The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued orders on remand for two major liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects on the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas: Texas LNG Brownsville LLC and Rio Grande LNG LLC (along with the Rio Bravo Pipeline Company). Both cases had been remanded by the D.C. Circuit in Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera v. FERC[1] and City of Port Isabel v. FERC[2] for additional analysis of climate change, environmental justice, and air quality impacts.
In both orders, FERC reaffirmed project approvals, emphasized a limited role for climate and environmental justice considerations, and relied on newly issued Trump administration executive orders to narrow its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FERC also granted a significant extension of time for Texas LNG to construct its terminal.
Texas LNG Brownsville, 192 FERC ¶ 61,170 (2025)
FERC originally authorized the Texas LNG Brownsville project in 2019. The project consists of constructing a terminal capable of exporting 4 million metric tonnes of LNG a year. Following a series of court challenges, the D.C. Circuit required FERC to revisit its greenhouse gas and environmental justice analyses and to address whether air quality data from the Isla Blanca monitor should be incorporated. On remand, FERC prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement that included the Isla Blanca data and reaffirmed that the project's emissions would not cause or contribute to significant exceedances under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Commission again declined to apply the Social Cost of Carbon metric, reasoning that it is not appropriate for project-level review.
With respect to environmental justice, the Commission noted that the Trump administration's January 2025 executive orders revoked earlier mandates to identify and mitigate disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations and prohibited agencies from weighing environmental considerations not expressly required by statute. While Commission staff presented environmental justice information "for informational purposes," the order emphasized that FERC is no longer legally obligated to conduct such analysis.
Additionally, FERC granted Texas LNG a five-year extension of time—until November 2029—to complete construction and place the terminal in service. The Commission found "good cause" existed because of protracted litigation and permitting delays, emphasizing that legal uncertainty justifies additional time. Ultimately, FERC concluded that the project, as conditioned, remains "not inconsistent with the public interest" under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), notwithstanding localized adverse visual impacts and some community concerns.
Rio Grande LNG, 192 FERC ¶ 61,198 (2025)
FERC first authorized the Rio Grande LNG terminal and its associated Rio Bravo Pipeline in 2019, with the terminal designed to produce up to 27 million metric tonnes of LNG a year, and the pipeline capable of transporting 4.5 billion cubic feet per day from the Agua Dulce Hub to the terminal site in Cameron County. In Vecinos and Port Isabel, the D.C. Circuit directed FERC to revisit its environmental analysis, issue a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS), consider a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) proposal advanced by Rio Grande, and evaluate whether air quality modeling should incorporate Isla Blanca monitor data. Although Rio Grande ultimately withdrew its CCS application in 2024, the court required FERC to treat it as an alternative. In the supplemental EIS, staff analyzed the CCS option but concluded it was infeasible given the lack of design specifics, routing, and permitting certainty, and therefore did not recommend adoption.
On air quality, FERC used Isla Blanca data and identified potential exceedances of annual PM2.5 standards in two locations within the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. The Commission nevertheless determined that the Rio Grande terminal's incremental contribution would be minimal, statistically insignificant in most areas, and not regionally significant. The associated Rio Bravo compressor station was also found to comply with federal standards. As with Texas LNG, FERC stated that environmental justice review is no longer required following the 2025 executive orders, though staff presented an analysis for informational purposes. The Commission reaffirmed that the LNG terminal is "not inconsistent with the public interest" under NGA Section 3, and that the Rio Bravo pipeline is required by the public convenience and necessity under NGA Section 7, citing DOE's export authorizations, precedent agreements securing long-term capacity commitments, and the economic benefits of the project.
Conclusion
FERC's orders reflect the Trump administration's priorities of deregulation, accelerated export approvals, and a reduced role for environmental justice and climate analysis in FERC decision making. FERC's reliance on the January 2025 executive orders marks a major departure from the Biden-era emphasis on climate and environmental justice. Analyses of these issues may still appear in environmental documents, but the Commission has made clear that they will not drive its ultimate decisions. The D.C. Circuit has remanded both LNG projects multiple times, but recent rulings avoided vacating the authorizations, reflecting a judicial reluctance to disrupt large infrastructure undertakings despite procedural flaws. At the same time, litigation and permitting delays are now considered "good cause" for extensions, signaling FERC's flexibility in allowing projects to proceed despite years of delay. Most importantly, consistent with NGA Section 3 and DOE export authorizations, the Commission continues to treat LNG export terminals as presumptively in the public interest, reaffirming their economic and geopolitical benefits.
[1] Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera v. FERC, 6 F.4th 1321 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
[2] City of Port Isabel v. FERC, 111 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2024), reh'g granted in part, 130 F.4th 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2023).