Blog

When the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron, one effect was to raise a crucial question about how courts should apply the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For decades, courts have deferred to regulations issued by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The basis for that deference was a bit fuzzy, but now it is much fuzzier. 

This is the final installment in our series of posts about the causation issue under NEPA. In our previous post, we laid out NEPA’s purposes and why analogies to tort law can misfire because that area of law has very different purposes. Today, building on our recent working paper, we explain the functional approach to causation that we believe courts should apply.

Overall, the Supreme Court has articulated a functional approach that is based on the purposes of NEPA, based on the structure and text of the statute. Today’s post will lay the foundation by discussing NEPA’s purposes and how they differ from those of another area of law often used as an analogy, tort law.

NEPA requires that agencies consider the environmental effects of their projects, but the petitioners in the Seven Counties case raise hairsplitting arguments to exclude obvious effects due to technicalities. We consider their arguments one by one.

In what could turn out to be another loss for environmental protection in the Supreme Court, the Court is about to decide a major case about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, has important implications for issues such as whether NEPA covers climate change impacts. The same groups that succeeded in drastically cutting back on federal wetlands jurisdiction a few years ago are hoping to do the same thing to environmental impact statements. This post will provide the key background on the case.

On November 1, the North Carolina Utilities Commission issued its carbon plan order, two months in advance of the filing deadline. The order reflects an earlier settlement agreement among the Public Staff, Duke Energy, and Walmart that allows Duke Energy to build four new methane gas units while marginally increasing the amount of solar, battery storage, and wind resources in its proposed carbon reduction plan. Critically, the selected plan (known as Portfolio 3) fails to meet the 2030 interim carbon reduction timeline in House Bill 951 — the state’s carbon reduction law — and likely delays compliance to 2035.

Latino and Hispanic people have played a significant role in struggles for racial, economic, and climate justice. In observance of Hispanic Heritage Month, our Senior Policy Analyst for Climate Justice, Catalina Gonzalez, reached out to several Latino advocates and organizers working on the frontlines of climate justice campaigns. Today, we are sharing a response from Jose Coronado-Flores of CASA of Maryland.

Latino and Hispanic people have played a significant role in struggles for racial, economic, and climate justice. In observance of Hispanic Heritage Month, our Senior Policy Analyst for Climate Justice, Catalina Gonzalez, reached out to several Latino advocates and organizers working on the frontlines of climate justice campaigns. Today, we are sharing a response from Amy Tamayo of Alianza de Mujeres Campesinas.

Pending House spending bills confirm that conservative members of Congress are all in on Project 2025. Specifically, I reviewed the nearly 500 “poison pill riders” that have been crammed into those measures, and I found over 300 that were aimed at advancing specific recommendations contained in Project 2025’s comprehensive policy blueprint.