environmental impact statements
NEPA in the Supreme Court: The Seven Counties Oral Argument
Some arguments surfaced in the discussion that the Court would do well to ignore.
Several arguments popped up in the Supreme Court’s discussion of a major NEPA case that appealed to at least some of the Justices. We think that they would do well to rethink them. Each of the arguments distracts attention from what ought to be the key question: what impacts should the agency take into account in making its decision? We hope, when it comes time to draft opinions, the Justices will think through the arguments a little more fully and head in a different direction.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court — On the Eve of Oral Argument
Some thoughts about how the Court should define some limits on indirect effects.
Our paper on the proper scope of NEPA places heavy emphasis on foreseeability, but in an expanded version of the paper we consider some unusual situations where additional factors come into play. This additional analysis makes clear important limits on NEPA scope that we think address at least some of the concerns that have (appropriately) been raised about ever-expanding NEPA review and the risk that it will hamper efforts to develop needed infrastructure.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part IV)
Understanding how causation applies for NEPA reviews.
This functional approach is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, based on the text and purposes of NEPA, and provides workable guidelines for agencies to determine what kinds of effects to examine when conducting environmental reviews. It is the approach the Court should follow when deciding Seven Counties, and when giving guidance to lower courts and agencies about how to apply NEPA.
CONTINUE READINGThe 2023 NEPA Rewrite and the Supreme Court’s New Climate Case
NEPA isn’t a common law subject. What the statute says matters more than pre-2023 judicial opinions.
When it amended NEPA in 2023, Congress squarely rejected language that would have constricted the definition of environmental impacts. The Supreme Court needs to give that language full effect, not obsess about the meaning of pre-2023 judicial opinions.The Supreme Court shouldn’t give advocates of narrowing NEPA a victory that they were unable to get through the legislative process.
CONTINUE READINGWill the NEPA Amendments Speed Up Permitting?
Probably not much. If at all.
I’ve blogged quite a bit about the challenges of interpreting the NEPA amendments, which snuck through as part of last year’s debt ceiling bill. I haven’t said much about their impact. Given the amount of energy infrastructure we need to build in the near future, a streamlined permitting process would be great. Alas, I don’t …
Continue reading “Will the NEPA Amendments Speed Up Permitting?”
CONTINUE READINGThe Statutory EIS Process: A Primer
Last year, Congress tried to codify NEPA law. Here’s how the process is supposed to work.
Because NEPA’s discussion of environmental impact statements (EIS) was very brief, the requirements and procedures were elaborated by courts and guidance from a White House office. That changed in 2023, because much of the subject is now covered explicitly by new statutory language.. Thus, NEPA is a bit less of a “common law” subject than …
Continue reading “The Statutory EIS Process: A Primer”
CONTINUE READINGFinetuning the New NEPA Rules
CEQ’s proposal is good, but it could be made even better.
In Monday’s post, I praised the CEQ’s proposed new NEPA regulations. They should streamline the process without compromising protection of the environment or environmental justice. I do have some suggestions for improvement, however, which are detailed below. Beyond my specific suggestions, I also hope that CEQ would view the new NEPA regulations as the beginning …
Continue reading “Finetuning the New NEPA Rules”
CONTINUE READINGThe NEPA Amendments in Nine Blog Posts
Surveying the legal problems of the biggest NEPA changes in the past fifty years.
On June 5, President Biden signed the debt ceiling bill, which provides the first significant rewrite of NEPA since it was passed over fifty years ago. In a series of blog posts, I’ve explored some of the legal issues raised by the amendments. My goal has been highlighting problem areas rather than providing anything like …
Continue reading “The NEPA Amendments in Nine Blog Posts”
CONTINUE READINGHaving the Fox Guard the Henhouse?
Delegating Environmental Reviews to Project Sponsors
One of the most important provisions, of the new NEPA law, § 107(f), allows the lead agency to delegate preparation of environmental reviews to project applicants. There are unsettled questions about when this provision applies and how it interfaces with other parts of NEPA. There are clear conflicts of interest in assigning this role to …
Continue reading “Having the Fox Guard the Henhouse?”
CONTINUE READINGCEQ and Permitting Reform
The enactment of NEPA 2.0 presents a golden opportunity for the agency.
In the recent debt ceiling law, Congress extensively revamped NEPA, the law governing environmental impact statements. An obscure White House agency, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), will have the first opportunity to shape the interpretation of the new language. Much of the language in the new law is poorly drafted or vague, making CEQ’s …
Continue reading “CEQ and Permitting Reform”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
