March 16, 2022 By Seth D. Jaffe
Categories: Climate Change , Permitting , Regulation , Litigation , Citizen Suits , NEPA , Infrastructure , GHG , Energy , Environmental Impact Assessment , Regional Energy Infrastructure , FERC
Last week, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals again rejected a FERC NEPA review for failure to assess the climate impacts resulting from the downstream use of natural gas supplied by a gas pipeline upgrade project approved by FERC. The Court found that FERC was too quick to conclude that those downstream impacts could not reasonably be evaluated.
How big a deal is this? I for one would not be trumpeting this decision as another nail in the coffin of natural gas. I do think, though, that the decision provides some important practice tips, both for FERC and for citizens' groups looking to appeal FERC decisions.
Here are my principle takeaways:
after adequately accounting for foreseeable downstream greenhouse-gas emissions, the Commission could arrive at the same finding of no significant impact.
The bottom line? In the right case, if pled properly, the Court is going to ensure that FERC adequately assess the climate impacts of gas pipelines. Nonetheless, FERC can assess those impacts in ways that will satisfy the Court and still issue licenses for such pipelines.