Sierra Club v. Department of Energy

In an unpublished decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) authorization of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from a facility in Maryland. The court said its August 2017 decision rejecting challenges under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Natural Gas Act to DOE’s authorization of LNG exports at a Texas facility largely governed the resolution of the instant case, as well as two other cases concerning facilities in Louisiana and Texas. The court addressed three narrow issues that remained in one or more of the cases. First, it said the determination not to prepare an environmental impact statement in this case and one of the other cases was not arbitrary and capricious. Second, it found that DOE had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not conducting more localized analysis of where the Maryland facility's exports would result in increased production. Finally, in all three cases, the court found that DOE adequately considered distributional impacts in its evaluation of “public interest” under the Natural Gas Act.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) denied a request by Sierra Club for reconsideration of its authorization for export to non-free trade agreement nations of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Dominion Cove Point LNG terminal in Maryland. DOE said it had thoroughly considered the greenhouse gas impacts of its actions and rejected Sierra Club’s other arguments regarding shortcomings in the environmental review. Among other things, DOE said induced natural gas production attributable to the project was not required to be assessed because it was not reasonably foreseeable. DOE also rejected the argument that the impacts of potential increased use of coal in power generation should be examined, finding that the relationship between DOE’s determination and increased coal consumption was even more attenuated than for increased natural gas production. DOE also found that the methodology used for the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Report was reasonable and that DOE had properly considered economic benefits and impacts.