National Committee for the New River, Inc. 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.

• finding that new information did not “seriously change[] the environmental landscape” where the agency’s process for evaluating the environmental impact was “comprehensive”
• noting that FERC had concluded that \there was ample market demand\ for a proposed natural-gas pipeline project because several shippers had already contracted for 87% of the project's capacity
• noting that if “every aspect of [a] project were required to be finalized before any part of the project could move forward, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to construct the project”
• rejecting petitioner's claim that satisfying the second factor, alone, is sufficient \to tip the balance in the four-factor test\
• deferring to FERC's determination of insufficient control despite petitioner's argument that the project at issue was subject to numerous federal licensing requirements
• explaining that a supplemental impact statement is “only required where new information provides a seriously different picture of the environmental landscape” (quoting City of Olmsted Falls v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 292 F.3d 261, 274 (D.C. Cir. 2002))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).