Summary
This D.C. Circuit opinion reviews a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order granting Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC a three-year extension to complete its Southgate Project due to permitting delays on the related Mainline pipeline. Applying the arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA, the court holds that FERC reasonably found good cause for the extension and adequately explained its decision not to revisit prior market need and environmental impact findings. Accordingly, the court denies the petitions for review filed by environmental organizations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether FERC properly found good cause to extend the construction deadline for the Southgate Project.
- Whether FERC properly declined to revisit its prior market‑need and environmental‑impact findings.
Holdings
- The Commission reasonably found that Mountain Valley Pipeline satisfied the good‑cause standard in seeking an extension.
- The Commission’s decision not to revisit its prior findings on market need and environmental impacts was adequately explained and therefore upheld.
Key quotations
“The Commission generally declines to reevaluate issues that already were addressed during the certification process.” (at 26)
“The Commission has broad discretion in exercising its authority under the Natural Gas Act.” (at 27)
Factual background
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC sought a three‑year extension of the Southgate Project deadline because permitting and litigation delays on the Mainline, which the Southgate extension depended upon, prevented timely construction. The Commission found good cause and declined to revisit its earlier market‑need and environmental analyses. Environmental groups challenged those findings.
Procedural history
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Southgate Project, set a construction deadline, and later granted an extension finding good cause. Petitioners challenged the Commission's findings. The D.C. Circuit reviewed the Commission's action under the APA's arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard.