• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Environmental Defense Fund v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Filing Date: 2020
Case Categories:
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • NEPA
  • Federal Statutory Claims
    • Other Statutes and Regulations
Principal Laws:
Natural Gas Act, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Description: Challenge to certificate of public convenience and necessity for construction and operation of an interstate gas pipeline project in Illinois and Missouri.
  • Spire Missouri Inc. v. Environmental Defense Fund
    Docket number(s): 21-848
    Court/Admin Entity: U.S.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    04/18/2022 Order List Download Petition for writ of certiorari denied. Supreme Court Declined to Review D.C. Circuit Decision Vacating St. Louis Pipeline Authorization. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a gas utility and natural gas pipeline company’s petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a D.C. Circuit order that vacated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authorization of a natural gas pipeline in the St. Louis region. The petition presented the question of “whether remand without vacatur is the appropriate remedy where the record indicates that an agency’s inadequately reasoned decision could be corrected on remand and vacatur of the decision could result in serious, and potentially life-threatening, disruptive consequences.”
    03/09/2022 Brief Download Brief filed in opposition to petition by Environmental Defense Fund.
    01/06/2022 Amicus Brief Download Brief of amici curiae American Gas Association et al. filed in support of petitioners.
    12/20/2021 Brief Download Supplemental brief for petitioners filed.
    12/03/2021 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Download Petition for writ of certiorari filed. Supreme Court Review Sought of Remedy in Review of FERC Authorization for Gas Pipeline. A gas utility and natural gas pipeline company filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit’s order vacating the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorization for a gas pipeline in the St. Louis region. The petition presented the question of “whether remand without vacatur is the appropriate remedy where the record indicates that an agency’s inadequately reasoned decision could be corrected on remand and vacatur of the decision could result in serious, and potentially life-threatening, disruptive consequences.”
  • Spire Missouri Inc. v. Environmental Defense Fund
    Docket number(s): 21A56
    Court/Admin Entity: U.S.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    10/15/2021 Order Application for stay denied. Chief Justice Declined to Stay D.C. Circuit Mandate Vacating Pipeline Approval. Chief Justice John Roberts denied pipeline companies’ application seeking to stay issuance of the D.C. Circuit’s mandate in a case in which the D.C. Circuit vacated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) authorization of a natural gas pipeline in the St. Louis area. The D.C. Circuit found that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address evidence of self-dealing by the applicant. The court also faulted FERC for engaging in only a “cursory balancing” of public benefits and adverse impacts.
    10/12/2021 Reply Download Reply filed in support of application for a stay.
    10/11/2021 Opposition Download Opposition filed by Environmental Defense Fund to application for a stay of the mandate.
    10/04/2021 Application Download Spire Missouri Inc. and Spire STL Pipeline LLC filed application for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
  • Environmental Defense Fund v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    Docket number(s): 20-1016
    Court/Admin Entity: D.C. Cir.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    09/07/2021 Order Download Petition for rehearing en banc denied. On September 7, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied respondent-intervenors’ petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court’s June 2021 decision vacating Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders authorizing a natural gas pipeline in the St. Louis area.
    09/07/2021 Order Download Petition for panel rehearing denied.
    08/24/2021 Response Download Response filed by petitioner Juli Steck in opposition to petition for rehearing.
    08/24/2021 Response Download Response filed by Environmental Defense Fund in opposition to panel or en banc rehearing.
    08/12/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae Interstate Natural Gas Association of America in support of intervenors-respondents' petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
    08/12/2021 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by MoGas Pipeline LLC as amicus curiae in support of petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
    08/05/2021 Petition for Rehearing Download Petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed by Spire STL Pipeline LLC and Spire Missouri Inc.
    06/22/2021 Opinion Download FERC orders vacated and case remanded for further proceedings. D.C. Circuit Vacated Approval for Natural Gas Pipeline in St. Louis Due to FERC’s Failure to Address Applicant’s Self-Dealing. The D.C. Circuit vacated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) orders authorizing a natural gas pipeline in the St. Louis area. The court concluded that FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously because FERC “declined to engage with” Environmental Defense Fund’s arguments and underlying evidence regarding self-dealing by the applicant and the affiliate with which the applicant entered into a “precedent agreement” for pipeline capacity. The D.C. Circuit further found that in determining that the pipeline was required by public convenience and necessity, FERC engaged in only a “cursory balancing” of public benefits and adverse impacts and that this balancing was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The D.C. Circuit did not address arguments regarding the adequacy of FERC’s environmental review of the project, including FERC’s treatment of climate change, because the court found that the individual petitioner who asserted National Environmental Policy Act claims did not have standing. The court said the petitioner’s “alleged aesthetic injuries reflect nothing more than generalized grievances,” that her allegations regarding traffic hazards did not meet her causation burden, and that alleged construction-related injuries were not redressable because construction was complete. An analysis of the case by Sabin Center Senior Fellow Jennifer Danis is available on the Climate Law Blog.
    10/23/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed by Environmental Defense Fund.
    10/23/2020 Reply Download Reply brief filed by petitioner Juli Steck.
    09/23/2020 Brief Download Brief filed for intervenors-respondents Spire STL Pipeline LLC and Spire Missouri Inc.
    09/16/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae Interstate Natural Gas Association of America in support of FERC and affirmance.
    09/09/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    07/09/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by amicus curiae the American Antitrust Institute in support of Environmental Defense Fund and reversal.
    07/02/2020 Amicus Brief Download Brief filed by Dr. Susan Tierney as amicus curiae in support of Environmental Defense Fund in support of reversal of the challenged orders.
    06/26/2020 Brief Download Opening brief filed by petitioner Environmental Defense Fund.
    06/26/2020 Brief Download Opening brief filed by petitioner Juli Steck.
    01/21/2020 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.
  • Steck v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    Docket number(s): 20-1017
    Court/Admin Entity: D.C. Cir.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    01/21/2020 Petition for Review Download Petition for review filed.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.