Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Transportation

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2020 rule authorizing and specifying requirements for the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail. Citing the “potent combination of risk and extreme danger” entailed by transporting LNG by rail, the court found that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it concluded that the LNG rule would not have a significant effect on the environment and decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement. Because the court found that PHMSA failed to take a hard look at public safety impacts, the court did not reach other challenges raised by the petitioners, including arguments that PHMSA failed to consider the rule’s effects on greenhouse gas emissions.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and other federal respondents asked the D.C. Circuit to place challenges to July 2020 regulations for transporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail in abeyance for six months.

Seven environmental groups filed a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s promulgation of regulations authorizing transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia also filed a petition for review. Both the <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/Comments-Expert-Statements-LNG-by-Rail.pdf">environmental groups</a> and the <a href="https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/news documents/011320_hazmat.pdf">states</a> raised concerns regarding both public safety and environmental impacts, including impacts on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, in comments they submitted on the proposed rule.