Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
414 U.S. App. D.C. 438
D.C. Cir.2015Background
- Dominion Transmission sought and received FERC conditional Section 7 certificate to build the Allegheny Storage Project, including a 16,000 hp compressor station in Myersville, MD; Dominion later obtained an MDE Clean Air Act permit and placed the station in service.
- Myersville residents (Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, Franz Gerner, Ted Cady, Tammy Mangan) petitioned for review, challenging FERC’s approval on multiple grounds: lack of substantial evidence of public need, unlawful interference with Maryland’s Clean Air Act rights, inadequate NEPA review, and procedural/CEII (hydraulic flow diagrams) due process violations.
- FERC relied on precedent (long‑term) agreements, an affidavit, and intervenor filings to find the project fully subscribed and not subsidized by existing customers; FERC conditioned the certificate on obtaining necessary federal authorizations (including the air permit).
- The D.C. Circuit reviews FERC under the APA arbitrary-and-capricious/substantial-evidence standard and affords deference on technical and scientific determinations.
- The court denied the petition in full: it found substantial evidence supported FERC’s finding of market need and non‑overbuilding; held that FERC’s conditional certificate did not unlawfully contravene the Clean Air Act savings clause or exceed its authority; found FERC’s EA/NEPA review adequate (alternatives, property-value impacts, segmentation); and rejected procedural due process claims regarding CEII production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public need / substantial evidence | FERC lacked substantial evidence because updated precedent agreements weren’t in the record and market studies show declining demand | Dominion/FERC: affidavit + motions to intervene + policy permit finding market need; Commission entitled to rely on precedent agreements evidence | Court: substantial evidence supports FERC’s finding; petitioners’ contract‑form argument not preserved; affidavit and intervenor filings suffice |
| Overbuilding / export intent | Compressor station is oversized and intended to facilitate exports via Cove Point (hydraulic flow diagrams) | FERC/Dominion: differences in horsepower reflect siting/hydraulic needs; molecules are fungible; no evidence of functional tie to Cove Point; projects are separate | Court: FERC’s technical analysis persuasive; no showing of overbuild or that the project was designed to enable Cove Point exports |
| Preemption / Clean Air Act savings clause | Conditional FERC certificate unlawfully affected Maryland’s SIP rights and preempted local zoning, undermining Clean Air Act protections | FERC/Dominion: Natural Gas Act grants authority to condition certificates; savings clause preserves state SIP rights; FERC did not purport to preempt SIP provisions and conditioned certificate on obtaining air permits | Court: Summers controls; FERC lawfully issued a conditional certificate; scope of SIP/preemption properly for MDE to interpret; no statutory bar to conditional certificate here |
| NEPA adequacy & CEII/procedure | EA failed to consider reasonable alternatives (existing pipelines, looping), property‑value impacts, and unlawfully segmented review with Cove Point; CEII produced too late so comment rights impaired | FERC: EA considered and rejected alternatives; property impacts acknowledged and mitigated; Cove Point not a connected action; CEII was provided with time to comment before rehearing | Court: EA satisfied NEPA’s ‘‘hard look’’ and rule‑of‑reason; no unlawful segmentation; petitioners had meaningful opportunity to comment on CEII and showed no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- NAACP v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 425 U.S. 662 (U.S. 1976) (describing primary purpose of Natural Gas Act)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (two‑step deference framework for agency statutory interpretation)
- Dominion Transmission, Inc. v. Summers, 723 F.3d 238 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (interaction of FERC certificates and Maryland SIP; MDE’s role in SIP interpretation)
- Minisink Residents for Envtl. Pres. & Safety v. FERC, 762 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (standards for FERC market‑need review and NEPA EA analysis)
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 532 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (deference to FERC technical findings)
- B&J Oil & Gas v. FERC, 353 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (substantial‑evidence standard for FERC findings)
- Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 257 F.2d 634 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (Commission discretion in Section 7 certificate decisions)