Before we start weekending, let's spend a little time with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that put new limits on federal reviews of infrastructure and energy projects.

Why it matters: Narrowing the National Environmental Policy Act's scope has profound implications for President Trump's pro-fossil "energy dominance" agenda, Axios' Chuck McCutcheon notes.

Catch up quick: The case centered on federal approval of an 88-mile railway to carry oil from Utah's Uinta basin to larger rail networks and Gulf Coast refineries.

• It reverses an appellate ruling that regulators needed to weigh matters beyond the railway's direct effects, such as drilling impacts, refining pollution and climate change.

"NEPA does not allow courts, 'under the guise of judicial review' of agency compliance with NEPA, to delay or block agency projects based on the environmental effects of other projects separate from the project at hand," the 8-0 decision states.

• The court's three liberals issued a concurrence on the fresh limits on NEPA reviews weighing upstream and downstream project effects.
• But they ding the majority for "unnecessarily grounding its analysis largely in matters of policy."

Quick takeaways...

😮 This case is sneakily a huge deal. It wasn't among the highest-profile SCOTUS battles that touch enviro policy, like the "Chevron deference" and "major questions" rulings.

• But a spin through the docket shows that powerful K Street lobbies, environmentalists, and senior members of Congress all took keen interest, including powerful advocates of limiting NEPA such as Sen. John Barrasso, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

🔭 It could have long-term climate policy effects. One thing to watch over the horizon is how much it curtails future presidents from stitching carbon emissions into project decisions.

• Biden-era officials were taking steps in that direction, though Trump 2.0 has been reversing them, such as this week's formal withdrawal of 2023 Council on Environmental Quality guidance.

🤔 It could have unpredictable effects. A hot center-left view these days is that NEPA (and other review layers) make it too hard to build anything — including low-carbon infrastructure.

• Aidan Mackenzie of the Institute for Progress, writing on X, shouts out Justice Brett Kavanaugh for being "full abundance-pilled."
• The Kavanaugh-written decision says NEPA thwarts all kinds of projects — including transmission and wind turbines.
• Check out Mackenzie's entire thread, which delves into what discretion agencies will and won't have under the ruling.

What they're saying: The American Petroleum Institute applauded the court's "long overdue steps to restore NEPA to its original intent." But API said "common-sense permitting reform" is still needed.

• On the flip side, the Center for Biological Diversity said the ruling "guarantees that bureaucrats can put their heads in the sand" on how projects affect ecosystems, wildlife and the climate.

What we're watching: How the ruling starts filtering down to specific project reviews on LNG terminals, oil and gas development and more.

Fault lines in energy geopolitics are shifting to create two competing camps: petro-states and electro-states, a provocative new essay argues.

Why it matters: This "new form of energy bipolarity" creates unusual and unstable coalitions, and the stakes are very high, scholars with Columbia's energy think tank write.

• The main petro-states are the U.S., Russia and Saudi Arabia.
• China and the EU are electro-states as they race ahead on renewables, EVs and grid tech.

The big picture: "The result may be a volatile, asymmetric contest for energy dominance, pitting hydrocarbons against electrons and defining the energy and geopolitical landscape of the next decade," energy analysts Tatiana Mitrova and Anne-Sophie Corbeau write.

State of play: The piece in The National Interest describes eight categories of "core differences" between them, such as...

• For the petro-states, the main vulnerability is demand erosion, while their overall strategy is to expand production and exports to maintain leverage.
• For electro-states, their vulnerabilities include mineral dependency and continued fossil fuel reliance.
• They're seeking security via electrification, tech leadership and supply chain control.

Yes, but: The authors acknowledge strong crosscurrents and tensions here.

• For instance, China — still the largest oil importer and a major gas buyer — has deepened its energy ties with Russia and Saudi Arabia. And China is competing with Europe for clean tech leadership
• And the petro-state alliance is "inherently unstable," with some tactical alignment but diverging interests around oil pricing, political systems, and regional goals.

The bottom line: "What lies ahead is not a binary clash but a volatile contest between legacy energy powers and new clean energy hegemonies."

Full essay

⚖️ A woman is suing oil giants for damages over the death of her mother in Washington State during the 2021 "heat dome" in the Pacific Northwest.

• Why it matters: The civil case against Exxon, Chevron and other majors is a new frontier in U.S. litigation against Big Oil over global warming.
• Friction point: "Defendants affirmatively misrepresented their products' dangers and the actions needed to mitigate them," alleges the complaint filed in a state court. It includes wrongful death and "failure to warn" product liability claims.
• The other side: "Exploiting a personal tragedy to promote politicized climate tort litigation is contrary to law, science, and common sense," Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, which represents Chevron, said in a statement.

👍 The Energy Department yesterday authorized liquefied natural gas exports to major markets from the planned second phase of the Port Arthur LNG project in Texas. Full story.

👋 BP is adding former Devon Energy CEO Dave Hager to its board of directors, citing his decades of experience in the oil and gas industry.

• Why it matters: The company is re-focusing on its core fossil fuel business and getting more selective on green energy as it looks to win back investor love.

As the Trump administration begins seeking how to get rid of nuclear waste, one group of experts has a suggestion: Start with a burial site that takes only defense-generated waste.

Why it matters: With nuclear power gaining wider public acceptance, some in Congress and elsewhere agree that determining what to do with radioactive leftovers over the long term must become a bigger piece of the puzzle.

• The lone U.S. repository — New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant — is barred from burying high-level waste.

Catch up quick: The Obama, Trump and Biden administrations' decision to mothball Nevada's Yucca Mountain to bury commercial reactors' spent fuel has largely stalled the commercial waste-storage debate.

• Biden officials pursued a "consent-based siting" process that seeks to find volunteers to host a site. But it's unclear whether and how Trump will continue the process.

Zoom in: Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy convened a roundtable with industry officials and experts to discuss burying defense high-level waste and spent fuel before tackling commercial waste.

• In a report last week, it cited a 2015 Energy Department study.
• That study concluded that "a strong basis exists" for a defense-only repository and that it could be done faster than developing a commercial one.

What's next: President Trump's nuclear executive orders last week called on the Energy Department and other agencies to submit a report within 240 days for a national nuclear waste management policy.

• "We think this 'waste report' could serve as a presidential recommendation for congressional action next year," ClearView Energy Partners said.

"Abruptly ending the energy tax credits would threaten America's energy independence and the reliability of our grid."

Why it matters: Elon Musk's company is urging the Senate to adopt a "sensible wind down" of incentives that House-passed budget plans would quickly kill.

• Tesla's businesses include residential solar, and home- and utility-scale storage.

What we're watching: Whether Musk, who re-posted the plea, and Tesla lobbyists push the Senate to reshape the bill. He did not respond to an inquiry.

That's the increase in Microsoft's fiscal year 2024 emissions relative to 2020, the tech giant disclosed.

Why it matters: The rise stems from "growth-related factors such as AI and cloud expansion," Microsoft said.

• Overall, the company reported mixed progress on its green goals, noting the emissions rise was far smaller than its overall growth in energy use.

Go deeper: Microsoft blog post...full sustainability report...WSJ coverage