{"id":2378295,"date":"2024-12-10T05:37:01","date_gmt":"2024-12-10T10:37:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-weighs-fate-of-environmental-reviews-for-energy-projects-washington-examiner\/"},"modified":"2024-12-10T05:44:18","modified_gmt":"2024-12-10T10:44:18","slug":"supreme-court-weighs-fate-of-environmental-reviews-for-energy-projects-washington-examiner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-weighs-fate-of-environmental-reviews-for-energy-projects-washington-examiner\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court weighs fate of environmental reviews for energy projects &#8211; Washington Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">26<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fsupreme-court-weighs-fate-of-environmental-reviews-for-energy-projects-washington-examiner%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2378295&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>the Supreme Court\u2063 is set too hear a case titled *Seven \u200bCounty Infrastructure Coalition v. eagle\u2064 County*, which \u2064may substantially\u200b impact the federal\u2064 environmental review process established by the National Environmental Policy Act\u200b (NEPA).The ruling could \u200bdetermine\u200d whether\u200b federal agencies \u2063are required to\u200d assess the \u2064environmental consequences of \u200dthier actions, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/new-jobs-numbers-come-in-lower-than-expected-unemployment-rate-rises\/\" title=\"Latest Job Data Shows Lower Than Anticipated Numbers, Increase in Unemployment Rate\">including potential effects<\/a> that extend beyond their \u200cjurisdiction, which is crucial\u2062 for\u200d infrastructure \u200bprojects. <\/p>\n<p>At the center of the case is the approval of an 87-mile railway intended to connect Utah\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-pouring-billions-into-electric-public-transit\/\" title=\"Biden Pouring Billions Into Electric Public Transit\">crude oil refineries<\/a> to national rail networks.Proponents argue that the railway would facilitate \u2064oil \u200btransport to Gulf Coast refiners, while opponents contend that NEPA mandates an evaluation of the project&#8217;s \u2062environmental impact, including <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/white-house-releases-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-and-it-is-historic\/\" title=\"White House Releases List of President Trump\u2019s Accomplishments \u2013  And It Is Historic!\">greenhouse gas emissions<\/a> associated with its operation.<\/p>\n<p>The case\u200b reflects broader challenges highlighted by \u2062many Republicans, including President-elect Donald Trump, who\u200b have criticized NEPA for\u2064 hindering large infrastructure developments. Historically, a \u20632004 Supreme Court decision determined\u2063 that agencies do \u200dnot need to \u2063assess impacts\u200c that\u200d lie beyond \u2062their regulatory authority. However, the D.C. Circuit \u2063Court \u2064has ruled that, in this context, the Surface Transportation Board must \u2062consider broader environmental\u2064 impacts in its\u2062 decisions.<\/p>\n<p>The outcome of this case could\u2063 either\u2062 simplify or complicate future NEPA analyses, influencing how\u2062 agencies evaluate the \u200cenvironmental implications of federal \u200dprojects, \u2062particularly\u200c in\u200b light of the incoming administration&#8217;s\u2062 stance on environmental\u200d regulations.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Supreme Court weighs fate of environmental reviews for energy projects&nbsp;<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_1905717\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/supreme-court\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> will hear&nbsp;a case Tuesday that could redefine the scope of federal <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/environment\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">environmental<\/a> reviews under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/daily-on-energy\/3254950\/daily-on-energy-epa-bans-chemicals-used-in-dry-cleaning-byd-outpaces-ford-and-nepa-in-question\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">National Environmental Policy Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p>The eventual ruling in the case <em>Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County<\/em> could clarify whether federal agencies must evaluate the environmental effects of decisions they make, even if that involves addressing ramifications that go beyond the agencies&rsquo; jurisdiction and expertise &mdash; a question pivotal for infrastructure development <a href=\"https:\/\/ceq.doe.gov\/docs\/ceq-publications\/ccenepa\/sec1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">like roads and highways<\/a> or efforts to prevent overcrowding in national parks. It could also set the tone for how federal agencies address the effects of federal development projects on the climate under the incoming Trump administration, as Trump himself has criticized the law as stalling construction.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Pumpjacks dip their heads to extract oil in a basin south of Duchesne, Utah, Thursday, July 13, 2023. (AP Photo\/Rick Bowmer)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The justices are deciding whether the Surface Transportation Board should have considered damages to the overall environment when approving an 87-mile railway connecting Utah&rsquo;s crude oil refineries in the Uinta Basin to the national rail networks.<\/p>\n<p>The railway would enable transport to Gulf Coast refineries, but opponents argue that NEPA requires analysis of &ldquo;upstream&rdquo; and &ldquo;downstream&rdquo; effects, such as effects on the environment and greenhouse gas emissions, outside of the scope of the agency<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court fight is reflective of a common obstacle many Republicans, including President-elect Donald Trump, have cited as problematic for <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\">fulfilling large-scale infrastructure projects<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;They could stop you cold with the environmental impact study stuff,&rdquo; Trump told podcaster Joe Rogan in late October, referring to NEPA.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The legal debate over NEPA&rsquo;s reach<\/h2>\n<p>NEPA mandates that agencies study the environmental impacts of projects requiring federal permits. But in the 2004 decision&nbsp;<em>Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen<\/em>, the Supreme Court ruled agencies are not obligated to assess effects they lack statutory authority to prevent.<\/p>\n<p>The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, held that&nbsp;<em>Public Citizen<\/em>&nbsp;does not apply to the STB because its authority includes determining whether a project serves the &ldquo;public interest,&rdquo; which encompasses environmental considerations. Critics of NEPA say this interpretation risks transforming the law into a broad climate policy tool &mdash; a role Congress never intended.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The advocates in&nbsp;<em>Seven County<\/em>&nbsp;generally agree that the court can make NEPA analyses significantly easier or harder depending on its view of the scope of agency authority,&rdquo; Michael Drysdale, an environmental law expert at Dorsey &amp; Whitney, told the&nbsp;<em>Washington Examiner<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Because NEPA is purely procedural, the practical issues in&nbsp;<em>Seven County<\/em>&nbsp;&ldquo;are time and project risk,&rdquo; Drysdale said, adding, &ldquo;The more indirect and remote the impacts of a project are that an agency must study, the longer and more costly the study will be, and the more likely a reviewing court will require more analysis.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Wyatt Kendall, a partner at Morris, Manning &amp; Martin, sees the case as a turning point for numerous infrastructure projects that have been stalled and delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles imposed under NEPA.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;The Court is anticipated to adopt a narrow review of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-the-supreme-court-could-next-rein-in-the-biden-administration\/\" title=\"Supreme Court&#039;s potential limits on Biden administration\">federal agency power<\/a> and limit the extent of impacts required to be considered under NEPA. If that happens, this case could be a boon for many infrastructure projects seeking government approval,&rdquo; Kendall said.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Implications for energy policy<\/h2>\n<p>The case comes as the U.S. faces mounting energy challenges. Critics say that excessive red tape and litigation under NEPA have slowed critical infrastructure development, raising costs and jeopardizing energy expansion.<\/p>\n<p>Drysdale said the case brings to the forefront the &ldquo;recurring problem of boundary setting for environmental reviews&rdquo; under NEPA.<br \/><strong><br \/><\/strong>&ldquo;For any NEPA analysis, the responsible agencies must decide what&nbsp;environmental&nbsp;effects over what physical area and time are relevant to their decisions and should be studied,&rdquo; Drysdale added.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court&rsquo;s conservative majority has shown a willingness to limit regulatory overreach. Recent rulings in&nbsp;<em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/20-1530_n758.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Sackett v. EPA\">West Virginia v. EPA<\/a><\/em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/1958237\/supreme-court-scales-back-federal-authority-to-regulate-under-clean-water-act\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"Sackett v. EPA\">Sackett v. EPA<\/a><\/em>  narrowed agency authority under other environmental statutes.<\/p>\n<p>If the majority follows a similar trajectory,&nbsp;<em>Seven County<\/em>&nbsp;could curb the scope of environmental reviews, making it easier for projects such as pipelines, railways, and power plants to proceed.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">NEPA&rsquo;s procedural pitfalls<\/h2>\n<p>The case also highlights the murky legal foundation of NEPA regulations. <\/p>\n<p>The White House Council on Environmental Quality issued guidelines in 1978 requiring agencies to study the <a href=\"https:\/\/ceq.doe.gov\/publications\/cumulative_effects.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">&ldquo;cumulative effects&rdquo;<\/a> of government projects on the environment under NEPA. However, courts have treated these as binding rules, even though NEPA delegates no rulemaking authority to CEQ.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Roberts Court has increasingly scrutinized such administrative overreach, raising the possibility it could also address this issue. <\/p>\n<p>As the Trump administration prepares to take office, its deregulatory agenda may align with a ruling that streamlines NEPA reviews, reducing litigation risks for energy projects.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <script data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/cdn-cgi\/scripts\/5c5dd728\/cloudflare-static\/email-decode.min.js\"><\/script><script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1905717\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1905717\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court considers future of environmental reviews for energy projects<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2378296,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/AP23221778349056.webp","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[36765,46472,32275],"class_list":["post-2378295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-energy-projects","tag-environmental-reviews","tag-supreme-court"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/AP23221778349056.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2378295","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2378295"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2378295\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2378299,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2378295\/revisions\/2378299"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2378296"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2378295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2378295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2378295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}