Double-Crossing (DC) Circuit Court of Appeals Strangles Critical LNG Projects But "Appreciates the Significant Disruption"

Far left judges appointed by Barack Obama and scarecrow Joe Biden have just turned down, for the second time, FERC’s approval of LNG projects in Texas that the agency believes are needed. They have done so, maddeningly excusing themselves, with this self-serving, condescending remark:

We appreciate the significant disruption vacatur may cause the projects. But that does not outweigh the seriousness of the Commission’s procedural defects.

And, are those procedural defects of such seriousness? Here’s the full rationale after 32+ pages of ridiculous rationalization for supporting the Obama-Biden-Harris program to eradicate all fossil fuel use:

“Vacatur ‘is the normal remedy’ when we are faced with unsustainable agency action.” We typically assess the decision to vacate based on two factors: “the seriousness of the order’s deficiencies (and thus the extent of doubt whether the agency chose correctly) and the disruptive consequences” of vacatur.

“When an agency bypasses a fundamental procedural step,” the first factor asks “not whether the ultimate action could be justified, but whether the agency could, with further explanation, justify its decision to skip that procedural step.” Here, the answer is no.

For both projects, the Commission failed to issue a supplemental EIS to account for its updated environmental justice analysis. And for the Rio Grande terminal, the Commission further failed to consider the company’s CCS proposal as part of its environmental review as either a connected action or a project alternative. For the reasons detailed above, we do not see how the Commission could justify its decision to skip those fundamental procedural steps.

We appreciate the significant disruption vacatur may cause the projects. But that does not outweigh the seriousness of the Commission’s procedural defects. In any event, even for the likely more substantial task on remand—consideration of the CCS proposal—Rio Grande itself stated to the Commission that an assessment could be done “expeditiously.”

In addition, although we did not vacate the orders in our prior remand, we have explained that this fact can actually support vacatur where, as here, the agency “has yet again come up with insufficient support” for its action.

We therefore grant the petitions for review in part, deny them in part, vacate both reauthorizations, and remand to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So, FERC did the environment justice analysis, but didn't call it a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. The only people who imagine this is a serious procedural defect are the committed antis, with which these three far left judges obviously agree.

Environmental justice is as phony as it gets anyway. It is always applied to stop projects and never to address the injustice of corrupt agencies such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, which assumed Chevron deference powers to deny economic development to a region replete with natural gas resources.

The second excuse is even more bizarre. CCS (carbon sequestration) is environmental mitigation! The judges want FERC to study the impacts of mitigation and, presumably, study the impacts of the study and its recommendations as part of a vicious downward cycle of analysis only ending in a killing of the project.

This is where we are with the abuse of law in this nation. It’s disgusting. We need to end it by electing a President who appoints judges who understand supplying the world with energy is important than an environmental justice procedural defects and reins in this environmental justice nonsense.

#DC #LNG #FERC #Judges #CourtofAppeals #EnvironmentalJustice #Obama #Biden #FarLeft