Latest news with #SurfaceTransportationBoard
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court eases key environmental law to speed development projects
The Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects in a ruling that could accelerate development of railroads, highways and pipelines around the country. The 8-0 decision follows an appeal to the high court from backers of a multibillion-dollar oil railroad expansion project in Utah, which is aimed at quadrupling oil production in the remote area of sandstone and sagebrush. Environmental groups said the decision would have sweeping impacts on how the National Environmental Policy Act is applied. The landmark environmental law requires federal agencies to study the likely environmental impacts of government-funded projects in an often lengthy review process. President Donald Trump's administration has already said it's speeding up that process after the president in January declared a national energy emergency and vowed to boost US oil and gas production. Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to the decision as a course correction in an opinion fully joined by four conservative colleagues. Congress did not design NEPA for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects, he wrote. The three liberal justices agreed the Utah project should get its approval, but they would have taken a narrower path. The justices reversed a lower court decision that required a more thorough environmental assessment and restored an important approval from federal regulators on the Surface Transportation Board. The board's chair, Patrick Fuchs, said the ruling reins in the scope of environmental reviews that are unnecessarily hindering infrastructure construction throughout the country. The case centres on the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile (142-kilometre) expansion that would connect the oil-rich region of northeast Utah to the national rail network, allowing oil and gas producers to access larger markets and sell to refineries near the Gulf of Mexico. The state's crude oil production was valued at USD 4.1 billion in 2024, according to a Utah Geological Survey report, and could increase substantially under the expansion project. Construction, though, does not appear to be imminent. Project leaders must win additional approvals and secure funding from private-sector partners before they can break ground, said Uinta Basin Railway spokesperson Melissa Cano. Environmental groups and a Colorado county had argued that regulators must consider a broad range of potential impacts when they consider new development, such as increased wildfire risk, the effect of additional crude oil production from the area and increased refining in Gulf Coast states. The justices, though, found that regulators were right to consider the direct effects of the project, rather than the wider upstream and downstream impacts. Kavanaugh wrote that courts should defer to regulators on where to draw the line on what factors to take into account. The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyse it, he said. The court's conservative majority has taken steps to curtail the power of federal regulators in other cases, however, including striking down the decades-old Chevron doctrine that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a concurrence that the court could have simply cleared the way for the railway approval by saying that regulators did not need to consider increased fossil fuel production tied to the project. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case after facing calls to step aside over ties to Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire whose ownership of oil wells in the area means he could benefit if the project goes through. Gorsuch, as a lawyer in private practice, had represented Anschutz. The ruling follows Trump's vow to boost drilling and shift away from former President Joe Biden's focus on renewable energy to combat climate change. The administration announced last month it's speeding up environmental reviews of projects required under the same law at the centre of the Utah case, compressing a process that typically takes a year or more into just weeks. The court's decision gives agencies a green light to ignore the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decisions and avoid confronting them, said Sambhav Sankar, senior vice president of programmes at Earthjustice. Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Centre for Biological Diversity, said opponents would continue to fight the Utah project. This disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy," she said. Utah Gov Spencer Cox, a Republican, said the ruling affirms a balanced approach to environmental oversight. He praised the railroad expansion as a critical infrastructure project that will help restore America's energy independence and bolster the state's rural economy. The project's public partner, a group of seven Utah counties, also applauded the ruling. It represents a turning point for rural Utah bringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability," said Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court wants to make it easier to build
The Supreme Court handed down an opinion on Thursday that reads like it was written by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, the authors of an influential book arguing that excessive regulation of land use and development has made it too difficult to build housing and infrastructure in the United States. (Ezra is also a co-founder of Vox.) Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado concerns a proposed railroad line that would run through 88 miles of Utah, connecting the state's oil-rich Uinta Basin to the broader national rail network. The line is expected to make it easier to transport crude oil extracted in this region to refineries elsewhere in the country. The Court's opinion in Seven County places strict new limits on a federal law that a lower court relied upon to prevent this line from being constructed — limits that should make it easier for developers to build large-scale projects. Before this rail project can move forward, it must be approved by the Surface Transportation Board. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), moreover, this board is required to produce an environmental impact statement, which identifies any significant environmental effects from the rail project as well as ways to mitigate those effects. Significantly, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh explains in the Court's Seven County opinion, 'NEPA imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions' on the board or on any other federal agency. It requires agencies to identify potential environmental harms that could arise out of development projects that they approve, but once those harms are identified in an environmental impact statement, the agency is free to decide that the benefits of the project outweigh those harms. Nevertheless, NEPA is often a significant hindrance to land development because litigants who oppose a particular project — be they environmental groups or just private citizens looking to shut development down — can often sue, claiming that the federal agency that must approve the project did not prepare an adequate environmental impact statement. As a result, Kavanaugh writes in his Seven County opinion, 'litigation-averse agencies…take ever more time…to prepare ever longer EISs for future projects.' Indeed, the Seven County case itself is a poster child for just how burdensome NEPA can be. The Surface Transportation Board produced an environmental impact statement that is more than 3,600 pages, and it goes into great detail about the rail line's potential impact on topics ranging from water quality to vulnerable species, such as the greater sage-grouse. Nevertheless, a federal appeals court blocked the project because it determined that this 3,600-page report did not adequately discuss the environmental impacts of making it easier to extract oil from the Uinta Basin. The appeals court reasoned that the agency needed to consider not just the direct environmental impacts of the rail line itself but also the impact of increased drilling and oil refining after the project is complete. All eight of the justices that heard the Seven County case (Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused) agreed that this appeals court decision was wrong, although Kavanaugh's majority opinion for himself and his Republican colleagues is broader than a separate opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The justices' agreement in Seven County, moreover, mirrors a growing bipartisan consensus that NEPA has become too much of a burden to development. As Kavanaugh notes in his opinion, President Joe Biden signed legislation in 2023 that limits environmental impact statements to 150 pages and requires them to be completed in two years or less. Still, Kavanaugh's opinion goes even further, repeatedly instructing courts to be deferential to an agency's decision to greenlight a project after producing an environmental impact statement. One striking thing about Kavanaugh's opinion is how closely it mirrors the rhetoric of liberal proponents of an 'abundance' agenda, which seeks to raise American standards of living by promoting large infrastructure projects. These proponents often claim that well-meaning laws intended to advance liberal values can have the opposite effect when they impose too many burdens on developers. As Kavanaugh argues, NEPA has 'transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool' that even stymies clean energy projects ranging 'from wind farms to hydroelectric dams, from solar farms to geothermal wells.' Broadly speaking, Kavanaugh's opinion imposes two limits on future NEPA lawsuits. The first is simply a blunt statement that courts should be highly reluctant to second-guess an agency's decision that it has conducted an adequate environmental review. As Kavanaugh writes, 'the bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.' Kavanaugh also criticizes the appeals court for blocking one project — the Utah rail line — because of the environmental impacts of 'geographically separate projects that may be built' as a result of that rail line, such as an oil refinery elsewhere in the country. As Kavanaugh writes, 'the effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency's decisionmaking process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects.' Both Kavanaugh and the separate opinion by Sotomayor also point to the fact that 'the Board here possesses no regulatory authority over those separate projects.' That is, while the transportation board is tasked with approving rail lines, other agencies are in charge of regulating projects, such as oil wells or refineries. As Sotomayor writes, an agency is not required to consider environmental harms that it has 'no authority to prevent.' So Seven County is a fairly significant victory for land developers as well as for traditional libertarians and for liberal proponents of an abundance agenda. It significantly weakens a statute that has long been a bête noire of developers.
Axios
4 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
SCOTUS clears path for more crude trains through Colorado
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that federal agencies aren't required to consider broader environmental impacts of infrastructure projects they don't directly control. Why it matters: The decision greenlights construction of the controversial 88-mile Uinta Basin Railway, which would carry thousands of barrels of crude oil through western Colorado, and beyond, along the Colorado River — the nation's most endangered waterway — toward Gulf Coast refineries. State of play: The high court sided with Utah's Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, overturning a lower court ruling that had favored Colorado's Eagle County and environmental groups. The federal Surface Transportation Board approved the railway in 2021 after conducting a review that resulted in a 3,600-page report. Eagle County and numerous environmental groups sued, arguing the report failed to adequately account for potential environmental risks — including oil spills and wildfire-causing sparks — as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). What they're saying: "Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court. "The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it." The other side: Environmental advocates and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser blasted the ruling. The "risky scheme" poses "major risks" to Colorado Western slope communities, Weiser said in a statement, adding the court's opinion "allows agencies to ignore the upstream and downstream environmental harms of projects." The intrigue: Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case after concerns were raised over his ties to Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz, who owns oil wells in Colorado and Utah. What's next: With the Supreme Court's decision, the railway has a clear path forward — at least legally. But opposition at the local level isn't over.
Fast Company
4 days ago
- Business
- Fast Company
Supreme Court clears way for Utah oil project, scaling back a key environmental law
The Supreme Court backed a multibillion-dollar oil railroad expansion in Utah Thursday in a ruling that scales back a key environmental law for projects around the country. The 8-0 decision comes after an appeal to the high court from backers of the project, which is aimed at quadrupling oil production in the remote area of sandstone and sagebrush. Environmental groups said the decision would have sweeping impacts on National Environmental Policy Act reviews. The Trump administration has already said it's speeding up that process after the president vowed to boost U.S. oil and gas development. The case centers on the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile (142-kilometer) expansion that would connect oil and gas producers to the broader rail network and allow them to access larger markets. Supporters have argued that streamlining environmental reviews would speed up development. The justices reversed a lower court decision and restored a critical approval from federal regulators on the Surface Transportation Board. The project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles. Environmental groups and a Colorado county had argued that regulators must consider a broad range of potential impacts when they consider new development, such as increased wildfire risk, the effect of additional crude oil production from the area and increased refining in Gulf states. The justices, though, found that regulators were right to consider the direct effects of the project, rather than the wider upstream and downstream impact. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that courts should defer to regulators on 'where to draw the line' on what factors to take into account. Four other conservative justices joined his opinion. 'Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,' he wrote of the policy act reviews. 'The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it.' The court's conservative majority court has taken steps to curtail the power of federal regulators in other cases, including striking down the decades-old Chevron doctrine that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the outcome, but with a narrower legal reasoning. In a decision joined by her two liberal colleagues, she said the court could have simply cleared the way for the railway approval by finding the board didn't need to take into account any harm caused by the oil that might eventually be carried on the railway. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case after facing calls to step aside over ties to Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire whose ownership of oil wells in the area means he could benefit if the project goes through. Gorsuch, as a lawyer in private practice, had represented Anschutz. The ruling comes after President Donald Trump's vow to boost U.S. oil and gas drilling and move away from former President Joe Biden's focus on climate change. The administration announced last month it's speeding up environmental reviews of projects required under the same law at the center of the Utah case, compressing a process that typically takes a year or more into just weeks. 'The court's decision gives agencies a green light to ignore the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decisions and avoid confronting them,' said Sambhav Sankar, senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice. Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said opponents would continue to fight the Utah project. 'This disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy,' she said. The project's public partner applauded the ruling. 'It represents a turning point for rural Utah — bringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability,' said Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court endorses narrow environmental reviews in challenge to Utah railroad project
WASHINGTON — In a win for business interests that chafe at burdensome environmental studies, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave a boost to a planned 88-mile railroad project that would transport crude oil in Utah. The court ruled in favor of an alliance of local counties that support the project, called the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, concluding that the federal environmental review process did not have to consider potential broader, indirect impacts. The conservative-majority court was unanimous on the bottom line, although the three liberal justices differed on the reasoning. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case. The court ruled that consideration of broader downstream impacts of the project were not required under a federal law called the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, said some federal judges have incorrectly applied NEPA and allowed it to be used as a broad weapon to challenge major development projects. "NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents ... to try to stop or at least slow down new infrastructure and construction projects," he wrote. This has the effect of delaying projects for years, Kavanaugh said. "Fewer projects make it to the finish line. Indeed, fewer projects make it to the starting line," he added. "Those that survive often end up costing much more than is anticipated or necessary." Environmental groups that had challenged the railroad's approval decried the ruling, with Sam Sankar, a lawyer at Earthjustice, saying it undermined precedent that said federal agencies should "look before they leap when approving projects that could harm communities and the environment." Although the coalition won at the Supreme Court, the project still has to undergo further review by the federal Surface Transportation Board before it can move forward. The railroad would bring oil from the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah by connecting the area to the national rail network. "It represents a turning point for rural Utah — bringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability," said Keith Heaton, the coalition's director. The opposition to the project was led by Eagle County, Colorado, which claims it will suffer from downstream effects of the railroad, and several environmental groups. The county's lawyers said it would be directly affected by the project, with 9 out of every 10 trains that use the new railroad eventually passing through it on an existing line that runs along the Colorado River. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who also opposes the plan, said in a statement that NEPA should require "projects to be fully informed of all potential environmental hazards before shovels go into the ground." The Surface Transportation Board conducted an environmental review and gave the railroad the green light to move forward. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found flaws in the analysis as well as other parts of the approval process, and in a 2023 ruling sent it back to the agency for further review. The case arose as NEPA has faced criticism for unnecessarily slowing down major projects. In 2023, then-President Joe Biden signed new legislation that sought to streamline the process. It requires agencies to only consider "reasonably foreseeable" climate impacts and limits reports to 150 pages. Gorsuch stepped aside after the court had agreed to hear the case, citing the court's ethics rules. Liberal groups and more than a dozen members of Congress had urged him to recuse himself over his previous links to billionaire Philip Anschutz. One of Anschutz's companies, Anschutz Exploration Corp., which drills for oil and gas, filed a brief in the case backing the coalition. This article was originally published on
