Sierra Club v. FERC

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · August 1, 2025 · No. 24-1199

Summary

The D.C. Circuit reviews a petition by environmental groups challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of a natural gas pipeline crossing into Mexico. The court holds that FERC reasonably exercised its discretion to decline jurisdiction over the intrastate portion of the pipeline under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction under Section 7, and properly conducted its NEPA analysis. All arguments are rejected and the petition is denied.

Court
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the Court
WALKER; MILLETT; KATSAS
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decision date
August 1, 2025
Docket number
24-1199
Procedural posture
Petition for Review of Orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Standard of review
Arbitrary and capricious standard under APA; substantial‑evidence review for factual findings
Precedential value
published
Parties
Sierra Club, Public Citizen v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

administrative lawjudicial review of agency actionenvironmental lawstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

administrative lawenvironmental lawenergy law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether FERC properly declined jurisdiction over the Connector Pipeline under §§3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
  2. Whether FERC’s NEPA analysis of the Border Facility was adequate and not arbitrary or capricious.
  3. Whether FERC’s approval of the Border Facility violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

Holdings

  1. FERC properly declined jurisdiction over the Connector Pipeline under both §3 and §7, exercising its discretion consistent with prior practice.
  2. FERC’s NEPA analysis satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. §4332; the agency considered a reasonable range of alternatives and provided a reasoned explanation, so the approval was not arbitrary or capricious.
  3. FERC’s approval did not violate NEPA; the agency’s environmental assessment was sufficient and the petitioners failed to show arbitrary or capricious action.

Key quotations

FERC must also consider “a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action . . . that are technically and economically feasible, and [that] meet the purpose and need of the proposal.” Id. § 4332(2)(C)(iii).
The court has long affirmed a general presumption favoring authorization under the Natural Gas Act. Center for Biological Diversity v. FERC, 67 F.4th at 1188.

Factual background

FERC approved a 1,000‑foot border‑crossing natural‑gas pipeline segment (the Border Facility) and declined jurisdiction over the 155‑mile Connector Pipeline that runs from the Waha Hub in Texas to the border. Petitioners argued FERC should have exercised jurisdiction under §§3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act and that its NEPA analysis was deficient.

Procedural history

The petitioners appealed FERC's orders approving a 1,000‑foot border‑crossing pipeline segment and declining jurisdiction over the 155‑mile Connector Pipeline.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…