Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
423 U.S. App. D.C. 394
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Freeport LNG sought Commission authorization to modify and expand its Quintana Island LNG terminal to support export operations; the Commission prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and conditionally authorized the construction projects in 2014.
- The Department of Energy (DOE) separately authorizes natural-gas exports; DOE issued conditional and final export authorizations for Freeport, participating in the Commission’s NEPA process as a cooperating agency.
- Sierra Club and Galveston Baykeeper (the Associations) intervened, sought rehearing, and challenged the Commission’s NEPA review, arguing it failed to consider (a) indirect effects from induced domestic gas production and increased coal use, and (b) cumulative impacts from other pending/authorized LNG export projects nationwide; they also raised an emissions-metrics complaint later.
- The Commission denied rehearing; DOE issued its final export order and denied reconsideration. The Associations separately petitioned to review DOE’s export authorization in another case.
- The D.C. Circuit considered (1) whether the Associations have standing and the case is justiciable, and (2) whether the Commission’s NEPA analysis of non-export-related indirect and cumulative impacts was arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | At least one member suffers aesthetic/noise injury from construction and thus has Article III injury tied to FERC’s authorization | Commission argued plaintiffs must link injury to specific induced increase in gas production caused by FERC orders | Held: Sierra Club member (Cornelison) has procedural NEPA injury tied to the authorization; standing satisfied without proving the particular production increase |
| Mootness | DOE’s later environmental reports remedied any NEPA defects, mooting challenge | Commission argued DOE analyses rendered the petition moot | Held: Not moot — DOE reports did not cure alleged deficiencies in the Commission’s own NEPA decisionmaking |
| Indirect effects (induced production / fuel switching) | Commission failed to analyze reasonably foreseeable indirect effects: exports → increased production → higher gas prices → more coal use → higher emissions | Commission said exports (and their market effects) are tied to DOE’s independent export licensing; FERC lacks authority to prevent those downstream effects and the causal chain is too attenuated | Held: FERC was not required to analyze effects that depend on intervening DOE export decisions; Commission’s conclusion that induced production was too attenuated was not arbitrary or capricious |
| Cumulative impacts (national vs. local scope) | FERC should have included other pending/authorized export projects nationwide in cumulative-impact analysis | Commission limited cumulative analysis to Brazoria County where primary impacts would occur, arguing NEPA focuses on impacts in the same geographic area | Held: Upholding FERC’s county-level scope; nationwide cumulative analysis was not required given lack of record evidence tying Freeport’s non-export effects to national impacts |
| Emissions metric waiver | FERC understated emissions by reporting pounds/MWh instead of tons/year | Commission noted plaintiffs did not raise this metric argument before FERC | Held: Claim waived for failure to raise before the agency; court lacked jurisdiction to consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir.) (procedural NEPA injury can confer standing)
- Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir.) (procedural injury and NEPA standing framework)
- Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (U.S.) (NEPA requires reasonably close causal relationship; intervening actions can sever causation)
- Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (U.S.) (consideration of related proposals having cumulative regional impacts)
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S.) (courts ensure agencies adequately consider environmental impacts but defer to informed agency decisions)
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 661 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir.) (court should not flyspeck NEPA analyses; review is for arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking)
- Communities Against Runway Expansion, Inc. v. FAA, 355 F.3d 678 (D.C. Cir.) (aesthetic/noise injury allegations supported by affidavits can satisfy injury-in-fact)