Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation & Safety v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
412 U.S. App. D.C. 97
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Millennium sought a certificate under the Natural Gas Act to build a Minisink, New York natural gas compressor station.
- FERC approved the Minisink Project in July 2012 after environmental review and a Certificate Policy Statement analysis balancing public benefits and adverse impacts.
- Petitioners urged that a near-by Wagoner Alternative was superior and that FERC failed to adequately consider it, among other objections to NEPA and procedures.
- FERC conducted an Environmental Assessment comparing Minisink with the Wagoner Alternative, concluding Minisink had fewer environmental drawbacks overall.
- The Commission denied rehearing and subsequent attempts to reopen the record; petitioners sought judicial review in this Court, which consolidated petitions.
- Construction and operation of the Minisink Project proceeded in 2013 despite the petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FERC adequately considered the Wagoner Alternative under NGA Section 7 | MREPS contends Wagoner was superior and not properly weighed | FERC thoroughly analyzed alternatives, including Wagoner, with rational reasons for preferring Minisink | FERC reasonably considered Wagoner and approved Minisink |
| Whether NEPA's hard look was satisfied for Minisink vs Wagoner | Petitioners allege gaps in environmental analysis and cumulative impacts | EA and record provide a reasoned NEPA inquiry with adequate consideration of impacts and alternatives | NEPA requirements satisfied; analysis was not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether FERC followed its siting guidelines and rights-of-way considerations | Minisink violated siting guidelines and considered improper alternative | FERC implemented mitigation and properly considered siting regulations | No violation of siting guidelines |
| Whether Petitioners were deprived of procedural due process or an evidentiary hearing | Hearing was necessary to resolve factual disputes | No abuse of discretion; issues resolvable on the record | No abuse of discretion; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. FERC, 425 U.S. 662 (1976) (NAACP v. FERC: NGA aims and subsidiary environmental goals)
- FERC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 (1944) (protect consumers; NGA objectives)
- Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. v. FERC, 198 F.3d 960 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (NEPA and environmental review standards)
- American Gas Ass'n v. FERC, 593 F.3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (agency discretion in balancing interests)
- Penn. Office of Consumer Advocate v. FERC, 131 F.3d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (scope of review for certificate decisions)
- City of Pittsburgh v. FPC, 237 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (future expansion considerations and agency duty to probe impacts)
- Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (cumulative impacts in NEPA review of related projects)
- NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. FERC, 718 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (tribunal deference on technical agency determinations)