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

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that NEPA does not require agencies to weigh the “monetary costs and benefits of the respective proposals . . . , particularly where only an environmental assessment, rather than an environment impact statement, is involved”
• finding EA adequately examined compressor-station project’s impact on property values where it recognized some adverse impacts might accrue but could be mitigated
• discussing the Commission’s “broad authority to regulate the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce”
• upholding cumulative impact analysis finding \no significant cumulative impacts were expected\ where the project under consideration \ itself was expected to have minimal impacts\ and-as is the case here-the two projects had distinct construction timelines
• “[W]e consistently decline to flyspeck an agency’s * * * analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).