Gas Transmission Northwest, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) authorization of a project to expand capacity at three compressor stations on a natural gas pipeline serving the Pacific Northwest. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Fifth Circuit concluded that FERC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by adopting its environmental impact statement and approving the expansion project. The court cited the deference due to FERC’s NEPA review under the Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County and rejected environmental organizations’ contentions that FERC failed to consider the impacts of a no-action alternative, that FERC’s review should have considered replacement of the compressors (which under FERC regulations is exempt from NEPA review) as a connected action, and that FERC did not adequately consider public health and safety issues. The Fifth Circuit also rejected the project applicant’s challenge to FERC’s denial of a request for a predetermination allowing the applicant to roll project costs into base rates in a future proceeding (though the court found that the applicant had standing and that its claim was ripe). In addition, the Fifth Circuit rejected Washington and Oregon’s claims challenging FERC’s determinations under the Natural Gas Act.

Two petitions for review were filed challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) authorization for natural gas compression facilities in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon to enable expansion of pipeline system transportation capacity. The project’s developer challenged the authorization (to the extent it was adverse to the developer) in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Environmental groups <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/columbia-riverkeeper-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission/">challenged</a> the authorization in the D.C. Circuit. FERC submitted a notice of multicircuit petitions to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), and the JPML’s clerk selected the D.C. Circuit as the court in which to consolidate the petitions. The developer filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the environmental groups’ petition did not meet requirements to trigger a multicircuit lottery.