134 F.4th 568
D.C. Cir.2025Background
- The Alaska LNG Project sought Department of Energy (DOE) authorization to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) produced from Alaska’s North Slope, transporting it via an 800-mile pipeline to a liquefaction and export terminal on the Kenai Peninsula.
- FERC granted construction and operation approval after issuing a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which the court previously ruled complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
- DOE granted conditional approval for LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries, subject to further environmental review.
- Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity challenged DOE's export authorization, arguing failures in both the public interest determination under the Natural Gas Act and NEPA compliance.
- A rehearing and a supplemental EIS were conducted in response to executive orders by President Biden, albeit executive orders do not create judicially enforceable rights.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed whether DOE complied with statutory obligations and denied the petitions for review, upholding DOE’s export authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Interest under Natural Gas Act | DOE misconceived “public interest” by not considering full impacts | Congress presumes exports are in public interest; prior FERC approval | Presumption favors exports; petitioners’ view rejected |
| Downstream GHG Emissions (Foreign Impacts) | DOE failed to analyze climate impacts of exported LNG | Such impacts are too speculative/uncertain for meaningful analysis | Uncertainty supported by evidence; no NEPA violation |
| Upstream/Indirect Environmental Impacts | DOE dismissed impacts that occur only if export approved | FERC’s adopted EIS adequately considered these impacts | Precluded; already resolved by prior court decision |
| NEPA Compliance | DOE failed to properly supplement environmental review | DOE’s EIS adoption and supplement were thorough and sufficient | DOE complied with NEPA; petitions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. Department of Energy, 867 F.3d 189 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (upholding DOE’s treatment of speculative downstream LNG impacts under the Natural Gas Act and NEPA)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. FERC, 67 F.4th 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (ruling FERC’s EIS for Alaska LNG complied with NEPA, precluding re-litigation)
- W. Va. Pub. Servs. Comm’n v. Dep’t of Energy, 681 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (interpreting the public interest presumption in the Natural Gas Act)
- Ass’n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 745 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (describing factual findings and substantial evidence review standard)