the red tape associated with NEPA, saying federal agencies need not study environmental consequences that lie outside their jurisdiction. "I think what won the day is that our position that we decided to take in the case was already the Supreme Court's position from 20-plus years ago. There were a couple circuit courts across the country that have chosen not to follow that Supreme Court precedent, and so it created a split in the circuits," said Stearmer. CBS In Colorado, there were objections to the Supreme Court's ruling about the Uinta project. "We're sorry to see the Supreme Court conclude that under this environmental review process, the Surface Transportation Board can ignore some of the harmful environmental impacts that come from this project," said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. "They take a very narrow approach here, and they are allowing the Surface Transportation Board latitude to allow this project to go forward with some real harms." An attorney for Eagle County, Nate Hunt, said the ruling was not a complete loss, pointing out that there are still some issues ruled on unanimously in the Circuit Court that the Supreme Court left standing. "It ruled on a litany of issues that it deemed that the Surface Transportation Board had violated, not just under NEPA, but under three other federal statutes. None of those issues were appealed to the Supreme Court," said Hunt. Stearmer noted that the potential for damage from the waxy crude that would be shipped out of the Uinta Basin would be lessened in a spill because the oil is more like wax at ambient temperature and less damaging. "I think that's a nonsensical argument. This project would facilitate millions of gallons of waxy, crude oil being transferred across Colorado through the Rocky Mountains on two-mile trains and within a stone's throw of the Colorado River," said Hunt. He said Eagle County and the environmental groups would continue to try to stop the project. But the court's ruling could affect other environmental issues. "The Supreme Court's decision on what NEPA means is going to be nationwide. It's going to affect how projects all over the country are going to be reviewed under NEPA."
E&E News
4 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
The Supreme Court goes after NEPA
A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the scope of National Environmental Policy Act reviews for federally backed projects, in a decision with potentially far-reaching consequences for how agencies analyze environmental impacts. The justices aimed to rein in what they said were sprawling agency analyses that were bogging down projects. 'Because NEPA's central aim is to improve agency decisionmaking, an agency need not consider every conceivable environmental consequence of a proposed federal action,' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 8-0 majority opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. Advertisement Kavanaugh added that 'agencies need only analyze environmental impacts for which their decision would be (at least in part) 'responsible'' and that 'courts should defer to agencies' decisions about where to draw the line' on issues including indirect environmental effects. The high court's ruling could have far-reaching effects on proposed oil and gas pipelines and other energy projects the Trump administration hopes to fast-track under its 'energy dominance' agenda. Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, the public partner developing the oil rail line at the heart of the case, praised the court's decision as a 'turning point' for rural Utah. 'We look forward to continuing our work with all stakeholders to deliver this transformative project,' Heaton said. The court's decision was also a win for the myriad energy, timber and other industry interests that had weighed in on the closely watched case. 'We are hopeful this ruling will establish a precedent for a more efficient and predictable environmental review process, one that empowers public land managers to carry out projects that reduce wildfire risks, restore forest health and build more resilient landscapes,' said Nick Smith, spokesperson for the American Forest Resource Council. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition had challenged an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit requiring the Surface Transportation Board to conduct a more thorough analysis of a proposed 88-mile oil rail line in Utah's Uinta Basin. In particular, the coalition questioned the demand for study of how the rail line could lead to increased planet-warming emissions from increased oil production within the basin, as well as more pollution at the Gulf Coast refineries that would process the oil. The decision arrives amid an ongoing push among federal agencies to truncate NEPA reviews and approve projects more quickly, including pipelines and critical mineral projects. The administration has already dismantled decades' worth of regulations for how the law should be implemented and laid out a process for truncating reviews from more than a year to mere weeks. Earlier this month, the administration conducted an 11-day review for a uranium and vanadium mine in Utah, the first project to move through the Interior Department's accelerated plan for approving projects. Kavanaugh emphasized that NEPA was just one of the laws governing how agencies approve federal projects. Courts should give agencies 'substantial' deference for their environmental analyses, he said. In this case, the Surface Transportation Board's NEPA review had spanned more than 3,600 pages, but the D.C. Circuit still faulted the agency's analysis, he noted. An agency could not be responsible for environmental effects of a project it did not have legal authority to avoid through either mitigation or blocking the project, or that were far removed from the project itself, Kavanaugh wrote. The rest of the court's conservative wing joined Kavanaugh's opinion except for Justice Neil Gorsuch, who recused himself from the case. The court's liberal members also joined the court's ruling in a separate concurrence penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. However, the separate opinion sought to tailor the ruling more closely to the analysis at issue in the case, rather than address NEPA reviews across the board. 'Here, the Board correctly determined it would not be responsible for the consequences of oil production upstream or downstream from the Railway because it could not lawfully consider those consequences as part of the approval process,' she wrote. Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser at the environmental permitting firm Dawson & Associates, said — based on his initial reading — that the court's decision reaffirms a more limited scope of NEPA. Going forward, federal agencies reviewing projects like natural gas pipelines and rail lines will not have to consider indirect impacts like greenhouse gas emissions, Liebesman predicted. 'Agencies now, under the Trump approach applying NEPA, do not have to speculate or try to analyze what those indirect effects of those other projects might be on the environment,' he said. 'That's outside the purview of NEPA.' Tom Jensen, a partner with the firm Perkins Coie, said the ruling is a disappointment for groups that have pushed the government to use NEPA to analyze greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change in every federal decision. Jensen said it's gratifying to see the court place a limit on federal decisionmaking and that the ruling will create a 'new test' for how a single project is defined under NEPA, which could expedite some reviews. The law requires a 'hard look,' Jensen noted, but that could be more narrowly focused under the Supreme Court's ruling. On the other hand, Jensen expressed concern that the ruling could also fuel 'gamesmanship' among some project proponents to break up larger projects into smaller components to avoid review of the entire project. The practice, called 'segmentation,' could draw skepticism from the courts and actually slow reviews, he said. 'I think what you'll see is much more temptation by some parties to break large programs, large projects, large proposals, into smaller pieces, hoping to make downstream and upstream concepts impacts seem very attenuated,' said Jensen. Environmental groups echoed those concerns. Sambhav Sankar, Earthjustice's senior vice president for programs, said in a statement that the decision undermines decades of legal precedent directing federal agencies to 'look before they leap' when approving projects that could harm communities and the environment. Earthjustice represented environmental groups that had challenged the agency's NEPA review. Officials from Eagle County, Colorado, had also challenged the agency analysis. 'The Trump Administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations,' said Sankar. Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said the 'disastrous' decision is poised to undermine NEPA, and would allow for more polluting projects to move forward and bureaucrats to ignore harm from federal projects to wildlife and the climate. Park also vowed to continue fighting the Uinta Basin Railway, which the group has challenged for years. 'We'll keep fighting to make sure this railway is never built,' said Park. Industry and environmental advocates alike recognized the potential significance of the case from the start, with organizations and companies including the American Petroleum Institute, American Forest Resources Council and Energy Transfer all submitting amicus briefs supporting the Seven Counties Coalition. William Doffermyre, the Trump administration's nominee to serve as the Interior Department's solicitor, formerly worked for Energy Transfer but was not part of the company's brief in the Supreme Court case. Mario Loyola, a professor at Florida International University and senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, was another amicus filer and called the decision a 'victory for common sense' in federal environmental review. 'It's a crucial reminder that courts have to defer to agencies on technical and policy judgments, not substitute their own preferences as the court of appeals did,' Loyola said Thursday.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects
The Supreme Court on Thursday put new limits on the scope of federally mandated environmental impact statements for major transportation and energy projects, clearing the way for a proposed rail line linking Utah and Colorado and for more expeditious approvals of similar construction programs nationwide. The decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was 8-0. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused from the case but did not explain his decision.) The dispute, the first of its kind in 20 years to reach the court, focused on the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to study the significant environmental effects of a project and identify alternatives to mitigate any harms. The law, known as NEPA, has been the basis of major litigation by groups opposed to particular projects, which frequently sue to block construction by alleging that the impact study was incomplete or inaccurate. Industry groups have long complained about years, even decades, of costly delays to get projects completed. MORE: Trump asks Supreme Court to remove judge-ordered restrictions on 3rd-country deportations Acknowledging those concerns, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority said use of NEPA to stymie energy and infrastructure programs has gotten out of hand and needs to be curtailed. "A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process," Kavanaugh wrote. "A course correction of sorts is appropriate to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. " Kavanaugh said the law imposed merely a "modest procedural requirement," related only to the project at hand, not a mandatory study of possible upstream or downstream impacts far afield from actual construction. The proposed 88-mile railway at the heart of the case, linking the oil-rich Uinta Basin of Utah with the national rail network in Colorado, has undergone years of environmental study. Its impact statement exceeds 3,600 pages of analysis. Environmental groups challenged the study, however, saying it failed to consider secondary impacts of exporting millions of gallons of oil to refineries along the Gulf, such as the risk of oil spills in the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. MORE: Supreme Court blocks Oklahoma from launching taxpayer-funded religious charter school The groups told the Supreme Court that approving the railway could also mean heightened risk of oil spills, train spark-induced wildfires and enhanced greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who opposes the railway project, lamented the high court decision in a statement, saying the court had approved a "risky scheme to transport waxy crude oil along the Colorado River, right alongside our most critical water resource and posing major risks to Colorado's Western Slope communities." The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which supports the railway, said those downstream risks are too far afield and beyond the scope of the law and that the project has fallen victim of bureaucratic red tape. "The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency's decision making process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects," Kavanaugh wrote. "In those circumstances, the causal chain is too attenuated." The opinion said judges should show "deference" to the agency officials preparing the environmental impact statement. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to explain their reasoning. MORE: Chief Justice John Roberts makes rare public appearance, defends judicial independence Proponents of the rail line, who have pitched it as an economic boon for the country, say it will help extract hundreds of thousands of gallons of waxy crude oil and drive down energy prices for consumers. "The Supreme Court has issued an important corrective to the current judicial approach to the National Environmental Policy Act," said University of Minnesota Law School professor James Coleman, who specializes in energy and transportation law, "demanding more deference from courts for the agencies performing judicial review and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand agencies to consider the upstream and downstream effects of energy transport projects." Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects originally appeared on
