Sierra Club and Galveston Baykeeper v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Summary

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authorization of Freeport LNG’s terminal modifications for export operations. The court held that Sierra Club and Galveston Baykeeper had standing and that their NEPA claims were not moot, but concluded that FERC’s analysis of the projects’ indirect and cumulative environmental effects was not arbitrary or capricious. The court distinguished environmental effects attributable to the export authorization, which were to be challenged in a separate proceeding concerning the Department of Energy.

Holdings

1. The Associations had standing because at least one Sierra Club member alleged a concrete aesthetic and recreational injury from noise and construction near the Freeport facility, the injury was connected to FERC's challenged authorization and NEPA review, and the remaining associational-standing requirements were satisfied.
2. The petition was not moot merely because the Department of Energy later conducted additional environmental analyses.
3. FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to analyze asserted increases in domestic natural gas production, higher domestic gas prices, increased coal use, and related emissions as indirect effects of the Freeport Projects.
4. FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by limiting its cumulative-impact analysis to Brazoria County rather than conducting a nationwide analysis of other LNG export projects.
5. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioners' argument that FERC should have quantified emissions in tons per year rather than pounds per megawatt-hour because petitioners did not raise that objection before FERC on rehearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sierra Club and Galveston Baykeeper had associational standing to challenge FERC's NEPA review and authorization of the Freeport Projects.
2. Whether the petition for review was moot because the Department of Energy later conducted additional environmental analyses in connection with its separate export authorization.
3. Whether FERC's NEPA analysis adequately addressed reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental effects, including effects associated with induced domestic natural gas production and increased coal use.
4. Whether FERC adequately analyzed the cumulative environmental effects of the Freeport Projects together with other LNG export projects nationwide.
5. Whether the court had jurisdiction to consider petitioners' argument that FERC should have quantified emissions in tons per year rather than pounds per megawatt-hour when that objection was not presented to FERC on rehearing.

Disposition

other