Conservation Groups Sue Energy Dept. Over Alaska LNG Export Project
Conservation groups Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity took to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to ask the Department of Energy to reverse its approval of exports to be shipped from the Alaska liquefied natural gas project. The decision, which approves LNG shipments from Alaska's North Slope to Asia, failed to fully assess the project's "climate and environmental harms," the center said in a press release.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The project would export 20 million metric tons of gas per year, "potentially releasing more than 50 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually from those exports," the center said. “The Biden administration made a mockery of the climate emergency when it approved the Alaska LNG carbon bomb and this lawsuit aims to stop it from being built,” said Jason Rylander, attorney at the center's Climate Law Institute. “The science is clear. Development of massive new fossil fuel export projects like Alaska LNG is incompatible with a stable climate. President Biden needs to reverse course and protect our communities, our wildlife and our future.”
The Sierra Club initially sued the Department of Energy after it approved the project's exports in August 2020. The club filed a rehearing petition with the department and then sued in the D.C. Court of Appeals, challenging the decision. The Energy Department granted the rehearing petition and "prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement," the conservation groups said, but it again approved the project in April 2023 after carrying out the additional analysis.
The environmental groups filed a rehearing request in May, which was denied by the Energy Department in June. This prompted the additional petition for review in the D.C. Circuit.