A New Tenant on Federal Lands: Court Orders BLM to Consider Climate Impacts in Approving Energy Leases

Mar 24, 2019

Reading Time : 1 min

Under NEPA, federal agencies must conduct environmental assessments that consider the environmental consequences, both direct and indirect, of proposed major federal actions to determine whether the agency must conduct a more comprehensive analysis through an environmental impact statement.3 

In Wildearth Guardians, the court ruled that BLM’s environmental assessment was inadequate. As a result, BLM must expand its analysis by:

  • Quantifying and forecasting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to oil and gas drilling.
  • Considering GHG emissions from the downstream use of oil and gas produced from leased federal lands.
  • Comparing GHG emissions to state, regional and national emissions forecasts, as well as to other foreseeable regional and national BLM projects.4

Until BLM bolsters its analysis, it may not authorize new drilling on the leased Wyoming parcels.5 As a result, this decision effectively expands NEPA’s reach to require more robust climate-related analyses. Although the court did not go so far as to require BLM to consider the social cost of carbon or global carbon budget protocols, this decision—if upheld on appeal—could have significant impacts on a variety of large energy projects.6

Looking ahead, observers can expect to see further litigation in this area, as the parties to the Wildearth Guardians suit plan to submit forthcoming briefs on BLM’s oil and gas leasing decisions in Utah and Colorado, with similar results expected if Judge Contreras also rules on these matters.7 Following the district court proceedings, the parties will also almost certainly seek review from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, though it remains to be seen whether other courts will follow suit.


1 Wildearth Guardians, v. Jewell, et al., Civil Action No. 2016-1724 (D.D.C. 2019).

2 Id. at 56.

3 See id. (citing EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC, 828 F.3d 949, 953 (D.C. Cir 2016); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.9, 1508.25(c)).

4 Id. at 56.

5 Id. at 59.

6 Id. at 57.

7 Id. at 8.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.