Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
423 U.S. App. D.C. 417
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Sabine Pass LNG sought a Commission amendment (2014) to increase production capacity at its Louisiana LNG terminal from 16 to 20 million tons/year; the 2012 Order authorized 16 mtpa and the Commission had earlier issued an environmental assessment (EA) and FONSI for that authorization.
- Sierra Club (which intervened) argued under NEPA that the Commission’s 2014 EA/FONSI failed to analyze: (1) indirect effects from export-driven increases in domestic production; and (2) indirect effects from export-driven price increases that would cause fuel switching to coal (and greater air pollution). Sierra Club also argued these effects should have been considered cumulatively with other export projects.
- The Commission granted the 2014 Amendment (increasing production capacity) but explained that authorizing exports is the Department of Energy’s (DOE) statutory function; the Commission concluded the indirect effects Sierra Club raised were either outside its legal causal role or not reasonably foreseeable, and thus issued a FONSI and denied rehearing.
- Sierra Club sued in the D.C. Circuit challenging the Commission’s NEPA analysis; the Commission contested Article III standing. The court considered both standing and the merits.
- The court held Sierra Club has associational standing based on a member’s affidavit showing recreational and aesthetic injury tied to expected additional tanker traffic, and that the alleged NEPA procedural defects were causally connected to the agency action and redressable.
- On the merits the court: (a) rejected Sierra Club’s claim that the Commission had to analyze export-related indirect effects because the Commission did not authorize exports (DOE does), and (b) dismissed/denied Sierra Club’s cumulative-impact claims in part for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and otherwise upheld the Commission’s cumulative-impacts reasoning as not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Sierra Club’s member (Paul) will suffer aesthetic/recreational injury from increased tanker traffic caused by the 2014 Amendment; procedural NEPA relief would redress injury | Commission: Paul no longer fishes near terminal and increased capacity won’t increase tanker traffic; thus no injury or redressability | Standing satisfied: Paul’s declaration shows concrete recreational/aesthetic injury and a substantial probability the 2014 Amendment will increase tanker traffic and is redressable |
| NEPA: Must Commission analyze export-driven indirect effects (production increases)? | Sierra Club: Capacity increase will enable more exports, inducing more domestic production and production-related harms; these are indirect effects agency must analyze | Commission: It did not authorize exports (DOE does); thus export-driven effects are not legally caused by Commission action and not required to be analyzed here; also not reasonably foreseeable as a result of capacity change alone | Held for Commission: export-driven indirect effects tied to actual exports are for DOE’s NEPA review; Commission reasonably concluded increased capacity alone would not foreseeably induce production |
| NEPA: Must Commission analyze export-driven price effects (fuel switching to coal)? | Sierra Club: Increased exports will raise domestic gas prices, prompting utilities to switch to coal, increasing air pollution — an indirect, reasonably foreseeable effect | Commission: Same causation/authority point — exports authorization is DOE’s; price/fuel-switching effects are not tied to Commission’s capacity authorization and not reasonably foreseeable here | Held for Commission: Court agrees Commission need not analyze those export-driven effects in its NEPA review of a capacity-only amendment |
| Cumulative impacts (other export projects nationwide) | Sierra Club: Commission must consider 2014 Amendment cumulatively with other pending/approved export proposals (including non-Sabine Pass projects) | Commission: Sierra Club failed to raise non-Sabine projects in rehearing (jurisdictional bar); and, in any event, the 2014 Amendment does not create impacts that require cumulative analysis | Held: Part dismissed for failure to exhaust (no jurisdiction re: non-Sabine projects); as to Sabine Pass projects the Commission’s refusal to conduct broader cumulative analysis was not arbitrary or capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (procedural NEPA injury and associational-standing principles)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing framework)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (relaxed redressability/imminence for procedural rights suits)
- Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (causation limits where another agency controls the challenged effect)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 462 U.S. 87 (NEPA "hard look" principle)
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (associational standing test and NEPA causation/traceability guidance)
- Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation & Safety v. FERC, 762 F.3d 97 (NEPA review scope and arbitrary/capricious standard)
- National Committee for the New River, Inc. v. FERC, 433 F.3d 830 (standing/affidavit analysis distinguished)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (affidavit particularity in standing context)
- Fla. Audubon Soc. v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (procedural injury causation chain requirement)
- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. FERC, 477 F.3d 739 (Natural Gas Act exhaustion/jurisdictional strictness)
- Moreau v. FERC, 982 F.2d 556 (purpose of rehearing/exhaustion requirement)
- Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corp. v. FERC, 962 F.2d 37 (rehearing notice and administrative exhaustion)