What to look for in Supreme Court arguments over environmental regulation of Utah oil railway plan
WASHINGTON — A proposed western railroad expansion aimed at boosting crude oil production in Utah is on its way Supreme Court Tuesday in a case that could have a bigger impact on federal environmental regulations. Here’s a look at the case, which includes a denial by one judge and arguments about how far the government should go in considering potential damage to the environment against the backdrop of climate change.
Only eight of the nine justices will hear arguments. Judge Neil Gorsuch pleaded guilty last week, citing the court’s new ethics code. He provided no further explanation, but he has faced calls to step aside due to past ties to a Colorado billionaire who could benefit from increased oil production in the region.
Philip Anschutz is not a party to the case, but he owns oil wells in the area and his company has filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that a broader interpretation of the environmental law at the heart of the case would hinder development.
Gorsuch represented Anschutz before he became a judge, and recused himself from cases he was involved in when he took his seat on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the group Accountable.us, which first drew attention to the ties between the two men . A dozen Democratic lawmakers urged him in a letter last month to set aside the case.
The case focuses on the Uinta Basin Railroada proposed 90-mile extension through sandstone and sagebrush hills. The multibillion-dollar project would connect oil and gas producers to the wider rail network, giving them access to larger markets and potentially quadrupling production.
The project received approval from Surface Transportation Board regulators under the National Environmental Policy Act. But environmental groups and a Colorado county said in a lawsuit that regulators should have considered broader potential environmental impacts, such as an increased risk of wildfires and a possible train derailment that could dump oil into the upper Colorado River.
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., agreed last year and overturned the approval. Supporters of the project appealed to the Supreme Courtarguing that regulators should just consider more immediate impacts and get the project back on track.
The case centers on how federal agencies consider potential damage to the environment when deciding whether to approve development projects.
Developers say this process could cause years of delays, but environmental groups say it is an important protection for air and water quality.
The Biden administration is somewhere in the middle. They defend regulators’ decision to approve the Utah project, but say railroad supporters would go too far in limiting the scope of environmental law.
The conservative-majority court has taken other steps to limit the power of federal regulators knock down a decades-old decision known as Chevron that made it easier for the federal government to enact a wide range of regulations.