N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 17-3770-ag
| Decision Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | August Term 2017,No. 17-3770-ag,17-3770-ag |
| Citation | 884 F.3d 450 |
| Parties | NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, Petitioner, Sarah E. Burns, Amanda King, Melody Brunn, Brunn Living Trust, Pramilla Malick, Chair of Protect Orange County, Protect Orange County, (POC), an association, Intervenors, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. and CPV Valley, L.L.C., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Frederick A. Brodie, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Andrew D. Bing, Deputy Solicitor General Lisa M. Burianek, Deputy Bureau Chief; and Brian Lusignan, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, State of New York, Albany, NY, for Petitioner.
Robert H. Solomon, Solicitor (James P. Danly, General Counsel; Holly E. Cafer, Senior Attorney; and Ross Fulton, Attorney, on the brief), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Carolyn Elefant (Sarah A. Burns, New York University School of Law, New York NY; and David Wallace, David Wallace Law Offices, Montague, NJ, on the brief), Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Intervenors Sarah E. Burns, Amanda King, Melody Brunn, Brunn Living Trust, Pramilla Malick, Chair of Protect Orange County, Protect Orange County, (POC) an association.
Catherine E. Stetson (Sean Marotta, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC; and Paul Korman, Michael R. Pincus, and A. Gregory Junge, Van Ness Feldman LLP, on the brief), Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenors Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
Elizabeth W. Whittle, Nixon Peabody LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenors CPV Valley, L.L.C.
Before: Cabranes, Livingston, and Carney, Circuit Judges.
The questions presented are: (1) whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") correctly determined that petitioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("the Department") waived its authority to review the request of Intervenor Millennium Pipeline Company, L.L.C. ("Millennium") for a water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act by failing to act on that request within one year; and (2) whether FERC has jurisdiction to regulate the pipeline at issue, and, if so, whether FERC appropriately accepted and reviewed the application pursuant to its exclusive jurisdiction over interstate natural gas transportation under the Natural Gas Act.
The Department challenges two FERC orders. These orders effectively authorized Millennium to construct a natural gas pipeline to serve a power plant run by Intervenor CPV Valley, L.L.C. ("CPV") absent the water quality certification otherwise required to be procured from the Department under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341. In the orders under review, FERC determined that the Department waived its certification authority for the pipeline by failing to respond within one year of receiving Millennium’s request for water quality certification, as required by statute. Additionally, the Protect Orange County Intervenors ("the Landover Intervenors") challenge FERC’s jurisdiction over the pipeline at issue.
We conclude that the Department waived its authority to review Millennium’s request for a water quality certification under the Clean Water Act by failing to act on that request within one year. We also conclude that FERC does have jurisdiction over the pipeline. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for review.
The Valley Energy Center, owned by CPV, is an electric power generation facility under construction in the Town of Wawayanda, in Orange County, New York.1 CPV contracted with Millennium to build the pipeline as a means of connecting the plant to Millennium’s existing interstate natural gas pipeline, which runs through Orange County.2
On November 13, 2015, Millennium filed an application with FERC, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c), requesting certificate authorization to construct and operate 7.8 miles of sixteen-inch-diameter lateral pipeline and related facilities.3 The Natural Gas Act requires applicants to obtain "any permits, special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be required under Federal law."4 Since the pipeline would cross several streams of water in southern New York, Millennium was also required to apply to New York’s Department for a water quality certification under the Clean Water Act to confirm that the proposed pipeline project ("Project") would comply with the Act, state water quality standards, and other requirements of state law.5
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act provides that "[i]f the State ... fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification requirements ... shall be waived with respect to such Federal application."6
On forms dated November 18, 2015, Millennium submitted an application for a water quality certification to the Department.7 The Department received the application on November 23, 2015.8 On December 7, 2015, the Department notified Millennium that it deemed the application incomplete, pending FERC’s environmental assessment.9 FERC issued its assessment on May 9, 2016.10 On June 17, 2016, the Department issued a second notification that it considered Millennium’s application incomplete, requesting further information regarding the Project’s potential environmental impact.11 In August 2016, Millennium submitted responses conveying additional information to the Department.12
On November 9, 2016, FERC issued a certificate under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act approving the Project ("Certificate Order").13 The Certificate Order did not authorize Millennium to begin construction immediately, instead listing various conditions that the company would need to satisfy before starting work.14 After FERC issued the Certificate Order, Millennium requested expedited review of its application for a water quality certification.15 In response, the Department acknowledged that Millennium had fully responded to the second notice of incomplete application and stated that it would continue its review.16 It contended that it had, "at a minimum, until August 30, 2017," to either approve or deny the application.17
Eager to begin construction, Millennium petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to compel the Department to act on its application for water quality certification, on the basis that the Department failed to act on Millennium’s application for a water quality certification within the one-year time limit mandated by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.18 On June 23, 2017, that court dismissed Millennium’s petition for lack of standing, holding that Millennium could seek a remedy for the delay only from FERC.19
Accordingly, on July 21, 2017, Millennium requested that FERC determine that the Department had waived its authority under the Clean Water Act, and thus permit Millennium to proceed with construction.20 While that request was pending, on August 30, 2017—nearly two years after Millennium’s initial submission to the Department—the Department denied Millennium’s application.21 It determined that FERC’s environmental assessment had failed to evaluate the downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the Project. The Department therefore considered the environmental assessment incomplete and rejected the water quality certification request.22 Millennium petitioned this Court for review of the Department’s decision.23
On September 15, 2017, following the Department’s decision, FERC found that the Department’s delay constituted a waiver of the Department’s authority under the Clean Water Act ("Waiver Order").24 It held that under the plain language of Section 401—which states that the window for review opens upon "receipt of such request"—the relevant date for assessing waiver is the day the agency receives an application, in this case, November 23, 2015.25
The Department, and, separately, the Landowner Intervenors sought rehearing of the Waiver Order.26 FERC denied rehearing on November 15, 2017 ("Waiver Rehearing Order").27 Two days after FERC’s denial of rehearing, the Department filed this petition for review of the Waiver Order and the Waiver Rehearing Order.28 On appeal, the Landowner Intervenors claim that FERC lacks jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act to regulate the pipeline.
Two issues are presented by this proceeding: (1) whether FERC correctly interpreted Section 401 of the Clean Water Act when it held that the Department waived its right to act on Millennium’s application; and (2) whether FERC appropriately accepted and reviewed the application as subject to its exclusive jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.
We review FERC’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act, a statute that it does not administer, de novo .29 The Department contends that we should grant Chevron deference to a state agency’s interpretation of a federal statute. It claims that since Section 401 contemplates a joint federal-state program in which the Department is responsible for determining whether a proposal complies with the Clean Water Act, we should afford deference to its interpretation.30 The Department argues that we have afforded Chevron deference to a state agency’s interpretation of a federal statute in the case of Medicaid, another joint federal-state program.31
Our precedents, however, foreclose extending such deference. A state agency’s interpretation of a federal statute does not receive deference unless the federal agency charged with administering that statute has expressly approved the state’s interpretation and implementation.32 Although the Department has a role in determining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be required under Federal law." N.Y. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. FERC , 884 F.3d 450, 452–53 (2d Cir. 2018). FERC serves as the "lead agency" responsible for "coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations." 15 ......
-
N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
...interpretation of the Clean Water Act, a statute it does not administer. N.Y. State Dept’ of Env't Conservation v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm'n , 884 F.3d 450, 455 (2d Cir. 2018) (" New York I "). The DEC's interpretation of the Clean Water Act also receives no deference. Id. FERC's interpreta......
-
Town of Southold v. Wheeler
...an agency's "interpretation of ... a statute that it does not administer[ ] de novo ," N.Y. State Dep't of Env't Conservation v. FERC , 884 F.3d 450, 455 (2d Cir. 2018). "When the question is not one of the agency's authority but of the reasonableness of its actions," however, "the ‘arbitra......
-
Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
...use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be required under Federal law." N.Y. Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. FERC , 884 F.3d 450, 452–53 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 717n(a)(1), (2) ). As the lead agency, FERC is responsible for coordinating all applic......
-
Fourth Circuit Weighs In On Rules For Clean Water Act's One-Year Deadline For State Water Quality Certifications For Federal Discharge Permits
...Section 401 application, even if incomplete, triggers running of the one-year clock (New York State Department of Envt'l Cons. v. FERC, 884 F.3d 450 (2nd Cir. 2018), and that the state agency waives its rights under Section 401 even if it seeks to extend the one-year deadline to accommodate......
-
Fourth Circuit Weighs In On Rules For Clean Water Act's One-Year Deadline For State Water Quality Certifications For Federal Discharge Permits
...Section 401 application, even if incomplete, triggers running of the one-year clock (New York State Department of Envt'l Cons. v. FERC, 884 F.3d 450 (2nd Cir. 2018), and that the state agency waives its rights under Section 401 even if it seeks to extend the one-year deadline to accommodate......
-
EPA Rules On CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certifications By States
...Footnotes 1. Exec. Order No. 13990, 88 Fed Reg. 66558 (Jan 20, 2021). 2.New York State Department of Environmental Conservation v. FERC 884 F.3d 450, 455 (2d Cir. 2018) (Second Circuit rejects New York's argument that the Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 process "begins only once [the st......
-
Coordinated Rulemaking and Cooperative Federalism's Administrative Law.
...even though some lower courts have granted such deference."). (201.) N.Y. State Dep't of Env't Conservation v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm'n, 884 F.3d 450 (2d Cir. (202.) 33 U.S.C. [section] 1341(a) (2018). (203.) Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. (204.) N.Y. State Dep't of Env't Conservation, 884 F.3d......