Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Federal Environmental Reviews

The Role of NEPA in Environmental Decision-Making

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) serves as a fundamental framework by requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major federal actions before making decisions. This ensures transparency and public involvement in scrutinizing how governmental activities might affect the environment.

Upcoming Supreme Court Case: A Turning Point?

On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court will evaluate the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. This marks the first significant NEPA-related dispute for the court in two decades. The decision has the potential to significantly reshape how NEPA requirements are applied, especially in relation to climate change considerations.

Understanding the ‘Rule of Reason’ Test

NEPA mandates that federal agencies produce an environmental impact statement detailing the “reasonably foreseeable environmental effects” of proposed actions. The complexity lies in categorizing such effects into:

• Direct effects: Immediate impacts, such as deforestation for infrastructure projects.
• Indirect effects: Subsequent impacts, possibly at a different time or place, initiated by the direct effects.
• Cumulative effects: Overall impact when combined with other similar past, present, and future actions.

Previously, the Supreme Court in 2004 held that agencies are only required to consider effects with a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the proposed action. Current debates center on how far agencies must go to assess these impacts.

The Eagle County Case: A Complex Scenario

The dispute involves a planned 85-mile rail line in Utah intended for transporting waxy crude oil, proposed by railway developers, and sanctioned by the Surface Transportation Board. Eagle County, Colorado, alongside environmental advocates, argues that the board’s environmental impact statement was insufficient. They suggest it overlooked significant indirect effects, such as those from increased oil drilling and further downstream oil processing.

Questions Around Agency Responsibilities

The core question before the Supreme Court is whether NEPA obligates agencies to study environmental impacts “beyond the proximate effects” of their regulated actions. This question involves two critical themes:

1. The Influence of Tort Law on NEPA Assessments

Typically, tort law focuses on the reasonable foreseeability of harm and its proximate cause. While courts have traditionally demanded a broader reach under NEPA, aligning these reviews more closely with tort law could limit the consideration of indirect effects.

2. The Scope of Agency Authority

This continues the debate about whether agencies should evaluate effects that fall outside their regulatory jurisdiction. The Seven County Coalition claims that such a broad reading overextends the agency’s responsibilities, allowing them to regulate actions far beyond their designated authority.

The Implications for Climate Change Policy

If the Supreme Court upholds a restrictive interpretation of NEPA responsibilities, federal agencies could perform minimal evaluations regarding the indirect effects of projects on climate change. This scrutiny typically involves deeper analyses of a project’s potential to exacerbate climate issues through indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

A favorable ruling for the rail developers could nullify long-standing practices under NEPA, prompting a new wave of litigation. Agencies might forego exploring how proposed activities contribute to climate change beyond their immediate impact.

Fostering an Informed Decision-Making Process

Proponents for a comprehensive approach argue that NEPA’s indirect effects scope plays a crucial role in democratizing environmental decision-making, empowering historically marginalized communities. Former federal officials and Democratic members of Congress have thrown their support behind a robust interpretation, aligning themselves with Eagle County’s perspective.

The outcome of this Supreme Court case may redefine federal environmental reviews, impacting infrastructure, energy production, and regulatory practices far beyond the present scope.

Source: https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-could-narrow-the-scope-of-federal-environmental-reviews-with-less-consideration-of-how-projects-would-contribute-to-climate-change-240390