Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s extensions of construction deadlines for the 99-mile Northern Access Pipeline in Pennsylvania and New York and for improvements to an existing liquefied natural gas (terminal on Corpus Christi Bay in Texas and a related pipeline. The D.C. Circuit found that FERC’s decisions were reasonable and adequately supported by record evidence. Regarding the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/sierra-club-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-7/">Northern Access Pipeline</a>, the D.C. Circuit rejected the petitioner’s argument that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider the impacts of New York’s 2019 climate law on the market need for the project, as well as the related argument that the 2019 law’s effects necessitated preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement.

Sierra Club and Public Citizen filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) grant of a request for a 31-month extension of time to construct and place into service additional facilities, including a 21-mile-long pipeline, at an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on Corpus Christi Bay in Texas. Before FERC, the petitioners’ arguments included that circumstances had changed since FERC authorized the LNG terminal and that FERC should assess the project’s greenhouse gas emissions in light of newly adopted emissions standards, the reinstated social cost of carbon protocol, and mitigation efforts such as carbon capture and sequestration.