Court backs FERC, denies challenge to Puerto Rico gas pipeline
(UI) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has denied petitions from environmental groups challenging the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline in Puerto Rico, according to a Sept. 19 opinion issued by the D.C. Circuit.
The case, El Puente de Williamsburg, Inc.-Enlace Latino de Acción Climática, Inc., et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; NFEnergía LLC, Intervenor (No. 23-1333), was argued April 1, 2025, and decided on September 19, 2025.
At issue was a 220-foot pipeline built by NFEnergía LLC to supply emergency generators operated by the Army Corps of Engineers following Hurricane Fiona. Petitioners argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) unlawfully allowed construction and operation without the environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act or substantive review under the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas said the orders in question reflected “an unreviewable exercise of enforcement discretion.” The opinion emphasized that FERC had not granted authorization but instead stated it “will not take action to prevent the immediate construction and operation of the proposed facilities” during its ongoing review.
The court explained that the NGA provides FERC with broad discretion in enforcement. “At every turn the NGA confirms that FERC’s decision how, or whether, to enforce … is entirely discretionary,” the opinion stated.
The judges also noted the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Puerto Rico’s fragile grid. FERC cited “the urgent need to stabilize Puerto Rico’s electrical grid in preparation for the 2023 hurricane season” and the involvement of multiple federal and commonwealth agencies as reasons for not halting construction.
Environmental groups warned the decision could open the door to a “build first, review later” approach, but the court rejected that concern. The opinion said FERC’s decision was limited to this emergency context and stressed that absent such circumstances, companies would be unlikely to construct pipelines without section 3 authorization.
Concluding, the court denied the petitions for review, stating: “Because the orders at issue reflect an unreviewable exercise of enforcement discretion, we deny the petition for review. So ordered”.
Related News
From Archive
- Three Houston workers killed by hydrogen sulfide leak during sewer repair
- Trump's tariffs drive $33 million cost increase for Cincinnati sewer project
- TxDOT advances massive drainage tunnel beneath I-35 in Austin
- Funding approved for $1.3 billion, 60-mile water reuse system in southern Utah
- Is the Boring Company tunneling blind in Nashville? Experts warn rock tests fall short
Comments