“Broadly, NEPA requires that federal agencies conduct environmental reviews of proposed activities and their potential effects. For complex projects, agencies can either prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). Alternatively, simpler projects can be afforded a categorical exclusion (CE) which fast-tracks the review process. After permits are granted through these review mechanisms, they may be challenged in the judicial system. The courts then have the authority to reaffirm, bolster, or otherwise improve the project plan to prevent or limit environmental damage. Of course, lawsuits to challenge EISs, EAs, and CEs necessarily extend project timelines.”
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/understanding-nepa-litigation
And here’s what ChatGPT has to say:
”Generally, NEPA litigation emphasises the thoroughness of the environmental review process rather than setting explicit thresholds such as exact buffer zones around protected species.
Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and to involve the public in the decision-making process. Courts reviewing NEPA cases often focus on whether the agency has taken a “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts and whether the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) adequately discusses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed action.”
My expectation is that the US government agencies involved in this have gone all out to ensure that there is no case to answer. But that doesn’t mean that the activists won’t try. They are highly unlikely to succeed if the NEPA process has been thorough.
So there may be one more chapter on this but I doubt it will have any chance of getting past the judge’s chamber.
Defence and Energy want this to happen. Dems need to announce some good news for jobs in Nevada (soon). Anything But China is about all the politicians seem to agree on.
(20min delay)