Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Sierra Club’s petitions for review challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) environmental review and authorization for a 32-mile natural gas pipeline that would feed a natural gas turbine replacement for a coal-fired unit at Tennessee Valley Authority’s Cumberland Fossil Plant. Citing deference due to agencies’ National Environmental Policy Act reviews under the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2025 decision in <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/seven-county-infrastructure-coalition-v-eagle-county_f6b1f2">Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County</a>, the D.C. Circuit found that Sierra Club’s challenges to FERC’s analysis of impacts were meritless. First, the D.C. Circuit found that FERC properly assessed the pipeline’s downstream greenhouse gas emissions, rejecting Sierra Club’s position that FERC erred by crediting the pipeline with enabling emissions reductions resulting from the power plant’s transition from coal to gas and also rejecting contentions that FERC should have presented cumulative rather than annualized estimates of emissions. Second, the D.C. Circuit concluded that FERC’s consideration of a no-action alternative that still included a natural gas turbine replacing the coal-fired unit was not inconsistent with FERC’s consideration of net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as a benefit of the pipeline. Third, the D.C. Circuit found that FERC did not err by not analyzing the pipeline and power plant together as connected actions. The court concluded that after Seven County agencies are no longer required to analyze the impacts of actions (in this case the power plant) over which they do not exercise regulatory authority. One judge did not join this portion of the opinion, but the D.C. Circuit further found that even assuming the connected-action requirement applied, the error was harmless because Sierra Club did not identify additional information a review of connected actions would provide that was not already in FERC’s environmental impact statement. The D.C. Circuit also determined that FERC complied with Natural Gas Act when it confirmed a market need for the pipeline project, rejecting Sierra Club’s argument that FERC needed to consider green energy subsidies available under the Inflation Reduction Act. In addition, the D.C. Circuit upheld FERC’s balancing of the pipeline’s benefits and harms under the Natural Gas Act, finding that Sierra Club’s argument “simply repeats objections that we have already considered and rejected” regarding the adequacy of the environmental review. In a conclusion that was not joined by one of the three judges on the panel, the D.C. Circuit stated that Sierra Club’s arguments “depended on circuit precedent abrogated by Seven County,” including the 2017 <a href="https://www.climatecasechart.com/collections/sierra-club-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission_c9f580">Sabal Trail decision</a> requiring FERC to consider power plant emissions that pipelines make possible even though FERC lacks regulatory jurisdiction over power generation facilities. The conclusion stated that “[a]fter Seven County, the era of searching NEPA review is over—or at least it should be.”