Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. FERC, 125 F.4th 229

Indiana approved a plan to retire a coal-fired electricity facility, replacing it with wind, solar, and two new natural gas turbines to ensure grid reliability.
To serve those turbines, CenterPoint (the utility) contracted with Texas Gas Transmission for a new 24-mile natural gas pipeline; Texas Gas sought FERC approval for the pipeline.
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana challenged FERC’s approval, claiming the commission failed to adequately consider environmental impacts and alternatives under NEPA and the NGA.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission had previously rejected a larger gas project for insufficiently considering alternatives, but ultimately approved the modified plan including wind, solar, and two smaller gas turbines.
FERC conducted an environmental impact statement and approved the pipeline; Citizens Action petitioned for review after its rehearing request was denied by operation of law.
The D.C. Circuit reviewed the agency’s order under the APA’s arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must FERC analyze non-gas alternatives before approving the pipeline?	FERC had to consider renewable/non-gas alternatives to the pipeline.	FERC only needs to consider alternatives consistent with the state-approved mix.	FERC need not consider non-gas alternatives outside its jurisdiction; only alternatives meeting project’s purpose.
Did FERC have to label project emissions as “significant”?	FERC’s failure to label GHG emissions significance was arbitrary/unlawful.	NEPA/CEQ guidance don’t require a significance label; thorough analysis suffices.	No NEPA or regulation requires a significance label; FERC’s contextual discussion of emissions is sufficient.
Could FERC consider emissions reductions from retiring coal units?	FERC could not count emissions reductions from retired coal units in analysis.	Net emissions consideration was reasonable in light of Indiana’s energy decisions.	It was reasonable for FERC to consider net (coal-for-gas) emissions when assessing public convenience/necessity.
Did FERC fail to adequately respond to Citizens Action’s arguments?	FERC did not meaningfully respond to rehearing arguments on environmental effects.	FERC’s original order sufficiently explained its reasoning and process.	No separate response necessary; initial order provided adequate reasoning for meaningful judicial review.

Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency’s definition of project purpose must be reasonable and anchored in statutory authority)
Minisink Residents for Env’t Preservation & Safety v. FERC, 762 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (FERC may approve project only if public benefits outweigh adverse impacts)
Food & Water Watch v. FERC, 104 F.4th 336 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (FERC not required to attach significance labels to environmental effects under NEPA)
Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (FERC’s analysis of economic and environmental impacts under NGA)
NAACP v. FPC, 425 U.S. 662 (1976) (primary NGA purpose is gas supply development; environmental objectives are subsidiary)
EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC, 828 F.3d 949 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (FERC may reasonably discuss emissions in percentages; social cost of carbon not required under NEPA)