The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 24 to review a ruling that invalidated federal approval for an 88-mile railroad in Utah, which producers want built to transport oil and gas to more markets.
Justices granted a petition for a writ of certiorari brought by Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, a coalition of counties, and the Uinta Basin Railway company. That means they'll consider whether to overturn the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that erased the U.S. Surface Transportation Board’s approval of the project, known as the Uinta Basin Railway.
A panel of appeals court judges said in 2023 that the board violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by conducting an inadequate environmental review for the project. The board failed to quantify foreseeable impacts on vegetation and animals from increased oil drilling and did not “take a hard look at wildfire risk as well as impacts on water resources downline,” the panel said.
The board had said it did not have jurisdiction over oil and gas development, so it did not weigh those factors.
The ruling was wrong, the coalition and railway company told the Supreme Court in its petition.
“By requiring an agency to consider any environmental effect that it has the power to prevent, no matter the limits of its regulatory authority, the D.C. Circuit’s rule turns each agency into a ‘de facto environmental-policy czar,’” they said. They added later, “Agencies need a manageable line to guide their NEPA studies, and this Court is now the only place to find one.”
Justices often take cases to resolve circuit splits or differing interpretations of federal law among appeals courts. The case presents such a split because some appeals courts have found that agencies conducting reviews under NEPA are limited, petitioners said.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, for instance, has found that agencies “may reasonably limit their NEPA review to only those effects proximately caused by the actions over which they have regulatory responsibility.”
A public-private partnership between the infrastructure development and investment firm DHIP Group in Winter Park, Florida, and the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, is pursuing the project.
The rail line would connect oil and gas producers in rural Utah to the broader rail network, allowing them to access larger markets and ultimately sell to refineries near the Gulf of Mexico.
“This project is vital for the economic growth and connectivity of the Uinta Basin region and we are committed to seeing it through,” Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, said in a statement after the petition was granted.
“It’s disappointing the Supreme Court took up this case but the appellate court’s decision on this destructive project is legally sound and should ultimately stand,” Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which opposes the project, said in a statement.
The type of oil to be exported from Utah—waxy crude, which is semi-solid at room temperature—makes it more challenging to move. Currently, it’s heated and shipped in insulated trucks. The oil’s consistency, on the other hand, makes it less damaging and easier to clean up after spills, project proponents say.
Oil producers, who are currently limited to tanker trucks, would be able to ship an additional 350,000 barrels of crude daily on trains extending for up to two miles if the railroad is built.
Other proponents, including oil businesses and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, have argued that the railroad would be a boon to struggling local economies and boost domestic energy production.
Environmental groups and Colorado’s Eagle County, which sued to challenge the project, worry about safety and potential train derailments.
From the railway in Utah, the oil trains would enter Colorado, following the Colorado River upstream and over the Rocky Mountains to Denver and beyond. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) are among the opponents, asserting that an oil spill in the Colorado River headwaters would be catastrophic.
