Court restricts scope of environmental assessments, prioritizing speed for infrastructure development
The Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of environmental reviews for major transportation and energy projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in a unanimous decision on Thursday.
In the case Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Court ruled that regulators are not mandated to assess the environmental impacts caused by third parties, or upstream and downstream effects, of a project that is distinct in time or place from the specific project under review.
The decision comes as a response to concerns raised by industry groups regarding the costly delays in getting projects completed due to comprehensive environmental reviews. Narrowing the scope of such reviews is expected to facilitate the construction of similar projects nationwide.
The environmental impact statement for the proposed 88-mile railway at the heart of the case, linking the oil-rich Uinta Basin of Utah with the national rail network in Colorado, has undergone years of analysis. The statement exceeds 3,600 pages, while environmental groups argued that it failed to consider potential risks such as oil spills in the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf, and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change due to oil exports.
Since the Court ruled that agencies should exercise greater deference in such cases, the decision may face additional opposition from environmental groups and curb future efforts to extend comprehensive NEPA requirements.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, expressed that the extensive use of NEPA to obstruct energy and infrastructure programs has overwhelmed the initial intention of the legislation and needs to be reined in. The Court acknowledged the environmental concerns but deemed them too detached from the specific project's direct impact to require assessment.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to explain their reasoning.
The ruling is likely to ease regulatory burdens and promote infrastructure development, particularly for projects like pipelines or transmission lines, and may impact the environmental reviews conducted by agencies under various administrations in the future.
Specialists in energy and transportation law have hailed the decision as an important corrective, demonstrating the need for greater deference from courts to the agencies responsible for environmental reviews and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand expansion of the study's purview to consider upstream and downstream effects.
- The Supreme Court's decision on NEPA is likely to face opposition from environmental groups, as it reduces the requirement for regulators to assess environmental impacts caused by third parties and upstream and downstream effects.
- The environmental impact statement for the proposed railway project, which was at the heart of the case, has been criticized by environmental groups for not considering potential risks to the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf, and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change.
- The decision to narrow the scope of environmental reviews for major transportation and energy projects is expected to facilitate the construction of similar projects nationwide, which may lead to increased development in the energy and transportation industries.
- In her separate concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor argues that the Court's decision may curb future efforts to extend comprehensive NEPA requirements, potentially impacting the environmental reviews conducted by agencies under various administrations.
- The specialized opinion from experts in energy and transportation law sees the Court's decision as an important corrective, emphasizing the need for greater deference from courts to the agencies responsible for environmental reviews and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand expansion of the study's purview.
