Sierra Club v. Clinton

A district court dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit brought by environmental groups against the United States seeking to halt construction of a pipeline extending from Alberta, Canada to Wisconsin.  The court held that the EIS supported the need for the pipeline. In addition, the court held that the Canadian oil sands were being developed separately from the pipeline and, thus, there was an insufficient causal relationship between the pipeline and the oil sands such that the EIS was not deficient in its failure to consider the transboundary impacts of increased greenhouse gases caused by increased exploitation of the tar sands.

The defendants moved to dismiss. The court denied the motion, holding that the EIS prepared by the State Department constituted a final agency action that was reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act and that the allegations that the EIS did not sufficiently address indirect and cumulative impacts of the project on climate change were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

A coalition of environmental groups filed an amended complaint in the federal district court for the District of Minnesota (after their action was transferred from the Northern District of California) alleging that several federal agencies violated NEPA concerning the permitting of the Alberta Clipper Pipeline, which, when built, will run from Alberta, Canada to Wisconsin. The pipeline will transport heavy crude oil extracted from tar sands in Canada.  Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that the State Department violated NEPA by issuing an environmental impact statement (EIS) did not address impacts of increased greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition moved for a preliminary injunction concerning the permitting of the Alberta Clipper Pipeline. The court denied the motion, holding that the EIS adequately addressed impacts concerning the possible effects of the pipeline on climate change and thus that plaintiffs did not show a substantial probability of success necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction.