excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 21,252
- 41,114
- 2,290
The left, if they can't win any other way, will try and court-shop these things. This is just another attack on our energy sector by a court with Democrat appointed judges leading the way.
With 12 of the last 16 years of Democrat appointments to the lower courts, you can see where this is headed, and imagine if Dems ever got to appoint the majority to SCOTUS.
Environmental justice, indeed. More like leftist cockamamie crap at work.
Two of the three judges are Biden's awful appointees, a third is an 80-year-old G H W Bush appointee who has been rubber-stamping these people for some time now, meaning she probably has lost it.
www.aol.com
With 12 of the last 16 years of Democrat appointments to the lower courts, you can see where this is headed, and imagine if Dems ever got to appoint the majority to SCOTUS.
Environmental justice, indeed. More like leftist cockamamie crap at work.
Two of the three judges are Biden's awful appointees, a third is an 80-year-old G H W Bush appointee who has been rubber-stamping these people for some time now, meaning she probably has lost it.
The D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday ruled against approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related pipeline projects at the Port of Brownsville, effectively canceling prior approval of three such projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Sierra Club, in announcing the ruling, said this is the first time a court has vacated FERC approval of an LNG terminal. FERC approved Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline "despite widespread concerns for the harm the projects would cause to the surrounding communities and the climate."
A lawsuit was filed against FERC by the Sierra Club, the city of Port Isabel, Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, a Floreville-based nonprofit organization, claiming that FERC failed to "adequately consider the environmental justice impacts and greenhouse gas emissions of the three projects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act and the Natural Gas Act."
The D.C. court upheld the petitioners' arguments, vacating FERC's approvals, meaning the agency now has to reconsider the impacts of the three projects. This will require a new draft supplemental Environmental Impact Statements and public comment period before FERC decides whether to issue new project permits.
The petitioners and other LNG foes have argued that the projects would destroy endangered species habitat and many acres of wetland, while releasing hazardous air pollution that could cause asthma, cancer and other health conditions. The court's ruling follows two other rulings in July that "call into question the adequacy of FERC reviews," according to the Sierra Club, which noted that last week the D.C. Circuit Court ruled FERC had failed to consider greenhouse gas emissions as well as market need for expansion of Real Energy Access, a Williams company pipeline project in the Northeast.
Also last month, the same court ruled that FERC failed to adequately assess Commonwealth LNG's air pollution impacts and greenhouse gas emissions, the Sierra Club said, adding that "it is unacceptable for FERC to conduct insufficient environmental justice analysis and to decline to make determinations on the significance of climate-warming emissions."...
DC court vacates LNG approval at Port of Brownsville
Aug. 7—The D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday ruled against approval of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal and related pipeline projects at the Port of Brownsville, effectively canceling prior approval of three such projects by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Sierra Club, in...
www.aol.com
Last edited:
