Opponents of planned liquefied natural gas export terminals in Texas are hoping a new court ruling could support their case for why federal energy regulators should be required to do more to quantify climate risk from fossil fuel projects.
The City of Port Isabel and others are claiming that a Tuesday ruling that tossed out federal authorization for a gas expansion project in the Northeast bolsters their claims that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should decide whether two Texas LNG export facilities and a gas pipeline will lead to a “significant” increase in planet-warming emissions.
The request could test the limits of the court’s finding that FERC needed to conduct broader climate reviews. LNG terminals and gas pipelines are authorized under different sections of the Natural Gas Act.
Two of the same Biden-appointed judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit who ruled against FERC on Tuesday — J. Michelle Childs and Brad Garcia — are also weighing FERC’s reauthorization of Texas LNG, Rio Grande LNG and the Rio Bravo pipeline.
