EPA Proposal Could Reduce New Source Review-Related Delays for Major Construction Projects
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a rule that could allow project developers of data centers, energy projects, and other facilities to begin certain site-development and infrastructure activities before obtaining a Clean Air Act (CAA) New Source Review (NSR) permit. The proposed rule, published on May 11, 2026, would clarify that certain non-emitting activities may occur before an NSR permit is issued, potentially providing greater flexibility for project development without altering the substantive air permitting requirements applicable to pollutant-emitting equipment. (more…)
California’s CEQA Reforms Offer Narrow Exemptions — With One Powerful Exception
The California legislature recently passed SB 131 and AB 130, two bills designed to streamline environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While publicly touted as significant CEQA reform, the legal impact is more constrained, offering little relief for most industrial, commercial, or logistics-related development. SB 131 does, however, significantly expand the Governor’s discretionary power to designate certain large-scale private projects for streamlined CEQA treatment, offering potential opportunity for selected developers.
Supreme Court Makes Major Course Correction, Limiting Scope of NEPA Reviews and Demanding Judicial Deference to Agency in Uinta Basin Rail Case
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme Court held that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency evaluating a particular project is not required to consider the effects of other future or geographically separate projects that may be built or expanded if the proposed project were approved, thus closing the door to the expansive NEPA analyses demanded by project opponents in many cases. The Court also separately stressed that the “central principle of judicial review in NEPA cases is deference,” underscoring that NEPA grants agencies discretion to determine the scope of the review and that their discretionary decisions should not be extensively second-guessed by a court. The cumulative impact of these holdings are much more than a minor course correction and should both significantly limit the scope of future NEPA analyzes and strengthen the defensibility of such analyzes in court.
