NEPA is not about my agenda or your agenda. It is about solutions that work for all of us. This Comment offers a litmus test. The first section explains the promise NEPA makes to each of us, describing the integration, information, and inclusion that NEPA brought to our federal statutory framework in a way not previously seen and describing how NEPA enhances our democracy by holding the government accountable to the people it serves—by giving the public a right to information, as well as the right to provide information.

With a Department of Environmental Protection that predates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Jersey has always been at the forefront of combating pollution, becoming only the third state to consolidate all environmental protection and conservation into one cohesive agency on April 22, 1970, and paving the way for environmental protection nationwide with the passage of the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (Spill Act) in 1976.

Two carbon pricing bills were introduced during the 115th Congress. Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) introduced the MARKET CHOICE Act during the summer of 2018. Reps. Ted Deutsch (D-Fla.) and Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) introduced the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (Energy Innovation Act) in November 2018, and reintroduced it early in the 116th Congress, where it presently has more than 65 cosponsors. By different methods and with different comprehensiveness, both of these bills place a Pigouvian tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The 2018 wildfire season was the deadliest and most destructive on record in California, destroying thousands of structures. Gov. Gavin Newsom created a strike force to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the destabilizing effect of wildfires on the state’s electric utilities. In April 2019, the strike force issued a report outlining a vision for clean energy policies to reduce the impacts of climate change on wildfire risk, and in July, the newly created Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery released its recommendations.

On November 4, 2016, DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division convened an extraordinary group of legal scholars and practitioners to discuss “The Future of Environmental Law.” Speaking before the presidential election but mindful of the transition possibilities, the symposium panelists identified and discussed cutting-edge issues in administrative law, natural resources law, and environmental enforcement that will be crucial going forward for both government lawyers and the environmental law profession as a whole.

Climate change has important implications for the management and conservation of natural resources and public lands. The federal agencies responsible for managing these resources have generally recognized that considerations pertaining to climate change adaptation should be incorporated into existing planning processes, yet this topic is still treated as an afterthought in many planning documents. Only a few federal agencies have published guidance on how managers should consider climate change impacts and their management implications.

Aerial drones are emerging as an effective tool for environmental monitoring and enforcement because of their ability to reach areas that would be otherwise inaccessible or cost-prohibitive. However, the regulatory framework has not developed as fast as the technology, raising concerns. As EPA and other agencies consider using drones to monitor industrial sites and farmland, many landowners claim it would be an invasion of privacy. Using drones for inspections also raises legal questions about information obtained from drone flyovers and the associated evidentiary requirements.

In Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly upheld orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to §§113(a)(5) and 167 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), prohibiting construction of a new power generator unit at a mine in Northwest Alaska.

Editors' Summary

The timing of environmental analysis and judicial review presents critical issues of interpretation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Courts must be able to review an agency's compliance with NEPA before the agency makes major decisions, and before it invests significant resources that can compromise environmental review. Agencies must not be allowed to delay environmental review just because necessary data and research are difficult to obtain, or environmental impacts are uncertain. This Article discusses how the courts have handled these timing problems.