## Facts

- FERC approved the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, a set of three connected interstate natural-gas pipelines in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, including the Sabal Trail pipeline.
- Acting under the Natural Gas Act, FERC issued certificates authorizing construction and operation after preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA.
- Sierra Club and other environmental groups, joined by landowners, petitioned for review, challenging the adequacy of FERC’s NEPA analysis.
- Petitioners argued FERC failed to adequately analyze greenhouse-gas emissions associated with the project, particularly emissions from burning the gas transported to power plants.
- Petitioners also argued FERC inadequately addressed environmental-justice impacts and route alternatives, including impacts on low-income and minority communities.

## Issues

1. Whether NEPA required FERC’s EIS to quantify or meaningfully assess indirect, downstream greenhouse-gas emissions from combustion of the natural gas transported by the pipelines when end-use in power plants was reasonably foreseeable.
2. Whether FERC took the required “hard look” at environmental-justice impacts and route alternatives for the pipeline approvals.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit granted the petitions for review in part and remanded to FERC for preparation of a conforming EIS.
- The court held FERC’s EIS was inadequate because it did not contain sufficient information regarding downstream greenhouse-gas emissions from burning the gas the pipelines would carry.
- The court otherwise upheld FERC’s analysis, including its consideration of environmental justice, routing, and other impacts.
- One judge concurred in part and dissented in part.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA requires an agency to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed federal action, including reasonably foreseeable indirect effects.
- Where a pipeline’s purpose is to deliver gas to identified power plants, downstream emissions from combustion are a reasonably foreseeable indirect effect that must be evaluated if data are available.
- An agency must either quantify foreseeable downstream emissions or provide a reasoned explanation for why quantification or meaningful analysis is not feasible or would not be informative.
- NEPA is procedural; review proceeds under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard and focuses on the adequacy of the agency’s explanation and consideration of relevant environmental factors.
- An EIS’s discussion of environmental justice and alternatives satisfies NEPA when it reasonably compares impacts and explains the agency’s choices, even where impacts on affected communities are substantial.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required FERC to supplement its NEPA analysis to address foreseeable downstream greenhouse-gas emissions from combusting transported natural gas, while leaving the remainder of FERC’s approvals and environmental review intact and remanding for a corrected EIS.


Sierra Club v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n, 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017)