Bold Alliance v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F()R THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bold Alliance, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 17-cv-01822 (RJL) ) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et ) az., ) F I L E D ) EP 2 a Defendants. ) S 2018 ) C|erk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the Distrlct of Columbia MEMORANDUM OPINION ¢-r__ september ZZ __2018 [Dkt. ## 11, 16, 20, 21, 22] Plaintiffs challenge the F ederal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC’s”) issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity to defendants Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC (“ACP”) and Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (“MVP”). Those certificates authorize ACP and MVP to exercise certain limited eminent domain rights on property in the path of two planned natural gas pipelines. Plaintiffs raise a bevy of constitutional and statutory claims - l7 in total - and ask this Court to issue declaratory and injunctive relief in order to prevent ACP and MVP from using their certificates to condemn land in the pipelines’ Way. Seel Am. Compl. 1111 57-145. Defendants respond that plaintiffs have selected the wrong forum, and that this Court lacks subject-matterjurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. lZ(b)(l). That is so because Congress, through the Natural Gas Act, has vested FERC With the sole jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to the construction of natural gas pipelines, and designated the courts of appeals as the exclusive forum for issues arising from FERC proceedings ln addition, defendants maintain that plaintiffs have brought their claims prematurely, running afoul of both the doctrines of ripeness and exhaustion And, even Were this Court to find jurisdiction, certain defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Which relief can be granted See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(b)(6). 'l`hc motions to dismiss are fully briefed, and ripe for rcview. For the reasons that follow, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. l therefore cannot proceed to the merits ofplaintiffs’ claims, and Will GRANT the l\/lotion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Commissioner Neil Chatterjee, Commissioner Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Commissioner Robert F. Powelson, in their official capacities`(together, “Federal Defendants”) [Dl