The Supreme Court isn’t finished issuing the last few blockbuster rulings of its soon-to-expire term. But it’s already teed up a case for next year that could heap even more limits on agencies’ environmental protections. While the case centers on the Uinta Basin Railway — a proposed 88-mile rail line designed to transport oil from Utah to coastal ports or refineries — it taps into a larger battle on the speed and scope of federal reviews for energy and infrastructure projects, write Niina H. Farah and Pamela King. Developers have long complained that the environmental reviews mandated under the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act are onerous. For projects ranging from railways to power lines to natural gas terminals, the law requires agencies to examine how the proposal could disrupt habitat, pollute streams and worsen air quality. Republicans are pushing for speedier reviews (especially for oil and natural gas projects), while environmental groups are pressing permitting agencies to go deeper and wider to assess the way gas export terminals, pipelines or Arctic drilling plans might contribute to climate change. The Biden administration has sought a middle ground — in part because the solar, wind and other clean energy projects it champions also need federal permits. In August, a U.S. Court of Appeals determined that the federal Surface Transportation Board had improperly awarded a project for the Utah rail project. The court found that the agency failed to adequately analyze how increased drilling facilitated by the project, along with potential spills, could affect wildlife and coastal communities. Supporters of the rail line argue that those considerations lie outside the transportation agency’s regulatory scope. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition of Utah is asking the Supreme Court to clarify the powers and limits of the NEPA process. This means the court’s 6-3 conservative majority will have another chance to cut back the scope of environmental reviews — yet again. In 2022, the court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change. And last year’s decision concerning the federal government’s definition of “waters of the U.S.” stripped Washington’s protections from many of the nation’s wetlands and waterways. The court’s decision to take the NEPA case comes hours or days before a potentially even more seminal decision — its review of what’s known as the Chevron doctrine. Under the coming Chevron ruling, a conservative majority could make it easier for judges to second-guess the decisions of agencies and their policy experts The result could be massive uncertainty for regulations meant to respond to issues such as climate change, artificial intelligence and health inequities.
| 
