Border Power Plant Working Group v. Department of Energy

Plaintiffs challenged the environmental assessment for transmission lines that would carry electricity generated from gas-fired power plants in Mexico to California. Part of the challenge was that the environmental assessment had failed to consider the impacts of carbon dioxide emissions that would be produced by the burning of fossil gas.

Background
Baja California Power (BCP) and Sempra Energy Resources (SER) applied to the U.S. Department of Energy for the construction of electric transmission lines within the U.S. and across the U.S.-Mexico border, which would connect Mexican power plants to ones in Southern California. The Department of Energy did environmental assessments and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FoNSI). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires environmental impact statements for any major federal action with significant environmental effects. The environmental assessment must consider environmental impacts, including future foreseeable actions with potentially drastic or cumulative impacts. In December 2001, two permits and federal rights-of-way were issued. The environmentalist plaintiffs challenged the FoNSI and the case was heard in the U.S. District Court.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
 * Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

Ruling
In May 2003, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the Department of Energy violated its NEPA obligations because of its inadequate analysis of: (1) the potential for controversy; (2) water impacts; (3) impacts from ammonia and carbon dioxide; (4) alternatives; and (5) cumulative impacts. The Court also noted that without the transmission line construction, the power plants in Mexico would likely not be created, meaning emissions analysis from the Mexican power plants should have been considered but were not. The environmental assessment was thus inadequate and the Court asked for a remedy for the violation. The Department of Energy provided an environmental impact statement, which the Court found to be adequate.

Takeaways
This case is part of a broader issue of how inter-country energy relations should be assessed and how much culpability the U.S. would bear for emissions from another country when it's connected to the U.S. energy grid. The Court's finding that the emissions from the Mexican power plant should be considered means that the U.S. does have some responsibility when it comes to connecting to other countries' gas-fired power and assessments cannot be limited to only what is within the U.S. border.

Links

 * Earth Justice, who helped bring the case
 * 2005, Kelly Rain, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, short analysis of the case
 * 05/14/2007, David V. Carruthers, Environmental Politics, Environmental justice and the politics of energy on the US–Mexico border