Latest news with #NEPA
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Raising the flag in Scranton to mark start of Pride Month
SCRANTON, LACKAWANNA COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU) — In Scranton, officials raised the rainbow flag on the grounds of City Hall to mark the start of Pride Month. The city has been holding this ceremony since 2018. They consider it a symbolic show of support and inclusion, and to demonstrate the Electric City's commitment to the LGBTQ+ community. 'We've always had support from the city and its members and we're happy to see that continue as well as our community members coming out every year to celebrate the first day of Pride,' Queer NEPA Fundraising and Social Media Chair Lindsy Smigel told 28/22 News. Ruth's Place postpones Walk for Hope 'I think it's more important than ever to show solidarity and equality amongst everybody, and it's really nice to have the city of Scranton's support, continued support on that,' Frank Carey, performing as 'Lady Lydia,' explained. The pride flag will remain displayed throughout the month at Scranton City Hall. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Bloomberg
2 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.'
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Perils of 'The Precautionary Principle' in Environmental Law
Risk management prism - Getty Creative getty In a rare show of unity on May 29, 2025, The U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled 8-0 in favor of limiting the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The court recognized that despite many noble intentions, the law has been misapplied as an ideological stalling tool against not only resource extraction projects but also renewable energy projects. All court justices appeared to acknowledge that there is a big difference between responsible environmentalism and environmental obstructionism. This case is particularly notable since it involved a fossil fuels pipeline project in Utah and the three liberal justices could have used this as a way to make a statement on the salience of climate change. Yet, all justices rightly recognized that the law has been misapplied, albeit there was a less strident concurrence submitted by the three liberal justices in the case. While at its surface this decision may be about 'process' but there is an underlying realization by the justices that modern environmentalism has become risk averse beyond a 'broad zone of reasonableness.' The court has indirectly taken a swipe at the 'precautionary principle' which emphasizes taking proactive measures to protect the environment in the face of uncertainty. The origins of this principle can be found in the German concept of Vorsorgeprinzip, which by some measures is better translated as the 'foresight principle.' Such a translation suggests a positive anticipatory action rather than a negative status quo decision, but the essential element is social risk aversion in the context of environmental harm. Yet it is important to note that the absence of evidence of harm is not the same thing as evidence of the absence of harm. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit), in 1992, put forward an 'Agenda for the 21st Century' (called Agenda 21) where 'Principle 15,' enshrined this precaution as follows: 'In order to protect the environment the Precautionary Approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost- effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.' Although this principle has normative value as an ethical aspiration, operationalizing it in the context of maintaining social order in a complex environment of competing goals is next to impossible. For example, if we followed this principle to its core, there would be no process of clinical trials for drug development. Nevertheless, the precautionary principle provides an alternative to reactive decision-making, which might cause irreversible harm to Earth's ecosystems and the communities who rely on those natural resources. Ecological concerns such as climate change might also fall into this category. However, communicating risks to the public in such circumstances of fear and activism can lead to 'social amplification' as was argued by geographer Roger Kasperson in his seminal work on this topic. Uncertainty and doubt become a defining excuse for inaction or a 'precautionary pause,' as has been argued in cases for moratoria for various technologies (which I have argued elsewhere need to be considered on a case-by-case basis). Lack of 'enough' data, and hence the need for more research or expertise, has often been used as a stalling tool. Such interventions span the full spectrum of views around our ecological predicament. On the one hand, uncertainty arguments on impacts are used by the fossil fuel industry to perpetuate the status quo around carbon emissions. On the other hand, many environmentalists have used uncertainty about the safety of nuclear technology to call for its phase- out. If we keep unpacking arguments for and against a particular technology, the conversation spirals into a battle of uncertainties. Precaution operates on a spectrum, as with any human endeavor, and the 'precautionary principle' cannot be used as an excuse for indefinite inertia in a world with competing challenges. Caution is in order, but indeterminate precaution is an untenable postulate that can lead to 'paralysis by analysis.' In their landmark book the 1983, Risk and Culture, Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky alerted us to the deceptive objectification of risk. Ultimately, risk in a complex world of competing and intersecting phenomena is a socially constructed phenomenon. Going back to the Bible, they note that the dietary laws of Leviticus may have stemmed from some degree of medical materialism but were ultimately about a cultural delineation of boundaries and the social construction of risk. Another curious insight from Douglas and Wildavsky's work is how 'dirt' is a form of disruption to socially constructed order and, even when it is harmless— or perhaps even helpful in the case of nutrient transfer to arable land— it is deemed impure and repugnant. The authors of this classic collaboration between an anthropologist (Douglas) and a political scientist (Wildavsky) maintained that, strategically, keeping a balance between anticipating harm and trusting resilience is the essence of managing risk. The law of diminishing returns can be applied to this process, whereby each marginal risk prevention effort does not reap concomitant rewards. Douglas and Wildavsky showed that excessive safety targeted at a particular technology like nuclear power implementation could undermine overall systems' safety because alternatives can appear more attractive than they actually are when considering the full scale and scope of return on investment. The economic marginalization of nuclear power is an intriguing case in point. Massive safety upgrade requirements to existing nuclear power plants have rendered them uneconomical, thereby making the climate mitigation targets more challenging to reach in the short- term as other low carbon sources are up- scaled. For functional purposes, a systems science approach is needed to consider the way forward for evaluating risks. For a certain narrow class of outcomes that could lead to system-wide 'ruin,' even in low probabilities, risk analyst Nassem Taleb (author of the bestselling Incerto series of books including The Black Swan) has argued that the precautionary principle can be applied for decisions. However, defining 'ruin' remains subjective as apocalyptic narratives can too easily be used in environmental activism for this purpose in areas like GMOs or nuclear energy. Instead of such subjectivity which would again take us down the paralysis path, what is more appropriate is to have an incrementalist approach to adaptive decision-making that can quickly act on specific contingencies emerging. The Australian researcher Jayden Hayman has suggested such an adaptive management approach to environmental regulatory decisions on controversial developments such as deep-sea mining. Coming back to the implications of the Supreme Court verdict, regulatory agencies will now be able to have more effective rulemaking without the constant shadow of cascading lawsuits that are predicated on a misapplication of the precautionary principle. One of my mentors from graduate school days, law professor Daniel Esty argued for such 'optimal environmental governance' approach to improving regulatory performance in a seminal paper many years back. Indeed, even environmental organizations recognized the challenge of operationalizing precaution, particularly around biodiversity conservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognized that inevitably there would be a 'value-based balancing' of tradeoffs involved in operationalizing the precautionary principle. Paradoxically, precaution when applied with specious slippery slope arguments, itself can lead to perilous outcomes for societal innovation and sustainability.
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
E&E News
3 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Interior using new expedited reviews for geothermal projects
The Interior Department announced Friday it will use a new streamlined environmental review process to evaluate three proposed geothermal power projects in Nevada. The environmental assessments for the three smaller-scale projects, all proposed by Ormat Nevada, will be completed within 14 days, Interior announced Friday. The three projects are the first geothermal energy projects to undergo the streamlined process for shortening National Environmental Policy Act reviews of simpler projects to 14 days and up to 28 days for more complex proposals. Interior outlined the changes last month, leading to an outcry from critics. Advertisement Friday's announcement is the latest effort by the Trump administration to target the NEPA process, which opponents have long argued is onerous and has slowed development of important projects. Republicans have focused on complicated environmental impact statements for bigger projects, which typically take about two years to complete.
