Pipeline v. Gutierrez

2 Citing cases

  1. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

    991 F.3d 439 (2d Cir. 2021)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    However sincere the DEC's desire might have been to review the application as thoroughly and efficiently as possible by giving itself 36 more days, and however modest and reasonable that extension may have been, allowing the state to dictate the beginning of the review by agreement would "blur th[e] bright-line rule into a subjective standard."Id . at 456. The DEC argues that Section 401 is analogous to the Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA") and urges us to consider the approach taken in Millennium Pipeline Co. v. Gutierrez , 424 F. Supp. 2d 168 (D.D.C. 2006). But a reference to that case further supports the approach taken here.

  2. Weaver's Cove v. R.I. Coastal

    589 F.3d 458 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 73 times
    Holding that a favorable decision would provide plaintiff “effectual relief” by removing “a barrier to achieving approval” even though additional regulatory hurdles would need to be cleared before project could be commenced

    The Secretary's decision, in turn, may be reviewed in federal district court.See, e.g., Millennium Pipeline Co., L.P. v. Gutierrez, 424 F.Supp.2d 168, 173-74 (D.D.C.2006). A state may reopen review of a certification if the applicant makes a "major amendment" to the project.