Latest news with #UintaBasin
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
US supreme court sides with Utah railway project challenged by environmentalists
The US supreme court bolstered on Thursday a Utah railway project intended to transport crude oil, ruling against environmental groups and a Colorado county that had challenged its federal approval. The 8-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that had halted the project and had faulted an environmental impact statement issued by a federal agency called the Surface Transportation Board in approving the railway as too limited in scope. A coalition of seven Utah counties and an infrastructure investment group are seeking to construct an 88-mile (142km) railway line in north-eastern Utah to connect the sparsely populated Uinta Basin region to an existing freight rail network that would be used primarily to transport waxy crude oil. The case tested the scope of environmental impact studies that federal agencies must conduct under a US law called the National Environmental Policy Act, enacted in 1970 to prevent environmental harms that might result from major projects. The law mandates that agencies examine the 'reasonably foreseeable' effects of a project. The supreme court heard arguments on 10 December in the case, which has been closely watched by companies and environmental groups for how the ruling might affect a wider range of infrastructure and energy projects. Environmental reviews that are too broad in scope can add years to the regulatory timeline, risking a project's viability and future infrastructure development, according to companies and business trade groups. The Surface Transportation Board, which has regulatory authority over new railroad lines, issued an environmental impact statement and approved the railway proposal in 2021. The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups sued over approval, as did Colorado's Eagle county, which noted that the project would increase train traffic in its region and double traffic on an existing rail line along the Colorado River. The US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit ruled in favor of the challengers in 2023, concluding that the environmental review inadequately analyzed the effects of increased oil production in the basin as well as downstream, where the oil would be refined. Democratic former president Joe Biden's administration had backed the railway coalition in the case, as did the state of Utah. Fifteen other states supported the challengers. Colorado said its economy relies on outdoor recreation, and that the project raises the risk of leaks, spills or rail car accidents near the Colorado River's headwaters. Conservative justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case after some Democratic lawmakers urged his withdrawal because businessman Philip Anschutz, his former legal client, has a financial interest in its outcome.
E&E News
4 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Supreme Court sets tighter limits on NEPA reviews
The Supreme Court on Thursday placed new limits on environmental reviews for major federal projects such as pipelines and railways. In a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the justices found that a lower court should more narrowly tailor National Environmental Policy Act analyses to focus on effects that are close to projects under review and fall directly under the purview of approving agencies. 'Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock. The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it,' said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing the opinion for the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett. Advertisement Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence with the court's judgment, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from considering the case. The decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County is expected to have significant implications for how courts handle lawsuits over NEPA reviews, as the Trump administration has vowed to boost fossil fuel development and streamline project permitting. The ruling is a win for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, an independent arm of the Utah state government, which claimed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had overstepped when it required more NEPA analysis for the 88-mile Uinta Basin Railway. The project is designed to carry crude oil out of the Uinta Basin and connect it to the national railway network, where it would travel to Gulf Coast refineries. The D.C. Circuit ruled in 2023 that the Surface Transportation Board had to go back to work to consider how construction of the rail line could lead to more environmental harm from increased oil drilling and refining. Officials from Eagle County, Colorado, and environmental groups opposed to the Utah rail line had lauded the D.C. Circuit ruling as aligning with NEPA's requirements to consider reasonably foreseeable impacts of new projects.
New York Times
4 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Supreme Court Curbs Scope of Environmental Reviews
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that a federal agency had done enough to consider the environmental impact of a proposed 88-mile railway in Utah. The ruling limits the scope of environmental reviews required by federal law in all sorts of settings. The proposed railway would connect oil fields in the Uinta Basin in northeast Utah to a national rail network that runs next to the Colorado River and then to refineries on the Gulf Coast. 'An agency may weigh environmental consequences as the agency reasonably sees fit,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for five justices. The court's three liberal members agreed with the decision's bottom line but on narrower grounds. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was recused. The Surface Transportation Board, a federal agency that regulates rail transportation, approved the Utah project in 2021 after conducting a review that yielded a 3,600-page report. Environmental groups and a Colorado county sued, saying the report had not taken account of some ways in which the railway could do harm to the environment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled for the challengers. The environmental impact statements required by a 1970 federal law, the National Environmental Policy Act, can be quite elaborate. Paul D. Clement, a lawyer representing seven Utah counties that support the project, told the justices when the case was argued in December that the law was 'the single most litigated environmental statute.' He added that the board had acted responsibly. 'It consulted with dozens of agencies, considered every proximate effect and ordered 91 mitigation measures,' he said, referring to measures intended to, among other things, dampen noise pollution and protect wildlife. 'Eighty-eight miles of track should not require more than 3,600 pages of environmental analysis.' William M. Jay, a lawyer for the challengers, said at the argument that the report did not consider all the reasonably foreseeable results of the project, like oil spills and sparks that can cause wildfires, as required by the federal law. The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo., No. 23-975, was argued before an eight-member court after Justice Gorsuch recused himself, apparently over concerns that his ties to Philip F. Anschutz gave rise to a conflict of interest. Neither Mr. Anschutz, a billionaire and Republican donor, nor his companies are parties to the case, and the letter announcing Justice Gorsuch's recusal gave no reasons. But the proposed railway could benefit companies in which Mr. Anschutz has an interest. Justice Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz and his companies as a lawyer, benefited from his support when he was being considered for a seat on an appeals court and once served as a keynote speaker at an annual party at his ranch.
Reuters
4 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
US Supreme Court sides with Utah railway challenged by environmentalists
May 29 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court bolstered on Thursday a Utah railway project intended to transport crude oil, ruling against environmental groups and a Colorado county that had challenged its federal approval. The 8-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that had halted the project and had faulted an environmental impact statement issued by a federal agency called the Surface Transportation Board in approving the railway as too limited in scope. A coalition of seven Utah counties and an infrastructure investment group are seeking to construct an 88-mile (142-km) railway line in northeastern Utah to connect the sparsely populated Uinta Basin region to an existing freight rail network that would be used primarily to transport waxy crude oil. The case tested the scope of environmental impact studies that federal agencies must conduct under a U.S. law called the National Environmental Policy Act, enacted in 1970 to prevent environmental harms that might result from major projects. The law mandates that agencies examine the "reasonably foreseeable" effects of a project. The Supreme Court heard arguments on Dec. 10 in the case, which has been closely watched by companies and environmental groups for how the ruling might affect a wider range of infrastructure and energy projects. Environmental reviews that are too broad in scope can add years to the regulatory timeline, risking a project's viability and future infrastructure development, according to companies and business trade groups. The Surface Transportation Board, which has regulatory authority over new railroad lines, issued an environmental impact statement and approved the railway proposal in 2021. The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups sued over approval, as did Colorado's Eagle County, which noted that the project would increase train traffic in its region and double traffic on an existing rail line along the Colorado River. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the challengers in 2023, concluding that the environmental review inadequately analyzed the effects of increased oil production in the basin as well as downstream, where the oil would be refined. Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration had backed the railway coalition in the case, as did the state of Utah. Fifteen other states supported the challengers. Colorado said its economy relies on outdoor recreation, and that the project raises the risk of leaks, spills or rail car accidents near the Colorado River's headwaters. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case after some Democratic lawmakers urged his withdrawal because businessman Philip Anschutz, his former legal client, has a financial interest in its outcome.
