US Appeals Court Blocks Rule Allowing LNG Transport by Rail
WASHINGTON — A federal court has struck down a Department of Transportation rule regarding the transportation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail, originally enacted in 2020. The court cited the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) failure to adequately consider the safety risks involved.
Specifically, the decision by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found in favor of a coalition of state attorneys general, environmental groups, and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. These groups challenged the rule on the grounds that the PHMSA acted, “arbitrarily and capriciously,” by not requiring an environmental impact statement during the rulemaking process. Consequently, the court vacated the rule and remanded it back to the agency for further consideration.
Judge Florence Pan highlighted several concerns with the rule, including the lack of limits on the number of LNG tank cars in a single train and the absence of a speed limit for such trains. The PHMSA noted that one company was considering LNG trains with up to 80 cars, raising fears of potentially catastrophic outcomes. During the rulemaking process, environmental groups emphasized that the energy content in 22 LNG tank cars could be equivalent to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II.
Notably, no LNG transportation under this rule has taken place, owing to a directive from the Biden administration for federal agencies to reassess policies from the Trump era that were at odds with Biden's climate objectives. This led the PHMSA to suspend the rule until either a modified version is released or June 30, 2025, whichever occurs first. However, the PHMSA informed the court that a new rule is unlikely before June 20, 2025, with no decision yet on whether to prolong the suspension.
Reuters reports that the PHMSA did not respond to requests for comments. Bradley Marshall, an attorney for Earthjustice—one of the challengers of the rule—expressed satisfaction with the court's recognition of the potential dangers the rule posed to communities. Emily Jeffers, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, remarked on the evident risk associated with the proposal, stating, “There’s enormous potential for disaster in sending train cars loaded with explosive liquid natural gas through populated areas.”
For further information on similar topics, visit our Help Center or explore more in our Shop and Register sections.
