3 days ago
Three takeaways from the Supreme Court's big NEPA ruling
Here are three takeaways from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that put new limits on federal reviews of infrastructure and energy projects.
Why it matters: Narrowing the National Environmental Policy Act's scope has giant implications for President Trump's pro-fossil "energy dominance" agenda.
1. This case is sneakily a huge deal. It wasn't among the highest-profile SCOTUS battles that touch environmental policy, like the "Chevron deference" and "major questions" rulings.
But a spin through the docket shows that powerful K Street lobbies, environmentalists, and senior members of Congress all took keen interest.
2. It could have long-term climate policy effects. One thing to watch over the horizon is how much it curtails future presidents from stitching carbon emissions into project decisions.
Biden-era officials were taking steps in that direction, though Trump 2.0 has been reversing them, such as this week's formal withdrawal of 2023 Council on Environmental Quality guidance.
3. It could have unpredictable effects. A hot center-left view these days is that NEPA (and other review layers) make it too hard to build anything — including low-carbon infrastructure.
Aidan Mackenzie of the Institute for Progress, writing on X, shouts out Justice Brett Kavanaugh for being "full abundance-pilled."
The Kavanaugh-written decision says NEPA thwarts all kinds of projects — including transmission and wind turbines.
Check out Mackenzie's entire thread, which delves into what discretion agencies will and won't have under the ruling.
Catch up quick: The case centered on federal approval of an 88-mile railway to carry oil from Utah's Uinta basin to larger rail networks and Gulf Coast refineries.
It reverses an appellate ruling that regulators needed to weigh matters beyond the railway's direct effects, such as drilling impacts, refining pollution and climate change.
"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," the 8-0 decision states.
The court's three liberals issued a concurrence on the fresh limits on NEPA reviews weighing upstream and downstream project effects.
But they ding the majority for "unnecessarily grounding its analysis largely in matters of policy."
What they're saying: The American Petroleum Institute applauded the court's "long overdue steps to restore NEPA to its original intent." But API said "common-sense permitting reform" is still needed.
On the flip side, the Center for Biological Diversity said the ruling "guarantees that bureaucrats can put their heads in the sand" on how projects affect ecosystems, wildlife and the climate.
