Supreme Court Considers Crucial Boundaries for Federal Environmental Law

The U.S. Supreme Court’s justices showed a willingness on Tuesday to reconsider a significant federal environmental law as they examined a case involving a contentious oil train project in Utah. This legal battle, brought forth by Coloradans opposing the Uinta Basin Railway, could lead to substantial changes in how environmental reviews are conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The railway, spanning 88 miles, is designed to connect the Uinta Basin oil field to the national rail network. If approved, it would significantly increase crude oil production in the region, facilitating shipments through the Colorado River Valley and Denver metropolitan areas. Environmental advocates argue that the project could more than double the total U.S. oil transport via rail, posing serious risks to safety and the environment.

Last year, the D.C. Circuit Court sided with Colorado’s Eagle County and several environmental groups, highlighting “numerous” violations of NEPA in its approval of the project. This ruling has prompted the Utah county governments behind the railway to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Paul Clement, a prominent attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General, represented the petitioners. He characterized NEPA as a tool intended to guide decisions rather than impede progress, emphasizing the need for infrastructure investment. “For investors, time is money,” he explained, framing the urgency for regulatory change.

The petitioners seek new limitations on NEPA reviews, advocating for a “proximate cause” standard derived from tort law. This would represent a significant shift in NEPA’s applications, potentially altering its foundational intent. However, during the proceedings, Clement faced challenges articulating a clear framework for this proposed standard.

The federal government has urged the Court to take a more measured approach, claiming the lower court’s decision was flawed but expressing concern that the proposed alterations would go too far. Edwin Kneedler, the deputy solicitor general, requested that the matter be returned for further consideration without making sweeping changes to NEPA.

William Jay, representing Eagle County, argued that the project’s ramifications are indeed “reasonably foreseeable.” He highlighted the expansion of oil and gas operations, increased emissions, and accident risks as being integral to considerations under NEPA.

The Uinta Basin Railway is projected to handle up to 350,000 barrels of oil per day, with hazardous materials traveling through sensitive ecological zones and densely populated urban areas. Environmental advocates, like Sam Sankar from Earthjustice, underscore the broader implications of the court’s ruling. “The fossil fuel industry is making radical arguments that could obscure the health impacts of government decisions,” he stated, urging the court to adhere to established legal standards.