Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing
⚙️ What is FERC Licensing?
🔹 Overview
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent U.S. agency that regulates:
Interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil
Licensing of non-federal hydropower projects
LNG terminals, wholesale energy markets, and interstate pipelines
FERC licensing primarily comes into play under the Federal Power Act (FPA) for hydropower projects and under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for natural gas infrastructure, including pipelines and LNG terminals.
🔹 Key Functions of FERC Licensing:
Review and grant licenses for hydropower dams and transmission infrastructure.
Ensure compliance with environmental laws (e.g., NEPA, Clean Water Act, ESA).
Determine whether a project serves the public interest.
Coordinate with state and tribal authorities.
Conduct Environmental Assessments (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).
⚖️ Key Legal Standards for FERC Licensing
Public Convenience and Necessity: Required under the Natural Gas Act.
Comprehensive Plan Requirement: Under FPA §10(a), hydropower licenses must consider environmental, recreational, and energy uses.
Environmental Review: Required under NEPA and ESA before a license is granted.
Water Quality Certification: Required from states under Clean Water Act §401.
📚 Landmark FERC Licensing Cases – Detailed Explanation
✅ 1. California v. FERC (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990)
Facts:
California sought to impose minimum streamflow requirements on a federally licensed hydropower project.
Issue:
Can states impose additional environmental conditions beyond those set by FERC under a federal license?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that FERC’s authority under the Federal Power Act preempts state laws on water flow regulation for licensed hydropower projects.
However, states retain limited control through §401 certifications under the Clean Water Act.
Significance:
Reaffirmed federal supremacy in licensing hydropower projects.
Clarified the balance between state and federal authority in energy regulation.
✅ 2. Minisink Residents for Environmental Preservation and Safety v. FERC (D.C. Cir., 2014)
Facts:
Residents challenged FERC’s approval of a natural gas compressor station, arguing FERC failed to consider alternatives.
Issue:
Did FERC comply with NEPA in its environmental review of the project?
Judgment:
The D.C. Circuit held that FERC adequately considered alternatives and was not required to select the option favored by residents.
The court deferred to FERC’s technical expertise and decision-making.
Significance:
Upheld FERC’s broad discretion in pipeline licensing and NEPA compliance.
Demonstrated limits of judicial review when FERC follows procedural requirements.
✅ 3. Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. FERC (D.C. Cir., 2004)
Facts:
The Tribe objected to the relicensing of a hydroelectric project near sacred land without adequate tribal consultation.
Issue:
Did FERC violate the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or the tribe’s religious rights?
Judgment:
The court ruled that while FERC had to consider tribal concerns, it did not have to reject the license simply because of religious objections.
FERC’s consultation was found to be procedurally sufficient.
Significance:
Clarified FERC’s duty to consult tribes, but affirmed that this does not give tribes veto power.
Emphasized procedural over substantive obligations under NHPA.
✅ 4. Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. FERC (D.C. Cir., 2006)
Facts:
Environmental groups challenged FERC’s licensing of a natural gas pipeline through sensitive environmental areas.
Issue:
Did FERC violate NEPA and ignore environmental impacts?
Judgment:
The court held that FERC failed to properly analyze cumulative environmental impacts, especially related to connected projects.
FERC was ordered to re-evaluate and supplement its EIS.
Significance:
Reinforced the requirement for rigorous environmental review under NEPA.
Limited FERC’s ability to segment projects to avoid environmental analysis.
✅ 5. Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC (D.C. Cir., 2019)
Facts:
The Tribe challenged the repeated withdrawal and resubmission of water quality certifications to delay FERC relicensing of a dam project.
Issue:
Can states indefinitely delay §401 certification to stall FERC licensing?
Judgment:
The court held that the one-year deadline under Clean Water Act §401 is strict, and states cannot “reset” it by having applicants withdraw and resubmit.
As a result, the state's authority to delay was waived, and FERC could proceed.
Significance:
Major decision preventing states from using procedural tactics to delay energy infrastructure.
Strengthened FERC’s timely licensing authority.
✅ 6. Alcoa Power Generating Inc. v. FERC (D.C. Cir., 2012)
Facts:
Alcoa challenged FERC’s imposition of conditions under the FPA during the relicensing of its hydroelectric facility.
Issue:
Did FERC exceed its statutory authority under the Federal Power Act?
Judgment:
The court ruled in favor of FERC, emphasizing that it may impose environmental and operational conditions to serve the public interest.
Found that FERC acted within its discretionary authority under §10 of the FPA.
Significance:
Affirmed FERC’s broad authority to impose conditions on hydropower licenses.
Reaffirmed the public interest standard as central to FERC licensing.
🧾 Summary Table of Key FERC Licensing Cases
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| California v. FERC | 1990 | State streamflow rules vs. federal license | FERC authority preempts state regulation |
| Minisink v. FERC | 2014 | Environmental impact of compressor station | FERC’s NEPA review upheld |
| Snoqualmie Tribe v. FERC | 2004 | Tribal consultation for sacred lands | FERC's consultation sufficient |
| Friends of Columbia Gorge | 2006 | Cumulative impacts under NEPA | FERC required to reanalyze EIS |
| Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC | 2019 | §401 certification delays | States can't manipulate deadlines |
| Alcoa v. FERC | 2012 | Scope of license conditions | FERC can impose public interest conditions |
📌 Conclusion
The FERC licensing process is a powerful regulatory tool designed to ensure energy infrastructure is developed in a manner that balances:
Environmental protection
Energy needs
Public interest
State and tribal rights
However, as the cases above demonstrate, FERC's authority is broad but not unlimited. Courts have:
Upheld FERC’s discretion when it meets procedural obligations (e.g., Minisink).
Invalidated FERC decisions for inadequate environmental review (e.g., Columbia Gorge).
Limited state interference through strict deadlines (e.g., Hoopa Valley).
RELATED Blog
0 comments