{"id":6931,"date":"2020-07-01T11:09:10","date_gmt":"2020-07-01T16:09:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=6931"},"modified":"2020-07-02T11:01:13","modified_gmt":"2020-07-02T16:01:13","slug":"allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/","title":{"rendered":"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger’s Cat Scratches Back"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

By Jennifer Danis<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling\u00a0en banc<\/em><\/a>, held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\u2019s use of \u201ctolling orders\u201d could not block judicial review of its gas infrastructure certifications. The Commission created \u201ctolling orders\u201d to grant itself additional time to answer landowners\u2019 pleas for rehearing.\u00a0 But these orders also locked the courthouse doors for landowners seeking judicial review of Commission orders. Notably, after tolling time to respond to landowners\u2019 pleas for rehearing, the Commission routinely denied them. The D.C. Circuit Allegheny\u00a0<\/em>Defense <\/em>decision is a first important step towards reigning in the inimical practices the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission deploys when certifying gas infrastructure.<\/p>\n

FERC first started using tolling orders as a way to circumvent the Natural Gas Act\u2019s 30-day deadline to act on a party\u2019s request to rehear its decisions. The Commission would \u201cgrant\u201d the rehearing request for the limited purpose of avoiding the statutory deadline, but take no further action to actually consider the challenges raised in that request. As the Allegheny Defense\u00a0<\/em>court said, a tolling order is \u201cnot a grant of rehearing of the challenged order; it is kicking the can down the road.\u201d Courts initially tolerated the Commission\u2019s use of tolling orders in the context of rate cases, where delayed judicial access doesn\u2019t result in land condemnation and environmental destruction.\u00a0 Over time, the Commission began to use them for pipeline and other natural gas infrastructure certifications, eventually coming to rely on them for 99% of these approvals, as the court noted today.Tolling orders have allowed the Commission to ignore landowners\u2019 rehearing requests for more than ten times the statutorily allowed period, even as the Commission\u2019s certifications remained in place.<\/p>\n

During this legal purgatory, landowners\u2019 property has been condemned and their land torn up for pipelines, because gas infrastructure certifications are treated by courts and the Commission as final for condemnation and construction purposes.\u00a0 But when landowners sought judicial review of whether the Commission\u2019s fossil fuel certifications were rightly issued, both the Commission and the courts (including the D.C. Circuit) told landowners that the orders were not final for purposes of judicial review. So, the certification was final enough to condemn private property and build a pipeline, but not final enough to challenge in court. The D.C. Circuit recognized the absurdity of this situation: \u201cTolling orders, in other words, render Commission decisions akin to Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s cat: both final and not final at the same time.\u201d<\/p>\n

That ended yesterday. In a strongly worded opinion, the court held that \u201cthe Commission has no authority to erase and replace the statutorily prescribed jurisdictional consequences of its inaction.\u201dAnd the court made clear it will open its doors to landowners seeking judicial review at the end of the statutory 30-day period,overruling prior law that had condoned the Commission\u2019s use of tolling orders. \u00a0Importantly, the court found that it owed no Chevron\u00a0<\/em>deference to the Commission\u2019s interpretation of the Gas Act\u2019s judicial review provision.<\/p>\n

Landowners have farther to go to remedy injustice from pipeline certifications and resulting condemnation processes.\u00a0 Judge Griffith, joined by Judges Katsas and Rao, wrote separately to give additional guidance on \u201cpossibilities for curtailing the remaining factors\u201d driving \u201cunfairness\u201d to landowners.\u00a0 Their concurrence points to the limitations of the court\u2019s ruling, because it does not preclude district courts, where pipeline condemnation actions take place, from allowing them to proceed pending grants of rehearing. But together with the majority opinion, the concurrence lays out a roadmap to district courts effectuating such condemnations for restoring the balance of justice.<\/p>\n

The D.C. Circuit\u2019s opinion also bodes well for percolating challenges to another novel Commission practice: amending gas pipeline certifications while those same certifications are being challenged in court.\u00a0 In Allegheny Defense<\/em>, the D.C. Circuit made abundantly clear that the Gas Act\u2019s rehearing and review provisions, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 717r(a) and 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 717r(b), trigger exclusive jurisdiction when the agency files its record of review of the pipeline application.\u00a0 The court delineated the bounds of Commission authority, drawing a clear line at the filing of the underlying administrative record with the reviewing court, \u201cwhich is typically forty days after the petition is served on the Commission.\u201d<\/p>\n

So far, the Commission has ignored this statutory limitation, acting to modify its orders while they are being litigated in court, after the administrative record has been filed.\u00a0 New Jersey Conservation Foundation and The Watershed Institute, among others, have flagged that practice as deeply flawed in pending pipeline projects.\u00a0 For example, earlier this year, the Commission opened a docket to consider an \u201camendment\u201d to its 2018 PennEast Pipeline Certificate Order, PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC<\/em>, 162 FERC \u00b6 61,053 (2018).<\/a>[1]But this order is being litigated in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Commission filed the administrative record with the court on October 24, 2018. See<\/em>USCA Document #1756805, filed in D.C. Circuit Case #18-1128.\u00a0 This practice doesn\u2019t comport with the reasoning in the court\u2019s Allegheny Defense ruling.\u00a0 \u00a0The decision took an important step towards ensuring the Commission hews closer to the Gas Act\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[1]The author represents New Jersey Conservation Foundation and The Watershed Institute in challenges to the PennEast Pipeline projects.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jennifer Danis On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling\u00a0en banc, held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\u2019s use of \u201ctolling orders\u201d could not block judicial review of its gas infrastructure certifications. The Commission created \u201ctolling orders\u201d to grant itself additional time to answer landowners\u2019 pleas for rehearing.\u00a0 But […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2314,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5680,9338,9473],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6931","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-clean-energy","7":"category-natural-gas","8":"category-pipelines","9":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nAllegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat Scratches Back - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat Scratches Back - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Jennifer Danis On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling\u00a0en banc, held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\u2019s use of \u201ctolling orders\u201d could not block judicial review of its gas infrastructure certifications. The Commission created \u201ctolling orders\u201d to grant itself additional time to answer landowners\u2019 pleas for rehearing.\u00a0 But […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-07-01T16:09:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-07-02T16:01:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/07\/FERC-150x150.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tiffany Challe-Campiz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tiffany Challe-Campiz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tiffany Challe-Campiz\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045\"},\"headline\":\"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger’s Cat Scratches Back\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-01T16:09:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-07-02T16:01:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":889,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/FERC-150x150.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Energy\",\"Natural Gas\",\"Pipelines\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/\",\"name\":\"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat Scratches Back - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/FERC-150x150.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-07-01T16:09:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-07-02T16:01:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/FERC.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/FERC.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":300},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/01\\\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger’s Cat Scratches Back\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045\",\"name\":\"Tiffany Challe-Campiz\",\"description\":\"Tiffany is the Communications Associate at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/climate.law.columbia.edu\\\/directory\\\/tiffany-challe\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/tiffanychalle\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat Scratches Back - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat Scratches Back - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"By Jennifer Danis On Tuesday, June 30, 2020, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling\u00a0en banc, held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission\u2019s use of \u201ctolling orders\u201d could not block judicial review of its gas infrastructure certifications. The Commission created \u201ctolling orders\u201d to grant itself additional time to answer landowners\u2019 pleas for rehearing.\u00a0 But […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2020-07-01T16:09:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-07-02T16:01:13+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/07\/FERC-150x150.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Tiffany Challe-Campiz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Tiffany Challe-Campiz","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/"},"author":{"name":"Tiffany Challe-Campiz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045"},"headline":"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger’s Cat Scratches Back","datePublished":"2020-07-01T16:09:10+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-02T16:01:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/"},"wordCount":889,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/07\/FERC-150x150.jpg","articleSection":["Clean Energy","Natural Gas","Pipelines"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/","name":"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger's Cat Scratches Back - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/07\/FERC-150x150.jpg","datePublished":"2020-07-01T16:09:10+00:00","dateModified":"2020-07-02T16:01:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/07\/FERC.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2020\/07\/FERC.jpg","width":400,"height":300},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2020\/07\/01\/allegheny-defense-project-v-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-schrodingers-cat-scratches-back\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Allegheny Defense Project V. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Schr\u00f6dinger’s Cat Scratches Back"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/0b8e09caa570761233643ba0af724045","name":"Tiffany Challe-Campiz","description":"Tiffany is the Communications Associate at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.","sameAs":["https:\/\/climate.law.columbia.edu\/directory\/tiffany-challe"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/tiffanychalle\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6931","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2314"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6931"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6931\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6931"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6931"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6931"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}