Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana , Inc . v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued May 7, 2024 Decided January 7, 2025
No. 23-1046
C ITIZENS ACTION C OALITION OF INDIANA , INC .,
P ETITIONER
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY R EGULATORY C OMMISSION,
R ESPONDENT
TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION , LLC,
INTERVENOR
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Kirti Datla argued the cause for petitioner. On the briefs
were Moneen Nasmith, Ann Jaworski, Sameer Doshi, Raghu
Murthy, and Aaron Stemplewicz.
Susanna Y. Chu, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the
brief were Matthew R. Christiansen, General Counsel, and
Robert H. Solomon, Solicitor. Scott R. Ediger, Attorney
Advisor, entered an appearance.

-- 1 of 22 --

2
Sean Marotta argued the cause for intervenor in support of
respondent. With him on the brief were Michael E. McMahon,
A. Gregory Junge, and Reedy C. Swanson.
Before: KATSAS , R AO , and WALKER , Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge R AO .
R AO , Circuit Judge: As night follows day, an
environmental challenge follows the approval of a natural gas
pipeline. In this case, the State of Indiana approved a plan that
would retire a coal-fired facility and replace it with wind and
solar energy sources. To ensure grid reliability with the move
to renewable energy, the plan also included two new natural
gas turbines. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
approved a natural gas pipeline to serve those turbines. The
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana petitions for review,
alleging that FERC’s environmental analysis and order were
unreasonable and inconsistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Natural Gas Act.
Citizens Action alleges numerous errors, but its core claim
is that FERC was required to analyze non-gas alternatives
before approving the natural gas pipeline. We disagree.
Congress gave FERC authority to promote the development of
interstate natural gas pipelines, but it left the choice of energy
generation to the States. The purpose of the pipeline was to
support Indiana’s energy plan, and FERC has no statutory
authority to consider non-gas alternatives already rejected by
the State. Because FERC acted lawfully and reasonably when
conducting the environmental analysis and assessing the public
convenience and necessity for the pipeline, we deny the
petition for review.

-- 2 of 22 --

3
I.
A.
The Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) empowers FERC to
approve the development of interstate natural gas pipelines.
Pub. L. No. 75-688, 52 Stat. 821 (1938) (codified as amended
at 15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq.). FERC must issue a certificate
approving a pipeline if it determines the project is “required by
the present or future public convenience and necessity.” 15
U.S.C. § 717f(e). When making this determination, FERC
must consider “all factors bearing on the public interest,” Food
& Water Watch v. FERC, 104 F.4th 336, 341 (D.C. Cir. 2024)
(cleaned up), and may “approve a project only where the public
benefits outweigh the project’s adverse impacts,” Minisink
Residents for Env’t Preservation & Safety v. FERC, 762 F.3d
97, 102 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (cleaned up).
If FERC determines that approval of a pipeline would
constitute a “major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment,” FERC must prepare an
environmental impact statement. National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”), Pub. L. No. 91-190, § 102(2)(C), 83
Stat. 852, 853 (1970) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(2)(C)). NEPA requires an agency to “identify the
reasonable alternatives to the contemplated action and look
hard at the environmental effects of its decision.” Minisink, 762
F.3d at 102 (cleaned up). NEPA is a purely procedural statute,
however, and does not require an agency “to take one type of

-- 3 of 22 --

4
action or another.” Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey,
938 F.2d 190, 194 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
B.
Citizens Action challenges FERC’s approval of a pipeline
serving two new natural gas turbines in Indiana. We begin with
Indiana’s decision to approve those turbines.
CenterPoint Energy is an electric utility in southwestern
Indiana. As part of the state regulatory process, CenterPoint
must prepare an Integrated Resource Plan every three years.
See IND . C ODE § 8-1-8.5-3(e); 170 IND . ADMIN. C ODE § 4-7
(requiring utilities to evaluate their total mix of generation
resources and consider the tradeoffs between cost, reliability,
and environmental impacts). In its 2016 Plan, CenterPoint
proposed replacing coal-fired facilities at its A.B. Brown
Generating Station with solar resources and natural gas.
Because solar resources provide only intermittent power, the
natural gas facility would “maintain constant electric supply
during potentially extended periods of low output.”
CenterPoint applied to the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission for approval of an 850-megawatt natural gas unit.
See IND . C ODE § 8-1-8.5-2. The Indiana Commission initially
denied the proposal because CenterPoint failed to adequately
consider alternatives to natural gas and because the proposed
unit could compromise future energy flexibility.
In response, CenterPoint modified its Plan to include wind
generation, in addition to solar, and applied to build two
smaller gas-fired turbines, which would produce a combined
460 megawatts of power. This time, the Indiana Commission
approved the application after concluding the proposed natural
gas units would be “a reasonable, least-cost resource to support
[CenterPoint’s] Plan and meet consumers’ needs for
electricity.”

-- 4 of 22 --

5
C.
That brings us to the pipeline at issue here. CenterPoint
contracted with Texas Gas Transmission to supply natural gas
to the planned units. Texas Gas then applied to FERC for
approval of a 24-mile pipeline crossing the Ohio River and
connecting the A.B. Brown site to an existing pipeline system
in Kentucky. Citizens Action, an environmental advocacy
organization, intervened in the FERC proceeding and filed
comments concerning the environmental effects of the pipeline
and related infrastructure (the “Project”).
After preparing an environmental impact statement, FERC
approved the Texas Gas Project. Citizens Action filed a request
for rehearing, raising four challenges. It argued that FERC
(1) failed to consider alternatives to building gas-fired units;
(2) failed to label the Project’s emissions as “significant” or
“not significant”; (3) erred by netting the reduction in
emissions from the coal-fired units’ retirement against the
gross emissions from the gas-fired units; and (4) failed to
properly balance environmental impacts in its public
convenience and necessity determination. FERC took no action
on the rehearing request, so it was denied by operation of law.
Citizens Action now petitions for review of FERC’s order
approving the Texas Gas Project. We have jurisdiction under
15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). We review Citizens Action’s NEPA and
NGA challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act to
determine whether FERC’s environmental assessment and
order were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
“We will not set aside an agency action on NEPA grounds if
the [environmental impact statement] contains sufficient
discussion of the relevant issues and opposing viewpoints and
the agency’s decision is fully informed and well considered.”

-- 5 of 22 --

6
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. FERC, 67 F.4th 1176, 1181
(D.C. Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). We likewise review FERC’s
public convenience and necessity determination for whether it
was “based on a consideration of the relevant factors and
whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Minisink,
762 F.3d at 106 (cleaned up).
II.
In its first set of NEPA challenges, Citizens Action broadly
argues that FERC should have assessed alternatives to natural
gas, instead of focusing only on the mix of generation sources
chosen by CenterPoint and the Indiana Commission. But
NEPA does not require FERC to consider non-gas alternatives
that are outside of FERC’s jurisdiction and would fail to serve
the purpose of the Project. We hold that FERC properly
identified the Project’s purpose as supporting CenterPoint’s
new natural gas units and reasonably considered alternatives
that would satisfy that purpose.
A.
Citizens Action first argues that FERC unlawfully and
unreasonably defined the Project’s purpose so narrowly that it
excluded reasonable alternatives. According to the group, the
point of the Project is to “support renewable resources” and
CenterPoint’s shift to a “diversity of generation resources.”
FERC therefore should have defined the purpose as
“supporting a grid increasingly powered by renewable energy
sources,” instead of as simply supporting the new natural gas
units.
For major actions significantly impacting the
environment, NEPA requires an agency to discuss “alternatives

-- 6 of 22 --

7
to the proposed action.”1 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii) (2018). In
order to consider alternatives, an agency first must identify the
purpose and need of the proposed agency action. Citizens
Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 195. The proposed agency
action here is approval of the Texas Gas Project. FERC
accordingly identified the purpose and need of the Project as
enabling CenterPoint to “utilize flexible natural gas
combustion turbines to support CenterPoint’s new intermittent
renewable resources.”
An agency’s definition of purpose is subject to a “rule of
reason.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827,
834 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Because FERC is considering a private
proposal, it “may accord substantial weight to the preferences
of the applicant and/or sponsor in the siting and design of the
project.” City of Grapevine v. Dep’t of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502,
1506 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (cleaned up); see also Citizens Against
Burlington, 938 F.2d at 199 (“Congress did not expect agencies
to determine for the applicant what the goals of the applicant’s
proposal should be.”). In addition to the applicant’s goals,
FERC must also “consider the views of Congress,
expressed … in the agency’s statutory authorization to act, as
well as in other congressional directives.” Citizens Against
Burlington, 938 F.2d at 196. FERC must identify a project’s
purpose in light of an applicant’s goals and the agency’s
statutory authority, avoiding an unreasonably broad or narrow
framing. Id.
1 After FERC completed its environmental review and approved the
pipeline in 2022, Congress amended NEPA. An agency now must
prepare a detailed statement on “a reasonable range of alternatives to
the proposed agency action … that are technically and economically
feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.” See Builder
Act, Pub. L. No. 118-5, div. C, tit. III, § 321(a)(3)(B), 137 Stat. 10,
38 (2023). We cite to the statute in effect at the time of FERC’s order.

-- 7 of 22 --

8
We hold that FERC properly and reasonably identified the
Project’s purpose as supporting CenterPoint’s new natural gas
units. The project seeking certification from FERC is not the
natural gas units, but the pipeline serving those units. Before
Texas Gas applied for a certificate, CenterPoint and the Indiana
Commission had already determined that the public interest
would be best served by the construction of natural gas units
that ensure grid reliability and support the move to wind and
solar generation. FERC did not consider non-gas options when
deciding whether to certify the Project because no non-gas
option could serve the mix of energy resources approved by
Indiana.
Citizens Action prefers non-gas alternatives and seeks to
redefine the purpose of the Project as promoting solar and wind
generally. But FERC correctly rejected such a broad purpose,
explaining that “[d]etailed evaluation[s] of other power
generation alternatives … are entirely separate questions from
evaluating alternatives that meet the defined purpose and need
for the Project.” In deciding whether to certify the Project,
FERC properly refused to reconsider the mix of electricity
generation chosen by CenterPoint and the Indiana
Commission.
More to the point, FERC could not lawfully define the
Project’s purpose as broadly as Citizens Action requests
because Congress has not authorized FERC to choose between
electricity generation resources. The NGA empowers FERC to
approve new gas pipelines. See 15 U.S.C. § 717(b) (“The
provisions of this chapter shall apply to the transportation of
natural gas in interstate commerce ….”). It does not permit
FERC to regulate the energy generation facilities those
pipelines supply. See 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1) (“The
Commission … shall not have jurisdiction … over facilities
used for the generation of electric energy ….”). Rather, the

-- 8 of 22 --

9
States retain authority to choose their preferred mix of energy
generation resources. CenterPoint’s new gas-fired units, and
the decision whether to build them, are thus wholly beyond
FERC’s jurisdiction. FERC cannot define the purpose of a
project so broadly that it usurps the policy choices Congress
left to the States. See Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at
196.
Having identified the Project’s purpose as supporting
CenterPoint’s new gas-fired units, FERC reasonably
considered alternatives that would serve that purpose. See
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 661
F.3d 66, 73 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“If the agency’s objectives are
reasonable, we will uphold the agency’s selection of
alternatives that are reasonable in light of those objectives.”).
An agency may concisely reject alternatives that do not achieve
a project’s purpose. Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 67 F.4th at
1182. FERC did so here. In its comments on the draft
environmental impact statement, Citizens Action asked FERC
to consider non-gas alternatives like energy efficiency
programs, battery storage, and additional hybrid, solar, and
wind generation resources. FERC declined, explaining that
these alternatives would not satisfy the purpose of transporting
natural gas to CenterPoint and therefore were beyond the scope
of the proposal.
Instead, FERC considered alternatives to support the mix
of electricity generation already chosen by CenterPoint and the
Indiana Commission. For example, FERC assessed whether
existing pipeline networks could serve CenterPoint but
concluded that these would require expansions that could cause
greater environmental impacts than the Texas Gas pipeline.
FERC also analyzed an alternative route for the pipeline but
found that rerouting it would not decrease environmental
impacts. FERC thus adequately considered alternatives that

-- 9 of 22 --

10
would serve the purpose of transporting natural gas to
CenterPoint’s plant.
Under NEPA and in light of FERC’s limited authority
under the NGA, FERC properly rejected Citizens Action’s
broad purpose and non-gas alternatives. Congress entrusted the
choice of electricity generation to the States, and FERC has no
authority to second-guess those choices on environmental or
any other grounds. FERC lawfully and reasonably identified
the purpose of the Texas Gas Project as supporting
CenterPoint’s new natural gas units and then reasonably
considered alternatives to the proposed pipeline.
B.
Citizens Action alternatively argues that FERC was
required to evaluate non-gas alternatives as part of the no-
action alternative, even under its stated purpose of transporting
natural gas to CenterPoint.
When evaluating environmental impacts, an agency must
consider reasonable alternatives, including a no-action
alternative. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 67 F.4th at 1181;
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii) (2018). An alternative is
reasonable if it “will bring about the ends of the federal action”
and is “in the agency’s power.” Citizens Against Burlington,
938 F.2d at 195–96. “[W]hen the agency has no legal power to
prevent a certain environmental effect, there is no decision to
inform, and the agency need not analyze the effect in its NEPA
review.” Sierra Club v. FERC (“Sabal Trail”), 867 F.3d 1357,
1372 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen,
541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004)).
For reasons already explained, FERC has no jurisdiction
over the non-gas alternatives Citizens Action presses, because
FERC has no jurisdiction over a state’s chosen mix of energy

-- 10 of 22 --

11
generation resources.2 The no-action analysis is thus limited to
the alternatives that CenterPoint and the Indiana Commission
will consider if FERC does not approve the Texas Gas pipeline.
There are two likely alternatives, both of which FERC
concluded would be inferior to the Texas Gas Project. First,
CenterPoint could seek some other means of generating backup
power to support its transition to wind and solar energy.
CenterPoint and the Indiana Commission assessed alternative
non-gas energy sources, like battery storage, but they
concluded that these alternatives would be inferior to natural
gas with respect to reliability, cost, and feasibility. Therefore,
as Texas Gas observes, “[u]ntil natural gas is provided
(whether from Texas Gas or some other source) … CenterPoint
would likely continue to produce electricity” by some other
means of fossil fuel generation, which “could result in higher
emissions … as well as other environmental impacts.”
Second, a different company could propose a pipeline to
serve CenterPoint’s new units. A different pipeline, however,
2 Citizens Action points to our decision in National Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton to assert that FERC was required to
consider alternatives beyond its jurisdiction. See 458 F.2d at 834–36.
But Morton suggested that the agency may be required to consider
some alternatives outside its jurisdiction because the action at issue
was part of a broader cross-agency presidential initiative. Id. at 835.
We later cabined Morton to its unique facts, explaining that it
involved “a coordinated effort” by multiple federal actors “to solve
a problem of national scope.” City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d
862, 869 (D.C. Cir. 1999). We emphasized that “[s]uch a holistic
definition of ‘reasonable alternatives’ would … make little sense for
a discrete project within the jurisdiction of one federal agency.” Id.
Morton does not support expanding FERC’s consideration of
alternatives beyond its statutory jurisdiction because the Project
involves approval of a natural gas pipeline, a discrete action squarely
within FERC’s jurisdiction.

-- 11 of 22 --

12
would result in similar environmental impacts, except it
“would not meet the Project’s objectives within the proposed
time frames.” Accepting, as it must, the mix of electricity
generation chosen by Indiana, FERC reasonably concluded that
the likely no-action alternatives would cause delay, fail to meet
CenterPoint’s needs, and/or produce environmental effects
worse than those of the Texas Gas pipeline.
Citizens Action does not raise any arguments in its petition
about the direct environmental effects of the pipeline, nor does
it suggest an alternative route or different type of pipeline that
would mitigate environmental harms. Instead, the group insists
only that FERC should have considered alternatives that do not
involve natural gas at all. But the proposal here is to build a
natural gas pipeline. In assessing the no-action alternative,
FERC reasonably declined to consider non-gas alternatives
outside its jurisdiction and instead evaluated what would
happen if this pipeline was not built. NEPA requires nothing
more.
III.
In its next set of NEPA challenges, Citizens Action
contends FERC inadequately considered the significance of the
Project’s foreseeable environmental effects.
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare environmental
impact statements for “major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 4332(2)(C). CEQ guidance, which FERC has chosen to
follow, specifies that an environmental impact statement
should include a “discussion of … the significance of”

-- 12 of 22 --

13
foreseeable environmental effects.3 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a)
(2022).
In the environmental impact statement, FERC included a
lengthy discussion of the environmental effects of certifying
the Project, including effects on climate change. For those
effects, FERC estimated the greenhouse gas emissions from the
Project as well as from the downstream power plant,
contextualized emissions as a percentage of state and national
totals, and applied various social cost of carbon metrics to
estimate the cost of emissions. But FERC refrained from
labeling the emissions as significant or insignificant. Citizens
Action challenges the Commission’s use of percentages and the
absence of a significance label.
A.
Citizens Action maintains that FERC’s practice of
reporting “emissions as a percentage of state and national
emissions totals” is arbitrary and capricious because it
“inappropriately diminish[es] the significance of project-level
greenhouse gas … emissions.” We disagree.
Nothing in NEPA suggests it is unreasonable for FERC to
disclose accurate information about environmental effects.
NEPA is a purely procedural statute that requires only “fully
informed and well-considered” decisions. Ctr. for Biological
Diversity, 67 F.4th at 1181 (cleaned up). NEPA does not limit
an agency’s discussion of accurate information or prescribe the
way in which the agency presents its analysis. CEQ guidance
3 This court recently held that CEQ lacked authority to promulgate
binding regulations implementing NEPA. See Marin Audubon Soc’y
v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902, 914 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Because FERC
complied with CEQ guidance, we need not consider the effect of this
decision on FERC’s NEPA obligations.

-- 13 of 22 --

14
counsels only that an agency discuss the significance of
environmental effects. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a) (2022). Using
percentages to contextualize emissions from the Project is a
perfectly reasonable way for FERC to present that information.
Moreover, we have repeatedly held that FERC may
reasonably decline to use the social cost of carbon and may
instead compare a project’s emissions with state and
nationwide emissions. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 67
F.4th at 1184 (holding FERC reasonably compared project
emissions with state and nationwide emissions and “had no
obligation … to consider the social cost of carbon” under
NEPA); Ala. Mun. Distribs. Grp. v. FERC, 100 F.4th 207, 214
(D.C. Cir. 2024) (same); see also EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC,
828 F.3d 949, 956 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (holding FERC reasonably
concluded the social cost of carbon was “inadequately accurate
to warrant inclusion under NEPA”). There was nothing
unreasonable about FERC’s decision to take a similar approach
in assessing the Project’s emissions.
B.
Citizens Action also claims that FERC was required to
label the environmental impacts as “significant” or “not
significant.” It claims the failure to do so violated NEPA and
was arbitrary and capricious.
This NEPA challenge is now foreclosed by precedent.
After oral argument, our court decided Food & Water Watch v.
FERC, 104 F.4th 336. Presented with the identical argument
“that the Commission needed to label the increased emissions
and ensuing costs as either significant or insignificant,” we
squarely held that “NEPA contains no such mandate.” Id. at
346. Nor does CEQ guidance counsel an agency to apply a
significance label. Id. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(a), (b)).
Food & Water Watch forecloses Citizens Action’s contrary to

-- 14 of 22 --

15
law claim. NEPA simply does not require an agency to use
particular labels indicating the significance of a project’s
environmental impacts.
Citizens Action also attempts to rely on FERC’s agency-
specific NEPA regulations, which require a summary of any
“significant environmental impacts.”4 18 C.F.R. § 380.7(a),
(d). This argument fails for similar reasons. A summary of
significant impacts does not require a significance label or any
other particular format. In reviewing the Project, FERC
properly discussed and summarized significant environmental
impacts, and the absence of a “significance” label does not
violate NEPA, CEQ guidance, or FERC regulations.
Citizens Action also argues that FERC unreasonably failed
to explain why it did not label emissions in this case when it
labeled emissions as “not … significant” in Northern Natural
Gas Co., 174 FERC ¶ 61,189 at P 36 (Mar. 22, 2021). This
argument is also foreclosed by Food & Water Watch. Because
FERC had never claimed it was required to assign a
significance label in Northern Natural Gas, and FERC had
withdrawn a 2022 policy statement setting a significance
threshold, we concluded it was reasonable not to assign a
significance label. Food & Water Watch, 104 F.4th at 347; see
also Ala. Mun. Distribs. Grp., 100 F.4th at 214–15 (holding
FERC reasonably declined to assign a significance label after
withdrawing its draft policy statement).
If FERC’s change in approach was reasonable, as we held
it was, then FERC had no reason to distinguish Northern
Natural Gas when conducting its NEPA review of the Texas
Gas Project. Reasoned decisionmaking does not require an
4 These regulations were not raised by the parties or addressed in
Food & Water Watch. See 104 F.4th at 346.

-- 15 of 22 --

16
agency to perpetually distinguish precedents and policies it has
already announced it will reconsider.5
We recognize that after Food & Water Watch, two panels
found FERC’s failure to address Northern Natural Gas
arbitrary and capricious. See Healthy Gulf v. FERC, 107 F.4th
1033, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 2024); N.J. Conservation Found. v.
FERC, 111 F.4th 42, 55–56 (D.C. Cir. 2024). In those cases,
we concluded that FERC did “not dispute the premise that it
must make a significance determination absent a sufficient
explanation for not doing so in a particular proceeding.” N.J.
Conservation Found., 111 F.4th at 56 (quoting Healthy Gulf,
107 F.4th at 1040 n.2). And we held that FERC did not
reasonably explain why it was “unable” to make such a
determination when it did so in Northern Natural Gas. See id.;
Healthy Gulf, 107 F.4th at 1042–43. Here, by contrast, FERC
explained it did not need to attach a significance label because
it thoroughly analyzed the Project’s emissions in the
environmental impact statement. That explanation, keyed to
NEPA’s requirements, rather than to FERC’s capabilities, is
precisely the one we held to be sufficient in Food & Water
Watch. See 104 F.4th at 346–47.
Moreover, the reasoning of Food & Water Watch compels
a conclusion that when FERC has otherwise adequately
considered a project’s environmental effects, as required by
5 After oral argument, FERC expressly overruled Northern Natural
Gas in a different proceeding. See Venture Glob. CP2 LNG, LLC,
189 FERC ¶ 61,148 (Nov. 27, 2024). The Commission reaffirmed its
view that NEPA does not require a significance label and criticized
its prior decision for failing to offer a methodology for calculating
whether emissions are significant. Id. at PP 83–89. Although FERC
cannot rely on this development here, its latest decision confirms
what was already apparent: the Commission no longer follows
Northern Natural Gas.

-- 16 of 22 --

17
NEPA, any failure to label emissions as significant would not
be prejudicial error. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“[D]ue account shall be
taken of the rule of prejudicial error.”). We explained that “no
legal consequence” would follow from attaching a significance
label and that neither policymakers nor the public “would have
learned much more had FERC attached” such a label. Food &
Water Watch, 104 F.4th at 346–47.
The APA’s prejudicial error rule applies to a failure to
follow NEPA procedures. Nevada v. Dep’t of Energy, 457 F.3d
78, 90 (D.C. Cir. 2006). We do not vacate orders when it would
be a “meaningless gesture” to require additional process that is
“not necessary to guarantee that the [agency] will consider
environmental concerns.” Ill. Commerce Comm’n v. ICC, 848
F.2d 1246, 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1988). This is consistent with the
longstanding principle that courts do not “flyspeck” an
agency’s NEPA analysis, but rather simply “ensure that the
agency has adequately considered and disclosed the
environmental impact of its actions.” Birckhead v. FERC, 925
F.3d 510, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (cleaned up).
When presented with an arbitrary and capricious
challenge, we must consider whether FERC reasonably
explained its environmental assessment, not whether it used
certain magic words. Policymakers can adequately evaluate
environmental effects irrespective of whether those effects are
labeled as significant. FERC thoroughly assessed the
environmental impacts of the Project, and its analysis was
reasonable and consistent with NEPA.
IV.
Citizens Action next argues that FERC unreasonably
considered emissions reductions from the retirement of coal-
fired units when approving the Texas Gas Project. Because the
coal-fired units will be retired regardless of whether the gas-

-- 17 of 22 --

18
fired units are built, Citizens Action maintains that FERC could
not consider the emissions reduction from retiring the coal
units when assessing the public convenience and necessity.
While Citizens Action concedes that FERC also disclosed and
monetized the gross emissions of the new natural gas units in
the final order, it maintains that FERC ultimately, and
unreasonably, relied on the net emissions. We disagree with
this blinkered approach.
The Commission did not act unreasonably when
considering net emissions as part of its determination of the
public convenience and necessity. CenterPoint’s Integrated
Resource Plan included retiring coal-fired units and replacing
them with a combination of solar, wind, and natural gas
resources. The Plan’s success depends on natural gas being
provided to CenterPoint’s new gas-fired units. FERC
reasonably considered both the gross emissions caused by the
new units and the net emissions incorporating the benefits of
retiring the coal plant. The net reduction in emissions was just
one part of FERC’s broader public convenience and necessity
analysis.6
Recognizing the long timeframes for infrastructure
planning—not to mention litigation delays—utilities will often
6 Citizens Action also raises its preferred non-gas alternatives in this
context, arguing that gas units are “not the only way or a necessary
precondition for the [coal-fired units’] retirement.” At bottom, the
environmental group simply seeks to relitigate the choices made by
Indiana. We again stress that FERC’s mandate is to promote natural
gas development, and the Commission is explicitly prohibited from
evaluating the mix of electricity chosen by a state regulator. See 16
U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). Given the terms of the state-approved
CenterPoint Plan, it was reasonable for FERC to consider the net
emissions of the gas-powered units in relation to the closure of the
coal-fired units when evaluating the Project.

-- 18 of 22 --

19
take irrevocable steps before obtaining all the necessary
approvals. FERC need not blind itself to this practical reality
when determining the public convenience and necessity.
Contrary to Citizens Action’s claims, FERC reasonably
recognized the environmental benefits of CenterPoint’s Plan
when approving the pipeline.
V.
Finally, Citizens Action argues that FERC unreasonably
failed to respond to its rehearing petition. Because FERC
denied the petition by operation of law, it did not respond to
Citizens Action’s argument that, irrespective of the
environmental impact statement, FERC did not adequately
consider environmental effects when approving the Project.
Reasoned decisionmaking requires FERC to respond to
significant arguments raised by the parties to a proceeding,
including in a rehearing petition. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v.
FERC, 989 F.3d 10, 19–20 (D.C. Cir. 2021). But FERC need
not respond to a petition for rehearing if its initial order
“supplied this court with enough explanation to facilitate
meaningful review.” Coal. of MISO Transmission Customers
v. FERC, 45 F.4th 1004, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
FERC did not respond to Citizens Action’s rehearing
petition in a separate order, but this was reasonable because
FERC adequately considered the Project’s environmental
effects before granting the certificate. The Commission
explained that it followed its longstanding process when
making a public convenience and necessity determination.7
7 FERC followed the process established in its 1999 Certificate
Policy Statement. See Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas
Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (Sept. 15, 1999), clarified, 90

-- 19 of 22 --

20
First, it assessed whether the economic benefits of the Project
outweighed its costs. Because it found that the Project was
economically beneficial, FERC then analyzed the
environmental effects and determined that the Project “is an
environmentally acceptable action.” Based on these two
findings, FERC concluded that “the public convenience and
necessity requires approval of” the Project. FERC’s approach
of evaluating economic benefits and considering
environmental effects is entirely reasonable.8
In its petition for rehearing, Citizens Action argued that
FERC should have assigned equal weight to economic benefits
and greenhouse gas emissions when deciding whether to
approve the Project. We have previously recognized that FERC
may deny approval based on a pipeline’s direct or indirect
emissions. See Sabal Trail, 867 F.3d at 1373. That decision,
however, never specified under what circumstances FERC
could deny approval based on a project’s emissions, nor the
weight FERC should assign to those emissions in assessing the
public convenience and necessity.
The NGA instructs FERC to grant certificates when
“required by the present or future public convenience and
necessity.” 15 U.S.C. § 717f(e). To determine the public
convenience and necessity, “it is necessary to look to the
FERC ¶ 61,128 (Feb. 9, 2000), further clarified, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094
(July 28, 2000).
8 This court recently determined that a similar FERC order was
arbitrary and capricious because the Commission failed to “explain[]
whether and how … it balanced and found [the emissions] to be
outweighed by the pipeline’s expected benefits.” N.J. Conservation
Found., 111 F.4th at 63. That case, however, involved an “equivocal”
environmental impact statement and “enormous” emissions, factors
that are not present here. Id.

-- 20 of 22 --

21
purposes for which the [NGA was] adopted.” NAACP v. FPC,
425 U.S. 662, 669 (1976). The NGA was primarily enacted “to
encourage the orderly development of plentiful supplies
of … natural gas at reasonable prices.” Id. at 669–70; see also
Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d
1301, 1307 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The Supreme Court has
recognized that conservation and environmental issues are
“subsidiary purposes” that FERC may consider. NAACP, 425
U.S. at 670 & n.6. But nothing in the NGA suggests FERC can
prioritize environmental concerns over the primary objective
of promoting the development of natural gas markets.
Moreover, while NEPA requires FERC to consider the
environmental effects of the projects it approves, it is far from
clear what statutory authority FERC has, if any, to give
determinative weight to the environmental effects of projects
beyond its jurisdiction. To the extent Citizens Action argues
that FERC must assess and give determinative weight to the
appropriate level of emissions for projects outside its
jurisdiction, like CenterPoint’s plant, we see no basis for that
conclusion in the NGA. Any such argument would, at a
minimum, present a major question over which Congress has
not clearly given FERC authority. Cf. West Virginia v. EPA,
597 U.S. 697, 720, 730 (2022) (holding Congress did not
empower the EPA to “restructur[e] the Nation’s overall mix of
electricity generation” by “dictating the optimal mix of energy
sources nationwide”).
Contrary to Citizens Action’s preferred approach, neither
the Supreme Court nor this Circuit has suggested that FERC
must give equal weight to economic and environmental
concerns. To the contrary, considering Congress’s directives in
the NGA, we seriously doubt whether FERC could assess the
public convenience and necessity in a manner that discourages
or undermines the development of natural gas.

-- 21 of 22 --

22
FERC’s initial order provided ample explanation and
analysis of the economic benefits and environmental effects of
the Project, and therefore the Commission was not required to
reiterate its conclusions in response to Citizens Action’s
rehearing petition.
* * *
In its challenge to the Texas Gas Project, Citizens Action
in effect seeks a judicial directive exhorting FERC to promote
general environmental concerns. But such a directive would far
exceed our review under the APA as well as FERC’s authority
under the NGA and NEPA. Congress charged FERC with the
development of natural gas pipelines, not with making local
energy decisions or setting national environmental policy. For
the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review.
So ordered.

-- 22 of 22 --