20 (emphasis added).15 40 CFR 1502.14(f); see also, 40 CFR 1502.16(h) (Environmental Consequences “shall include discussions of: . . . Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under § 1502.14(f)).”)

obal, national, regional and local impacts; and the impact to historic or cultural resources, Tribal sacred sites, parkland, and ecologically sensitive areas.5. Updating Interagency Coordination and Schedules for Environmental ReviewsOn June 3, 2023, the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) was signed into law, which included amendments to NEPA.6 The FRA amended section 102(2)(C) and added sections 102(2)(D) through (F) and sections 106 through 111 of NEPA.The changes in interagency cooperation include codifying One Federal Decision,7 expanding the use of Categorical Exclusions (CEs) across federal agencies and setting deadlines for completion of EISs.FOOTNOTESNational Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2, 88 Fed. Reg. 49924 (Jul. 31, 2023) (BPRIR).National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions, 87 Fed. Reg. 23453 (Apr. 20, 2022).BPRIR, 88 Fed. Reg. at 49942/3.BPRIR, 88 Fed. Reg. at 49957/3.BPRIR, 88 Fed. Reg. at 49984 (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. 1502.16).Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, Pub. L. No. 118-5 (2023).Exec. Order No. 13807, 82 Fed. Reg. 40463 (Aug. 24, 2017).

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61, 190 at p. 57 (June 12, 2018).Sierra Club at 1371 (citing 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16(b) and 1508.8).

The Draft Guidance adds that agencies may find it helpful to compare alternatives based on GHG emissions “along with other potential effects and economic and technical considerations.” It then cites to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.16(e), which specifies that the alternatives analysis must include discussions of “[e]nergy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures.” This may be a nod to agencies pursuing energy projects (such as mining, oil and gas extraction, pipelines or export terminals) with measurable upstream and downstream GHG emissions.New Agency Procedures.

The Court explained that “[i]t’s not just the journey, though, it’s the destination,” and that the gas will go to new and existing power plants, “generating both electricity and carbon dioxide.” The Court pointed to an administrative rule of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 40 C.F.R. 1502.16, that requires indirect effects be considered if they are “reasonably foreseeable.” The court acknowledged that it had ruled—three times no less—that carbon emissions did not have to be considered in permitting Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals.