Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

About this case

Filing year
2020
Status
Petition for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to the extent the issues raised in the petition were not exhausted and otherwise denied on the merits.
Docket number
20-1379
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Cir.)United StatesUnited States Federal Courts
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US)NEPA (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US)Other Statutes and Regulations (US)
Principal law
United StatesNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)United StatesNatural Gas Act
At issue
Challenge to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approvals of the Alaska LNG Project, which includes a liquefied natural gas terminal in Alaska, an 807-mile gas pipeline, and other related infrastructure.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
05/16/2023
Petition for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to the extent the issues raised in the petition were not exhausted and otherwise denied on the merits.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) authorization of a system of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in Alaska. The court found that FERC complied with the Natural Gas Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act. Regarding the consideration of the project’s potential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the court concluded that FERC acted reasonably by declining to use the social cost of carbon to measure the impacts of the project’s direct emissions of greenhouse gases. FERC instead compared the project’s direct emissions with existing Alaskan and nationwide emissions. The court noted that FERC had recognized a “lack of consensus about how to apply the social cost of carbon on a long time horizon,” and that FERC had noted that the social cost of carbon “places a dollar value on carbon emissions but does not measure environmental impacts as such” and that the FERC had not established criteria to translate the dollar values into assessment of environmental impacts. The court found that this approach was reasonable and mirrored previously upheld analysis. The D.C. Circuit also found that the petitioner had failed to raise before FERC a separate argument that the failure to use the social cost of carbon was contrary to NEPA regulations requiring use of “generally accepted” approaches and methods. The court also indicated that this separate argument was “in tension” with other D.C. Circuit decisions finding it permissible not to apply the social cost of carbon. In addition, the D.C. Circuit found that FERC was not required to consider downstream emissions from export-bound gas because FERC lacked jurisdiction over export approvals. The court therefore found that FERC appropriately “cabined” its NEPA analysis. The court also concluded that FERC’s decision not to consider the indirect effects of Alaska-bound gas was lawful because FERC had determined that it could not reasonably identify end users of the gas.
Decision
09/13/2021
Opening brief filed by petitioners.
Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club filed their opening brief in their lawsuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authorization of the Alaska LNG Project, which the organizations described as including a gas treatment plant, eight compressor stations, liquefaction facilities, a marine terminal, and an 807-mile pipeline. The organizations assert claims under the NEPA and the Natural Gas Act. Under NEPA, their arguments include that FERC failed to consider the significance of the project’s substantial direct greenhouse gas emissions and that FERC segmented the environmental review, obscuring the project’s full impacts on climate. The organizations also argued that because FERC violated NEPA, its determination under the Natural Gas Act that the project was in the public interest was also invalid.
Brief
09/21/2020
Petition for review filed.
Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions authorizing the Alaska LNG Project, which includes a liquefied natural gas terminal in southcentral Alaska, an 807-mile gas pipeline, a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, and other related transmission lines. Issues <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/oceans/pdfs/Center-et-al-AK-LNG-Request-for-Rehearing.pdf">raised</a> by Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club before FERC included failure to meaningfully consider an alternative that would avoid the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, failure to take a hard look at the project’s greenhouse gas emissions, and failure to take a hard look at impacts of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions on polar bear recovery. The organizations also contended that FERC failed to consider how the project—the size of which they described as “unprecedented”—would exacerbate climate change in its public interest analysis under the Natural Gas Act.
Petition

Summary

Challenge to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approvals of the Alaska LNG Project, which includes a liquefied natural gas terminal in Alaska, an 807-mile gas pipeline, and other related infrastructure.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance