Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation & Safety v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

762 F.3d 97 (2014)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation & Safety v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
762 F.3d 97 (2014)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Millennium Pipeline Company (Millennium), a natural-gas-pipeline-system owner and operator, applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (defendant), seeking a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which was required for construction and operation of a natural-gas compressor station in Minisink, New York. The project was to include a new station, which would allow a significant increase in Millennium’s natural-gas-delivery capability, and a compressor, which would enable bidirectional gas flow for a certain segment of the pipeline. The project was to be sited on a small section of a parcel owned by Millennium. FERC issued notice of its intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA). Millennium and FERC each hosted informational meetings on the project proposal for interested persons. The commission received hundreds of comments about the project. Notably, a group of residents advocated for an alternative site for the compressor station called the Wagoner alternative. The Wagoner alternative was to be smaller and sited in a less residential location. However, it would have required replacement of a seven-mile span of pipeline that crossed the Neversink River. FERC’s EA included analysis of the Minisink project’s environmental impacts and comparisons to the Wagoner alternative, which had a greater expected environmental impact. FERC concluded that the Minisink project would likely have no significant environmental impact. FERC approved the EA. After review of the application of the project, FERC found that the project would not require subsidization from existing customers. FERC also found that the benefits such as the increased capacity to customers in high-demand areas outweighed the minimal adverse effects of the project. FERC voted to approve the certificate of public convenience and necessity. The Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety (MREPS) (plaintiff) filed a petition for review of FERC’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership