Supreme Court’s Upcoming NEPA Case May Impact Climate Change Considerations

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, which evaluates whether federal agencies should consider indirect environmental impacts while reviewing projects under NEPA. A ruling favoring the rail developers could curtail agencies’ obligations to assess projects’ contributions to climate change, raising concerns about future environmental protections.

The upcoming Supreme Court case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, signifies a potential shift in federal environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The case addresses whether federal agencies should assess the indirect environmental impacts of projects they license, particularly in relation to climate change. Historically, NEPA requires a comprehensive analysis of the environmental consequences of significant actions, yet recent interpretations may allow agencies to limit their assessments largely to direct effects, thereby potentially excluding upstream and downstream impacts that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. This could fundamentally alter how climate change is incorporated into federal project assessments, raising concerns among environmental advocates.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), enacted in 1969, mandates federal agencies to evaluate the environmental implications of major proposed actions. This law requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS), which needs to consider reasonably foreseeable environmental effects, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The Supreme Court’s interpretations of NEPA have shaped how agencies perform these assessments. The upcoming case represents the first major examination of NEPA in 20 years, focusing particularly on the scope of agencies’ responsibilities under the law, especially concerning climate change.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition case could redefine how NEPA applies to environmental reviews. If the Court favors a narrower interpretation of NEPA requirements, agencies may limit their consideration of indirect environmental impacts, particularly those related to climate change. This could significantly impede the ability of NEPA to address the larger implications of federal projects on the environment, particularly in the context of greenhouse gas emissions.

Original Source: theconversation.com