Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulation Commission

867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Southeast Market Pipelines Project comprises three natural-gas pipelines now under construction in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. By its scheduled completion in 2021, the project will be able to carry over one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. The overall purpose is to serve Florida's growing demand for natural gas and the electric power that natural gas can generate. The two major natural-gas pipelines that serve the state are almost at capacity. Two major utilities, Florida Power & Light and Duke Energy Florida, have already committed to buying nearly all the gas the project will be able to transport. Florida Power & Light claims that without this new project, its gas needs will begin to exceed its supply this year. The project's developers indicate that the increased transport of natural gas will make it possible for utilities to retire older, dirtier coal-fired power plants. Ps fear that increased burning of natural gas will hasten climate change and its potentially catastrophic consequences. Landowners in the pipelines' path object to the seizure of their property by eminent domain. Communities on the project's route are concerned that pipeline facilities will be built in low-income and predominantly minority areas already overburdened by industrial polluters. D has jurisdiction to approve or deny the construction of interstate natural-gas pipelines. D must grant the developer a 'certificate of public convenience and necessity,' upon a finding that the project will serve the public interest. D prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) before approving the project, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). P solicited public comment and held thirteen public meetings on the project's environmental effects, and made limited modifications to the project plan in response to public concerns. A final impact statement was made in December 2015. D granted the requested Section 7 certificates and approved construction of all three project segments, subject to compliance with various conditions not at issue here. Ps timely petitioned the court for review of the Certificate Order. P claims that D's environmental impact statement failed to adequately consider the project's contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions and its impact on low-income and minority communities.