Description: Challenge to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approvals of the Alaska LNG Project, which includes a liquefied natural gas terminal in Alaska, an 807-mile gas pipeline, and other related infrastructure.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 01/31/2022 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioners. 12/13/2021 Brief Download Brief filed by FERC. 09/13/2021 Brief Download Opening brief filed by petitioners. Petitioners Detailed Shortcomings in FERC’s Review of Alaska LNG Project’s Climate Impacts. Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club filed their opening brief in their lawsuit challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authorization of the Alaska LNG Project, which the organizations described as including a gas treatment plant, eight compressor stations, liquefaction facilities, a marine terminal, and an 807-mile pipeline. The organizations assert claims under the NEPA and the Natural Gas Act. Under NEPA, their arguments include that FERC failed to consider the significance of the project’s substantial direct greenhouse gas emissions and that FERC segmented the environmental review, obscuring the project’s full impacts on climate. The organizations also argued that because FERC violated NEPA, its determination under the Natural Gas Act that the project was in the public interest was also invalid. 09/21/2020 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed. Environmental Groups Challenged FERC Approval of Alaska LNG Project of “Unprecedented” Scale. Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions authorizing the Alaska LNG Project, which includes a liquefied natural gas terminal in southcentral Alaska, an 807-mile gas pipeline, a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, and other related transmission lines. Issues raised by Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club before FERC included failure to meaningfully consider an alternative that would avoid the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution, failure to take a hard look at the project’s greenhouse gas emissions, and failure to take a hard look at impacts of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions on polar bear recovery. The organizations also contended that FERC failed to consider how the project—the size of which they described as “unprecedented”—would exacerbate climate change in its public interest analysis under the Natural Gas Act.