Text

Official Exhibit - NYS000101-00-BD01- Wilderness Society, Et Al. V. U.S. Dept. of Energy (9th Cir. No. 08-71074) (Feb. 1, 2011) (Wilderness Society)
	ML12334A565
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	12/14/2011
From:	; Westlaw
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
	SECY RAS
References
	RAS 21538, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
	Download: ML12334A565 (45)
	v • d • e

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

CALIFORNIA WILDERNESS COALITION; Nat-ural Resources Defense Council; The Wilderness Society, Inc., Petitioners, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent, Allegheny Energy, Inc.; American Public Power Association; Edison Electric Institute; Mononga-hela Power Company; National Rural Electric Co-operative Association; PJM Interconnection; Path Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; Path West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC; San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Southern California Edis-on Company; The Potomac Edison Company; Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company; West Penn Power Company, Interven-ors-Respondents-Intervenors.

Commonwealth of Virginia; Robert F. McDonnell, Governor; Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Attorney Gener-al, Petitioners, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel Bodman, Secretary of Energy, Respondents, Allegheny Energy, Inc., DBA Allegheny Power; Monongahela Power Company, DBA Allegheny Power; Path Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; Path West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC; Potomac Edison Power Company, DBA Al-legheny Power; Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company; West Penn Power Company, dba Al-legheny Power, Edison Electric Institute; American Public Power Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Southern California Edison Company, Respondents-Intervenors.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC), Petitioner, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel W. Bod-man, Respondents.

State of New York, Petitioner, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel W. Bod-man, Respondents.

Piedmont Environmental Council; National Trust for Historic Preservation; National Parks Conserva-tion Association; Civil War Preservation Trust; Pennsylvania Land Trust Association; The County of Fauquier, Virginia, Petitioners, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Page 1 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

(Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3)

ASLBP #: 07-858-03-LR-BD01 Docket #: 05000247 l 05000286 Exhibit #:

Identified:

Admitted:

Withdrawn:

Rejected:

Stricken:

Other:

NYS000101-00-BD01 10/15/2012 10/15/2012 NYS000101 Submitted: December 14, 2011

Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel W. Bod-man, Respondents.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Department of Environmental Protection, Petitioners, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy, Respondent.

Public Utilities Commission of the State of Califor-nia, Petitioner, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Petitioner-Intervenor, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel W. Bod-man, Respondents, Southern California Edison Company, Respond-ent-Intervenor.

Imperial Irrigation District, Petitioner, and Desert Protection Society; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Backcountry Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Mor-ongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel W. Bod-man, Respondents, and Southern California Edison Company.

Arizona Corporation Commission, Petitioner, and Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Desert Protection Society; Center for Com-munity Action and Environmental Justice; Back-country Against Dumps; Desert Protective Council; Morongo Basin Conservation Association; Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy; Donna Charpied; Laurence Charpied; San Bernardino Valley Audu-bon Society, Intervenors, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel W. Bod-man, Respondents, and Southern California Edison Company.

Communities Against Regional Interconnect, Peti-

tioner, v.

U.S. Department of Energy, Respondent.

People of the State of New York and Public Service Commission of the State of New York, Petitioners, v.

U.S. Department of Energy and Samuel Bodman, Secretary of Energy, Respondents.

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Petitioner, v.

U.S. Department of Energy, Respondent, Southern California Edison Company; Edison Elec-tric Institute; American Public Power Association; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Monongahela Power Company; The Potomac Edis-on Company; West Penn Power Company; Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company; Al-legheny Energy, Inc.; Path Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC; Path West Virginia Transmission Company, LLC; San Diego Gas & Electric Com-pany, Respondents-Intervenors.

Toll Brothers, Inc., Petitioner, Page 2 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

v.

U.S. Department of Energy, Respondent.

Nos. 08-71074, 08-71823, 08-71829, 08-71831, 08-71845, 08-71870, 08-71872, 08-71884, 08-71908, 08-72423, 08-72644, 08-72717, 08-72835.

Argued and Submitted June 8, 2010.

Filed Feb. 1, 2011.

Background:

Department of Energy (DOE) issued order formally designating two national interest electric transmission corridors (NIETCs). Interested entities petitioned for judicial review.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Callahan, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) requirement under Energy Policy Act for DOE to undertake study of electric transmission conges-tion in consultation with affected States meant that DOE had to confer with affected States before it completed study; (2) consultation requirement had not been met; (3) failure of DOE to consult with affected States regarding study of electric transmission congestion was not harmless error; (4) entire study had to be vacated; (5) designation of NIETCs were final agency ac-tions that constituted major federal action under National Environmental Policy Act; (6) formal environmental assessment (EA) was re-quired; and (7) failure to undertake study of environmental im-pacts of designating NIETCs was not harmless er-ror.

Vacated and remanded.

Ikuta, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes

[1] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 763 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative De-cisions 15AV(D) Scope of Review in General 15Ak763 k. Arbitrary, unreasonable or ca-pricious action; illegality. Most Cited Cases Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 790 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative De-cisions 15AV(E) Particular Questions, Review of 15Ak784 Fact Questions 15Ak790 k. Rational basis for conclu-sions. Most Cited Cases Under the highly deferential standard of review for agency action under the Administrative Proced-ure Act (APA), a Court of Appeals will affirm the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its de-cision; the task of the Court simply is to ensure that the agency considered the relevant factors and ar-ticulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[2] Statutes 361 190 361 Statutes 361VI Construction and Operation 361VI(A) General Rules of Construction 361k187 Meaning of Language 361k190 k. Existence of ambiguity.

Most Cited Cases The first step in interpreting a statute is to de-termine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning; this is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader con-text of the statute as a whole.

[3] Electricity 145 9(2) 145 Electricity 145k9 Transmission Facilities 145k9(2) k. Permit or consent by public au-thorities. Most Cited Cases Direction to the Department of Energy (DOE)

Page 3 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

under the Energy Policy Act to undertake a study in consultation with affected States meant that the DOE should have greater interaction with the States in preparing a study of electric transmission congestion than it need have when preparing a na-tional interest electric transmission corridor (NIETC) report, when it need only provide an op-portunity for comment from affected States. En-ergy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p.

[4] Electricity 145 9(2) 145 Electricity 145k9 Transmission Facilities 145k9(2) k. Permit or consent by public au-thorities. Most Cited Cases Requirement under Energy Policy Act for De-partment of Energy (DOE) to undertake study of electric transmission congestion in consultation with affected States meant that DOE had to confer with affected States before it completed study, rather than simply allowing notice-and-comment, since action might have curtailed traditional State powers. Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p.

[5] Electricity 145 9(2) 145 Electricity 145k9 Transmission Facilities 145k9(2) k. Permit or consent by public au-thorities. Most Cited Cases Consultation requirement under Energy Policy Act, for Department of Energy (DOE) to undertake study of electric transmission congestion in con-sultation with affected States, had not been met with regard to designation of national interest elec-tric transmission corridor (NIETC), since draft of study had not been circulated to States, committee had not been created to include representatives from States, affected States had not been given ac-cess to supporting data, and there had not been meaningful exchange of information. Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p.

[6] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 394 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrat-ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 15AIV(C) Rules and Regulations 15Ak392 Proceedings for Adoption 15Ak394 k. Notice and comment, ne-cessity. Most Cited Cases Under a notice-and-comment requirement, an agency has a duty under the Administrative Proced-ure Act (APA) to identify and make available tech-nical studies and data that it has employed in reach-ing the decisions to propose particular rules. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[7] Electricity 145 9(2) 145 Electricity 145k9 Transmission Facilities 145k9(2) k. Permit or consent by public au-thorities. Most Cited Cases Failure of Department of Energy (DOE) to con-sult with affected States regarding study of electric transmission congestion, as required by Energy Policy Act, was not harmless error on judicial re-view under Administrative Procedure Act (APA),

despite notice and comment, since congressional notice requirement reflected desirability of interact-ive process itself and exclusion had altered way in which DOE had made its discretionary decisions and consultation probably would have resulted in different study. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706; Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p.

[8] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 764.1 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative De-cisions 15AV(D) Scope of Review in General 15Ak764 Harmless or Prejudicial Error 15Ak764.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Page 4 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

In order to constitute harmless error in the administrative rulemaking context under the Ad-ministrative Procedure Act (APA), the error clearly must not have had any bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[9] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 764.1 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative De-cisions 15AV(D) Scope of Review in General 15Ak764 Harmless or Prejudicial Error 15Ak764.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases The petitioner has the burden of showing an agency's deviation from the Administrative Proced-ure Act (APA) was not harmless. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[10] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 764.1 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative De-cisions 15AV(D) Scope of Review in General 15Ak764 Harmless or Prejudicial Error 15Ak764.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases A court cannot conclude that an agency's refus-al to consult had no bearing on the substance of the decision reached, as required for the failure to con-sult to be considered harmless error under the Ad-ministrative Procedure Act (APA),

where the agency is tasked with adopting a novel approach that will then affect all stakeholders. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[11] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 816 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AV Judicial Review of Administrative De-cisions 15AV(F) Determination 15Ak816 k. Annulment, vacation or set-ting aside of administrative decision. Most Cited Cases When a court determines that an agency's ac-tion failed to follow a clear mandate from Con-gress, the appropriate remedy is to vacate that ac-tion. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[12] Administrative Law and Procedure 15A 390.1 15A Administrative Law and Procedure 15AIV Powers and Proceedings of Administrat-ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 15AIV(C) Rules and Regulations 15Ak390 Validity 15Ak390.1 k. In general. Most Cited Cases Where a regulation is promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the violation is not harmless, the remedy is to invalid-ate the regulation. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706.

[13] Electricity 145 9(2) 145 Electricity 145k9 Transmission Facilities 145k9(2) k. Permit or consent by public au-thorities. Most Cited Cases Entire study of electric transmission conges-tion, as required by Energy Policy Act, had to be vacated, rather than portions of it, due to failure of Department of Energy (DOE) to engage in interact-ive process, on petition for judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), since it was almost impossible to determine precise impact of failure to consult prior to making discretionary de-cision for which there were few, if any, objective criteria. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706; Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p.

[14] Environmental Law 149E 595(4) 149E Environmental Law 149EXII Assessments and Impact Statements Page 5 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

149Ek584 Necessity for Preparation of State-ment, Consideration of Factors, or Other Compli-ance with Requirements 149Ek595 Particular Projects 149Ek595(4) k. Electricity, generation and transmission; nuclear. Most Cited Cases Designation of national interest electric trans-mission corridors (NIETCs) were final agency ac-tions that constituted major federal action under NEPA, and thus environmental study was required; although NIETCs did not determine precise loca-tions of facilities, they influenced areas in which electric transmission facilities would be located, which could have had great historic and regional consequences that significantly affected environ-ment, those areas covered over 100 million acres in ten States, and they created new federal rights, in-cluding power of eminent domain, that were inten-ded to, and did, curtail rights traditionally held by states and local governments. Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p(b, e); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).

[15] Environmental Law 149E 594 149E Environmental Law 149EXII Assessments and Impact Statements 149Ek584 Necessity for Preparation of State-ment, Consideration of Factors, or Other Compli-ance with Requirements 149Ek594 k. Negative declaration; state-ment of reasons. Most Cited Cases Under NEPA, an agency cannot merely assert that its decision will have an insignificant effect on the environment, but must adequately explain its decision. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).

[16] Environmental Law 149E 587 149E Environmental Law 149EXII Assessments and Impact Statements 149Ek584 Necessity for Preparation of State-ment, Consideration of Factors, or Other Compli-ance with Requirements 149Ek587 k. Major government action.

Most Cited Cases Under NEPA, a broad agency program may constitute a major Federal action even though the program does not direct any immediate ground-breaking activity. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).

[17] Environmental Law 149E 588 149E Environmental Law 149EXII Assessments and Impact Statements 149Ek584 Necessity for Preparation of State-ment, Consideration of Factors, or Other Compli-ance with Requirements 149Ek588 k. Impacting human environ-ment. Most Cited Cases Under NEPA, if a program has a significant en-vironmental impact, it is a major federal action.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).

[18] Environmental Law 149E 667 149E Environmental Law 149EXIII Judicial Review or Intervention 149Ek667 k. Record of administrative pro-ceeding. Most Cited Cases Under NEPA, the record must be sufficient to allow a court to determine that the agency's conclu-sion of no significant environmental impact was reasonable. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(C), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).

[19] Environmental Law 149E 582 149E Environmental Law 149EXII Assessments and Impact Statements 149Ek580 Preliminary Assessment or Report 149Ek582 k. Necessity. Most Cited Cases Formal environmental assessment (EA) was re-quired to document determination made by Depart-ment of Energy (DOE) that designation of national interest electric transmission corridors (NIETCs) would not have any affect on quality of human en-vironment, since decision to encourage siting of Page 6 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

transmission facilities in one municipality rather than another, through number of incentives, had po-tential effects in both municipalities in terms of val-ues of land and proposed and potential uses of land and NIETCs diminished legal protections at least as to whether any particular geographic area should be included in corridor. Energy Policy Act of 2005, § 1221(a), 16 U.S.C.A. § 824p(b, e); National Envir-onmental Policy Act of

1969,

§ 102(C),

42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).

[20] Environmental Law 149E 582 149E Environmental Law 149EXII Assessments and Impact Statements 149Ek580 Preliminary Assessment or Report 149Ek582 k. Necessity. Most Cited Cases Environmental Law 149E 690 149E Environmental Law 149EXIII Judicial Review or Intervention 149Ek690 k. Harmless error. Most Cited Cases Failure of Department of Energy (DOE) to un-dertake study of environmental impacts of designat-ing national interest electric transmission corridors (NIETCs) and prepare formal environmental as-sessment (EA) as required by NEPA was not harm-less error under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), where one corridor included more than three million acres of national wildlife refuge as well as national parks and 57 state beaches, re-serves and recreational areas and other corridor en-compassed four national forests, over one million acres of national reserves, historic properties, and environmentally sensitive lands. National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969, § 102(c), 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(c); 40 C.F.R. § 1500.3.

1078 Anjali I. Jaiswal and Johanna H. Wald, Nat-ural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA, Stephan C. Volker and Joshua Harris, Oakland, CA, Caleb A. Jaffe, Southern Environmental Law Center, Charlottesville, VA, William A. Anderson II, Williams Mullen, James B. Dougherty (argued),

Elizabeth S. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel, Na-tional Trust for Historic Preservation, Andrea C.

Ferster, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners The Wil-derness Society, Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil, California Wilderness Coalition, Piedmont En-vironmental Council, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Parks Conservation Associ-ation, Civil War Preservation Trust, Pennsylvania Land Trust Association, Fauquier County, Virginia, and Toll Brothers Inc., and Intervenors Desert Pro-tection Society, et al.

James P.

Melia and Steven K.

Bainbridge, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Scott R.

Perry, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Depart-ment of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA, Maureen Riley Matsen, C. Meade Browder and D.

Mathias Roussy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, Andrew M. Cuomo, At-torney General of the State of New York and Maur-een F. Leary (argued), Office of the Attorney Gen-eral Environmental Protection Bureau, Jonathan Feinberg, Solicitor, Public Services Commission of the State of New York, Albany, NY, Anne Mil-gram, Attorney General of New Jersey and Kenneth Sheehan, Deputy Attorney General, New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Newark, NJ, for Petitioners Pennsylvania Public Utility Com-mission, Governor Edward G. Rendell and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-tion, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, State of New York, Public Service Commission of the State of New York, and Commonwealth of Virginia.

Jonathan D. Feinberg, State of New York Depart-ment of Public Service, Office of General Counsel, Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney Gen-eral, Maureen F. Leary (argued), Assistant Attorney General and Denise A. Hartman, Assistant Solicitor General, Albany, NY, James P. Melia, John Levine and Steven Bainbridge, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA, Janet Wagner and Nancy Scott, Arizona Corporation Commission, Legal Division, Phoenix, AZ, Anne Page 7 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

Milgram, New Jersey State Attorney General and Kenneth J. Sheehan, Deputy Attorney General, De-partment of Law & Public Safety, Newark, NJ, Maureen Riley Matsen, D. Mathias Roussy, and C.

Meade Browder, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, Laurence G. Chaset (argued), Cali-fornia Public Utilities Commission Legal Division, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Governor Edward G.

Rendell and the Pennsylvania Department of Envir-onmental Protection, New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, State of New York, Public Service Com-mission of the State of New York, Commonwealth of Virginia, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Arizona Corporation Commis-sion.

Harvey Y. Morris and Laurence G. Chaset (argued),

Legal Division, California Public Utilities, San Francisco, CA, Deborah A. Swanstrom and Erika D. Benson, Patton Boggs, LLP, Washington, D.C.,

Stephen J. Keene, Imperial Irrigation District, Im-perial, CA, Janet Wagner and *1079 Nancy Scott, Arizona Corporation Commission, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioners Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Imperial Irrigation District, Arizona Corporation Commission.

John C. Truden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, Mi-chael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Stacey W. Person, John L. Smeltzer (argued), Mark B. Stern and Dana J. Martin (argued), Department of Justice, Bettina Mumme and Lot Cooke, Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C. for Respond-ents United States Department of Energy, et al.

Brian R. Gish (argued), Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, D.C., Randall B. Palmer, Al-legheny Energy, Inc., Greensburg, PA, Sharon Lisa Cohen, E. Gregory Barnes and Jonathan J. New-

lander, Sempra Energy Law Department, San Diego, CA, Alice Elizabeth Loughran, Steptoe &

Johnson, LLP, Barry S. Spector and Michael J.

Thompson, Wright & Talisman, P.C., Alden L.

Atkins and David E. Hawkins, Vinson and Elkins, LLP, Washington, D.C., Anna Jennifer Valdberg and Robert Kang, Southern California Edison Com-pany Legal Division, Rosemead, CA, for Respond-ents-Intervenors Allegheny Energy, Inc., American Public Power Association, Edison Electric Institute, Monongahela Power

Company, National Rural Electronic Cooperative Association, PJM Intercon-nection, LLC, Path Allegheny Transmission Com-pany, LLC, Path West Virginia Transmission Com-pany, LLC, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, and West Penn Power Company.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Energy.

DOE Nos.

2007-OE-01, 2007-OE-02, 73FR12959.

Before: WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR., CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge CALLAHAN; Dissent by Judge IKUTA.

OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:

These thirteen petitions for review challenge the Department of Energy's (DOE) implementa-tion of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),

which added a new section 216 to the Federal Power Act (FPA), codified as 16 U.S.C. § 824p (sometimes referred to as § 216). Petitioners offer three distinct challenges to DOE's actions: (1) DOE failed to consult with the affected States in under-taking the Congestion Study as required by § 824p(a)(1); (2) DOE failed to properly consider the potential environmental consequences of its desig-nation of national interest electric transmission cor-ridors (NIETCs); and (3) DOE's actual designa-tions of the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor and the Southwest Area National Corridor are arbit-rary, capricious, and not supported by the evidence.

Page 8 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

We determine that DOE failed to properly consult with the affected States in conducting the Conges-tion Study and failed to undertake any environ-mental study for its NIETC Designation as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). We also determ-ine that these failings were not harmless errors. Ac-cordingly, we vacate the Congestion Study and NI-ETC designation and remand the cases to the DOE for further proceedings. Because we vacate the NI-ETC designation, we do not consider the merits of petitioners' challenges to the specific national*1080 corridors other than as necessary to determine that DOE's failures to consult and to undertake an envir-onmental study were not harmless errors.

I. BACKGROUND A. The Critical Statute, 16 U.S.C. § 824 In response to a number of electrical brown-outs and black-outs, Congress passed the EPAct, Pub.L. No. 109-85, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). The EPAct added a new section 216 to the FPA. The first provisions of the section read:

(a) Designation of national interest electric trans-mission corridors (1) Not later than 1 year after August 8, 2005 and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary of Energy (referred to in this section as the Secretary), in consultation with affected States, shall conduct a study of electric transmission congestion.

(2) After considering alternatives and recom-mendations from interested parties (including an opportunity for comment from affected States

), the Secretary shall issue a report, based on the study, which may designate any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor.

16 U.S.C. § 824p (emphasis added).

The designation of an area as a national in-terest electric transmission corridor (variously re-ferred to as a National Corridor, NIET Corridor or NIETC) makes available a fast-track approval process to utilities seeking permits for transmission lines within the corridor. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 824p(b)-

(h). In particular, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is empowered to grant a permit for a transmission line within the corridor if, among other conditions, a state agency fails to ap-prove the permit application within a year. 16 U.S.C. § 824p(b).FN1 In addition, the EPAct, in providing for the issuance of a permit, gives the ap-plicant the right to acquire rights-of-way through eminent domain. 16 U.S.C. § 824p(e).

FN1. Section 824p(b) reads in part:

(b) Construction permit Except as provided in subsection (I) of this section, the Commission may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, is-sue one or more permits for the con-struction or modification of electric transmission facilities in a national in-terest electric transmission corridor des-ignated by the Secretary under subsec-tion (a) of this section if the Commission finds that (1)(C) a State commission or other entity that has authority to approve the siting of the facilities has (I) withheld approval for more than 1 year after the filing of an application seeking approval pursuant to applicable law or 1 year after the designation of the relevant national interest electric trans-mission corridor, whichever is later; or (ii) conditioned its approval in such a manner that the proposed construction or modification will not significantly re-duce transmission congestion in inter-Page 9 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

state commerce or is not economically feasible...

Moreover, 16 U.S.C.

§ 824p(j)(1)

states,

[E]xcept as specifically provided, nothing in this section affects any requirement of an environmental law of the United States, including the National En-vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.).

B. The Congestion Study Following the enactment of § 216, DOE gave presentations at a number of conferences regarding the new law. Its first request for comments or as-sistance from others was a February 2, 2006 Notice of *1081 inquiry requesting comment and providing notice of a technical conference (the February 2 Notice). 71 Fed.Reg. 5660-64 (Feb.

2, 2006). The notice sought comment and informa-tion from the public concerning its plans for an electricity transmission congestion study and pos-sible designation of [NIET Corridors]. FN2 Id. at 5660. The February 2 Notice stated that work on the Congestion Study was well underway and that DOE intended to publish the study by August 8, 2006. Id. at 5661. The Notice also stated that a technical conference would be held in Chicago, Illinois, on March 29, 2006. Id. at 5660.

FN2. The February 2 Notice set forth eight draft criteria for identifying NIET Cor-ridors: (1) action is needed to maintain high reliability; (2) action is needed to achieve economic benefits for consumers; (3) actions are needed to ease electricity supply limitations in end markets served by a corridor, and diversify sources; (4) targeted actions in the area would en-hance the energy independence of the United States; (5) targeted actions in the area would further national energy policy; (6) targeted actions in the area are needed to enhance the reliability of electricity sup-plies to critical loads and facilities and re-duce vulnerability of such critical loads or the electricity infrastructure to natural dis-asters or malicious acts; (7) the area's projected need (or needs) is not unduly contingent on uncertainties associated with analytic assumptions, e.g.

assumptions about future prices for generation fuels, de-mand growth in load centers, the location of new generation facilities, or the cost of new generational technologies; and (8) the alternative means of mitigating the need in question have been addressed suf-ficiently. 71 Fed.Reg. at 5662.

The technical conference was held in March 2006, and a number of State entities attended and some participated in various panels. A separate in-vitation-only meeting was held in May 2006 to review and evaluate the congestion analyses per-formed by DOE's contractors, but no states were invited.FN3 FN3. According to DOE, the invitation-only meeting had three purposes:

(1) to learn whether the results of the congestion modeling track actual and ex-pected grid conditions with some fidel-ity; (2) to learn whether the congestion analysis findings and other grid know-ledge suggest that there are any obvious project or corridor priorities for new grid expansion; (3) to learn whether DOE's draft NIETC criteria (other than conges-tion) suggest additional expansion needs.

DOE asserts that it reached out to affected States through meetings with the National Associ-ation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and through other meetings and cor-respondence with individual State entities.

DOE issued its Congestion Study in August 2006. The notice in the Federal Register requested comments on the study and on the possible desig-nation of national interest electric transmission cor-ridors. 71 Fed.Reg. 45,047 (Aug. 8, 2006). DOE received over 400 comments on the Congestion Page 10 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

Study. On May 7, 2007, DOE responded to the comments and sought additional comments on draft National Corridor designations for the two Critical Congestion Areas identified in the Conges-tion Study: the draft Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor; and the draft Southwest Area National Corridor. 72 Fed.Reg. 25,840 (May 7, 2007) (the May 7 Notice).

A major objection set forth in the comments was the assertion that DOE had failed to consult with affected States. Id. at 25,850. DOE responded that it was committed to fulfilling its obligation to consult with States but asserted that there are practical difficulties in conducting the level of con-sultation that some may prefer in the context of a study of this magnitude, and that it is difficult to know which States are affected until the conclu-sions of the congestion study are *1082 known. Id.

DOE claimed to have met its obligation because it:

(1) had provided States with numerous opportunit-ies for input and [ ] held meetings with officials representing individual States and groups of States; (2) had made the Congestion Study avail-able on August 8, 2006; and (3) had, in addition to

[having made] the draft National Corridor designa-tions described in this notice available for com-ment,... simultaneously contact[ed] the Governors of each State in which the draft National Corridors would be located to arrange consultation meetings.

Id.

The May 7 Notice also described a number of other comments that DOE received that may be di-vided into four groups. A first group of comments are objections to DOE's interpretation of the scope of its authority to designate National Corridors, its definitions of congestion and constraint, and the need for the Congestion Study to accommodate state laws and policies on renewable portfolio standards. Id. at 25,842. In responding to, and re-jecting these objections, DOE stressed its discretion under § 216. Id. at 25,843. It noted that there is no generally accepted understanding of what consti-tutes constraints or congestion that adversely af-fects consumers' and defended the definition ad-opted in the Congestion Study. Id. at 25,843-45.

A second group of comments concerned the re-lationship between regional planning processes and the designation of national corridors. Id. at 25,846.

For example, NARUC argued that DOE should grant deference to the results of adequate regional planning processes, and the Public Utilities Com-mission of the State of California (CPUC) argued that designation is unwarranted unless there is evidence that State and regional processes are not addressing the problem in a timely manner. Id.

DOE indicated that it supports and encourages re-gional planning efforts but nonetheless had de-cided not to defer to regional planning processes.

Id. at 25,846-47.

A third group raised comments concerning the drawing of boundaries. Some comments advocated the use of specific transmission projects to define national corridor boundaries, others suggested that boundaries should be tailored to aid in the construc-tion of specific viable transmission projects, and numerous commenters argued that DOE should draw National Corridor boundaries to exclude parks and other environmentally protected areas. Id. at 25,847. In response, DOE first noted that the statute provided little direction on how the Depart-ment should draw the boundaries of a National Cor-ridor. Id. at 25,848. DOE observed that the selec-tion of source areas will necessarily involve dis-cretion and is not suited to a formulaic approach.

Id. In declining to make any changes in response to the comments, DOE noted:

The Department acknowledges that determining the exact perimeters for a National Corridor un-der a source-and-sink approach is more an art than a science, and there will rarely be a disposit-ive reason to draw a boundary in one place as op-posed to some number of miles to the right or the left. The drawing of the boundary is ultimately a judgment the Secretary must make based on all relevant considerations, including the considera-tions identified in FPA section 216(a)(4), as ap-Page 11 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

propriate, and available, relevant data. There is no single boundary line that can be determined based solely upon analysis of the data.

Id. at 25,849.

The fourth group of comments asserted that DOE was required to prepare a Programmatic En-vironmental Impact Statement pursuant to NEPA before designating any National Corridor. Id. at 25,850. *1083 DOE responded that although NEPA requires environmental impact statements for major Federal actions, [t]he designation of a National Corridor... does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and accordingly a National Corridor designation is not a proposal for a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment that falls within the purview of NEPA. FN4 Id. at 25,851.

FN4. DOE reasoned as follows:

A National Corridor designation is not a determination that transmission must, or even should, be built; it is not a proposal to build a transmission facility and it does not direct anyone to make a propos-al. Nor does the Department's designa-tion of a National Corridor result in or plan for any ground-breaking environ-mental impacts. Nor does National Cor-ridor designation irrevocably commit any resources to any activity having foreseeable environmental impacts. Des-ignation of a National Corridor does not control FERC's substantive decision on the merits as to whether to grant or deny a permit application, specifically where any facilities covered by a permit should be located, or what conditions should be placed on a permit.

72 Fed.Reg. 25,851.

C. The Designation Order On October 5, 2007, DOE issued its order formally designating two

NIETCs, the Mid-Atlantic Area National Interest Electric Trans-mission Corridor (the Mid-Atlantic Corridor) and the Southwest Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (the Southwest Corridor).

72 Fed.Reg. 56,992 (Oct. 5, 2007). DOE explained its perspective and its rejection of all comments re-commending different approaches.FN5 DOE reiter-ated that no environmental study was necessary, ex-plaining:

FN5. The parties note a single change in coverage; Clark County, Nevada, was re-moved from the Southwest Corridor. See 72 Fed.Reg.

at 25,923; 72 Fed.Reg.

57,017-18.

NEPA review is designed to examine the foresee-able, measurable, and predictable consequences of a proposed Federal action; it is not intended to forecast hypothetical or unknowable proposals or results. National Corridor designations have no environmental impact. They are only designa-tions of geographic areas in which DOE has iden-tified electric congestion or constraint problems.

72 Fed.Reg. at 57,022.

Finally, in March 2008, DOE issued an order denying rehearing of its Designation Order. 73 Fed.Reg. 12,959 (Mar. 11, 2008). DOE reiterated its determination that no environmental study was needed and further noted that it would be highly speculative for the Department to make assump-tions about whether, when, or where FERC might permit transmission facilities. Id. at 12,969.

D. The Judicial Proceedings The first petition to review DOE's actions was filed by The Wilderness Society, et al. in this court on March 14, 2008. Twelve other petitions for re-view were timely filed in other Circuits. Pursuant to stipulations, all thirteen petitions were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit and are before this panel for consideration.

II. THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONSULTA-Page 12 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

TION A. Standards of Review In reviewing DOE's actions, we are guided by the standard of review established by Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), and its progeny. The Court's seminal state-ment is:

1084 When a court reviews an agency's con-struction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the in-tent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply im-pose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's an-swer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Id. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (footnotes omit-ted). The Court, however, also noted that [t]he ju-diciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative con-structions which are contrary to clear congressional intent, and that [i]f a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Con-gress had an intention on the precise question at is-sue, that intention is the law and must be given ef-fect. Id. at 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778.

Both prongs of the Chevron standard are in play in this case. On the one hand, Congress clearly directed DOE to engage in consultation with af-fected States. On the other hand, it did not expli-citly define consultation. DOE urges that accord-ingly, Congress's intent is not clear and that the highly deferential standard of review for agency ac-tion under the Administrative Procedure Act ap-plies. See 5 U.S.C. § 706.FN6 FN6. Section 706 reads:

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall (1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord-ance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional

right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of stat-utory right; (D) without observance of procedure re-quired by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the ex-tent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of Page 13 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

prejudicial error.

[1] We have recognized that this standard is highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and that we may not substitute our judg-ment for that of the agency. Nw. Ecosystem Alli-ance v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 475 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir.2007). We therefore will affirm[ ]

the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision. Id. Our task is simply to ensure that the agency considered the relevant factors and articu-lated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1085 B. Congressional Intent Congress could hardly have been more explicit in directing DOE to consult with affected States.

Section 824p(a)(1) specifically directs DOE to con-duct a study of electric transmission congestion in consultation with affected States. Furthermore, § 824p(a)(2) directs DOE to issue a report which may designate National Interest corridors, [a]fter con-sidering alternatives and recommendations from in-terested parties (including an opportunity for com-ment from affected States).

[2] Our first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning.... Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). This is determined by refer-ence to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader con-text of the statute as a whole. Id. at 341, 117 S.Ct.

843. See also United States v. Morton, 467 U.S.

822, 828, 104 S.Ct. 2769, 81 L.Ed.2d 680 (1984)

(We do not, however, construe statutory phrases in isolation; we read statutes as a whole.).

[3] Here, § 824's direction to the DOE to un-dertake the Consultation Study in consultation with affected States in context clearly means that DOE should have greater interaction with the States in preparing the Congestion Study than it need have when preparing a NIETC report, when it need only provide an opportunity for comment from affected States. Indeed, DOE does not really deny that it was required to consult with affected States.

See 72 Fed.Reg. at 25,838 (stating that FPA sec-tion 216(a)(1) requires the Secretary to consult with affected States' ); 72 Fed.Reg. at 56,993 (stating that FPA section 216(a)(1) states that the Depart-ment shall conduct the congestion study in con-sultation with affected States).

Accordingly, the issue is whether DOE, while undertaking the Congestion Study, consulted with the affected States as mandated by Congress. This inquiry requires that we review DOE's efforts to in-volve the affected States in the preparation of the Congestion Study and then evaluate whether those efforts amount, as DOE contends, to consultation.

Finally, if we determine that DOE's actions did not amount to consultation, we must determine whether any such shortcoming constitutes harmless error.

III. DOE FAILED TO CONSULT A. DOE's interaction with the affected States

[4] The record shows that DOE sought the af-fected States' input in three ways but also excluded them from participating in several significant re-spects. First, on February 2, 2006, DOE invited the public, including the affected States, to provide comments for its ongoing Congestion Study.

Second, DOE informed the affected States of a technical conference that would be held in Chicago in March 2006. Third, when it issued the Conges-tion Study in August 2006, it invited comments on the designation of NIETCs. 71 Fed.Reg. at 45,047.

On the other hand, the record shows that DOE did not extend an invitation to potentially affected States to attend an invitation-only workshop on the Congestion Study that was held in May 2006.

Also, DOE did not disclose to the affected States the congestion modeling data it used to conduct the Congestion Study. Furthermore, DOE never exten-ded any invitation to the affected States or their

1086 Governors to consult on the preparation of the Congestion Study.FN7 Page 14 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

FN7. After it had completed the Conges-tion Study, DOE did invite the governors to consult. 72 Fed.Reg. at 56,996 n. 18.

(The Department sent a letter to the Gov-ernor of each of the States within the draft National Corridors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia on April 26, 2007, re-questing an opportunity to consult with them on the draft designations.).

DOE also cites its meetings with NARUC and meetings and conferences with other State entities as evidence that it met its obligation to consult.

There is little, however, to suggest that these events provided meaningful opportunities for dialogues between the States and DOE. NARUC, of course, is not a state or even a state entity. Rather, it is a quasi-governmental organization that includes rep-resentatives of all fifty states.... NARUC v. FCC, 746 F.2d

1492, 1497 n.

2 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Moreover, NARUC itself advised DOE that meet-ing with it was not the same as consulting with the affected States. FN8 The record also fails to sup-port DOE's assertion that those meetings that were held with certain State entities allowed for a mean-ingful exchange of information.FN9 FN8. NARUC wrote:

Because the statute directs the DOE to develop the congestion study in con-sultation with affected

States, the agency had an affirmative obligation to seek the input of States potentially af-fected by the Congestion Study. The pur-pose of this consultation is clearStates should be able to critique the DOE's pre-liminary findings and analyses as they are evolving. Although DOE certainly conducted outreach to NARUC during the development of the congestion study, it failed to comply with this mandate with respect to States in certain regions (for example, New England).

FN9. The e-mail cited by DOE in support of meetings with New York Public Service Commission and the Florida Public Service Commission simply notes that meetings took place. There is no identification of which individuals attended the meetings or the subject of the meetings. At the cited meetings with the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, DOE was represented by Ellen Lutz. In the e-mail, she explains that she is DOE's Representative to the Eastern Intercon-nect, that this is a new position that I began in late January, and that she is in the process of coming up to speed on the issues. Since at the time of this e-mail, March 8, 2006, the Congestion Study was nearly complete, it seems unlikely that the meetings provided any real opportunity for consultation. Also, the document cited by DOE to support its contention that it met with the CPUC indicates only that CPUC submitted further comments, and does not state that any meeting was held.

In sum, DOE's claim that it met its obligation to consult with the affected States is based on the argument that it had the discretion to determine what consultation required, that it met its obliga-tion by inviting comments from the public (including the affected States) while it was prepar-ing the Congestion Study, that it subsequently con-sidered all objections to the Congestion Study raised by the affected States, and that any failures in this process of consultation were harmless.

B. DOE's interactions do not amount to con-sultation

[5] DOE claims that § 216 does not require more than notice-and-comment proceedings. DOE asserts that because Congress did not define what it meant by consultation, we must defer to DOE's interpretation of the term. However, we do not read the statute as encompassing DOE's proffered defini-Page 15 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

tion, and such a definition is contrary to the applic-able rules of statutory interpretation as it would render Congress's choice of language meaningless.

Moreover, we find no support for DOE's position in the relevant case law.

1087 1. The definition of consultation An ordinary meaning of the word consult is to seek information or advice from (someone with expertise in a particular area) or to have discus-sions or confer with (someone), typically before un-dertaking a course of action. The New Oxford Dic-tionary 369 (2001) (emphasis added). We conclude that this is the definition that Congress intended when it directed DOE to prepare the Congestion Study in consultation with the affected States.

Thus, DOE was to confer with the affected States before it completed the study.

This conclusion is supported by all the applic-able rules of statutory construction. It is required by the statutory context as the juxtaposition of the two sections indicates that Congress intended consulta-tion to be more than responding to comments. See Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997) (noting that the plain meaning of statutory language is determined by reference to the specific context in which the language is used and the broader context of the stat-ute as a whole). The definition gives meaning to every word in the statute. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) (noting that it is a court's duty to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.).

Moreover, DOE's interpretation of consult to mean no more than notice-and-comment would render part of the statute su-perfluous. If consultation means no more than an opportunity for comment, there was no reason for Congress to use distinct language in § 824(a)(1) and § 824(a)(2). We have been directed to avoid such an interpretation. See Knight v. Comm'r, 552 U.S. 181, 190, 128 S.Ct. 782, 169 L.Ed.2d 652 (2008) (commenting that accepting [a particular]

approach would render part of the statute entirely superfluous, something that we are loath to do)

(quoting Cooper Indus. v. Aviall Servs., 543 U.S.

157, 166, 125 S.Ct. 577, 160 L.Ed.2d 548 (2004)).

Moreover, requiring DOE to actually confer with the affected States is consistent with the pur-pose of the EPAct. In reaction to black-outs and brown-outs, Congress sought to give the federal government a greater role in the development of transmission lines and to circumscribe somewhat the States' traditional authority over the placement and construction of power lines. In recognition of this impact on the States' traditional authority, Con-gress intended that affected States would participate in a study that might ultimately result in some lim-itation of their traditional powers. Indeed, the Su-preme Court has been sensitive to these concerns.

See Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County

v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 531 U.S. 159, 173, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (2001). A recogni-tion of the sensitivity of these issues supports our determination that where, as here, Congress has dir-ected an agency to consult with States before taking action that may curtail traditional State powers, we must require that the agency heed Congress's direc-tion.

2. Case law defining consultation In addition, our conclusion that the ordinary meaning of consult involves conferring with an en-tity before taking action is amply supported, if not compelled, by our relevant precedent. In Environ-mental Defense Center v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.2003), we considered a provision that required the EPA to conduct certain studies in consultation with the States, and to issue regulations based on these studies in consultation with State and local officials. Id. at 863. EPA asserted that it had met its obligation by consulting extensively with States and localities before issuing*1088 its regulations.

Id. at 864. We agreed, noting:

[T]he overall record indicates EPA met its stat-utory duty of consultation. A draft of the first re-port was circulated to States, EPA regional of-fices, the Association of State and Interstate Wa-Page 16 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

ter Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),

and other stakeholders in November, 1993, and was revised based on com-ments received. EPA established the Urban Wet Weather Flows Federal Advisory Committee (FACA Committee),

balancing membership between EPA's various outside stakeholder in-terests, including representatives from States, municipalities, Tribes, commercial and industrial sectors, agriculture, and environmental and pub-lic interest groups. 64 Fed.Reg. 68,724. The 32 members of the Phase II FACA Subcommittee, reflecting the same balance of interests, met four-teen times over three years and state and muni-cipal representatives provided substantial input regarding the draft reports, the ultimate Phase II Rule, and the supporting data.

Id. None of the efforts noted in Environmental Defense Center are present here. No draft was cir-culated to the States, no committee was created that included representatives from the States, and the af-fected States were not given access to the support-ing data. Thus, DOE's efforts here fall far short of the efforts that were determined to meet the re-quirement for consultation in Environmental De-fense Center.

In Confederated Tribes & Bands of Yakima In-dian Nation v. FERC, 746 F.2d 466 (9th Cir.1984),

we held that the FERC violated its duty of consulta-tion. We noted that it was not enough to give notice to the agencies and Indian

tribes, as the consultation obligation is an affirmative duty. Id.

at 475. We noted that the respective fishery agen-cies believed the consultation process would take place in the preparation of [a fish and wildlife re-port], but that the agency issued the [report] be-fore the exhibit was submitted. Id. Here too, the agency had an affirmative duty to consult and the affected States reasonably believed the consultation process would take place, but DOE issued the Con-gestion Study without engaging in any meaningful consultation with the States.

Our perspective is also consistent with the opinion of the United States Court of International Trade in U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 29 C.I.T.

33, 362 F.Supp.2d 1336 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2005). Ad-dressing notice, comment, and consultation require-ments, the court held that it is not enough to prove that the agency solicited and received comments from the Domestic Producers before executing the Suspension Agreement.... The agency must also give those comments meaningful consideration and must engage the Domestic Producers in good faith consultations, in a timely fashion. Id. at 40.

The court found that:

Throughout this action, the Government has per-sisted in conflating Commerce's notice-and-comment obligations with its consultation obligations. And, to some extent, the Government has also conflated its consultation obligations un-der one part of the statute with its consultation obligations under another part. However, the stat-ute is clear: Commerce's consultation obligations are separate and distinct from (albeit related to) its notice-and-comment obligations.

Id. at 40 n. 14. We think that DOE pursued a similarly erroneous course here, attempting to con-flate its obligation to consult with the affected States while preparing the Congestion Study with its obligation*1089 to provide the States an oppor-tunity to comment on its NIETC report.

3. DOE's failure to provide the affected States with modeling data interfered with their ability to con-sult with DOE

[6] We note that, by failing to provide the af-fected States with the modeling data on which it based the Congestion Study, DOE prevented the af-fected States from providing informed criticism and comments. There can be no doubt that the modeling data was critical to DOE's study.FN10 Moreover, DOE recognizes that even under a

notice-and-comment requirement, an agency has a duty to identify and make available technical studies and data that it has employed in reaching the decisions to propose particular rules. Kern County Farm Bureau v.

Allen, 450 F.3d

1072, 1076 (9th Page 17 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

Cir.2006). DOE, however, defends its failure to dis-close any of the modeling data to the affected States prior to the issuance of the Congestion Study by arguing that it disclosed the technical studies and data after it issued the Congestion Study and that the information did not need to be disclosed because it was proprietary.FN11 We have already held that DOE's duty to consult in preparing the Congestion Study is separate from, and requires greater interaction with the affected States, than DOE's obligation to the States when preparing the NIETC report. Accordingly, its post-study release of the information does not excuse its failure to consult with the affected States in preparing the Congestion Study.

FN10. The Congestion Study's Executive Summary states that it is DOE's first con-gestion study in response to the EPAct, and that it is based on examination of his-torical studies of transmission conditions, existing studies of transmission expansion needs, and unprecedented region-wide modeling of both the Eastern and Western Interconnections. (Emphasis added).

FN11. DOE's intimation that it disclosed the technical studies and data on which it reliedin the February 2006 Notice of In-quiry is misleading. A review of the No-tice of Inquiry discloses that it lists, by name or title only, over 50 documents. 71 Fed.Reg. at 5663-64. It is not possible to glean the substance, let alone the particu-lars, of the modeling studies from the lis-ted titles.

Moreover, DOE's argument that the proprietary interests in the modeling data justified their reten-tion is not well taken. First, as noted by the States, there is no factual or legal basis for DOE's unstated assumption that the States would not, or could not, respect any legitimate proprietary interests in the modeling data. Second, and more importantly, the case cited by DOE, American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C.Cir.2008), specifically states that un-der the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) an agency must disclose the technical studies and data upon which it bases a ruling.FN12 Third, *1090 there is no doubt that the modeling information was critical to DOE's preparation of the Congestion Study.FN13 The ability to consult on a matter is severely compromised when an entity is denied ac-cess to the basis of the decision.

FN12. The court explained:

Under APA notice and comment require-ments, [a]mong the information that must be revealed for public evaluation are the technical studies and data upon which the agency relies [in its rulemak-ing].... Construing section 553 of the APA, the court explained long ago that

[i]n order to allow for useful criticism, it is especially important for the agency to identify and make available technical studies and data that it has employed in reaching the decisions to propose partic-ular rules....

524 F.3d at 236 (citations omitted). The court further noted that:

Enforcing the APA's notice and com-ment requirements ensures that an agency does not fail[ ] to reveal por-tions of the technical basis for a pro-posed rule in time to allow for meaning-ful commentary so that a genuine in-terchange occurs rather than allow[ing] an agency to play hunt the peanut with technical information, hid-ing or disguising the information that it employs....

Id. at 236-37 (citation omitted). The court further observed that it was a fairly obvious proposition that studies upon which an agency relies in promul-gating a rule must be made available Page 18 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

during the rulemaking in order to afford interested persons meaningful notice and an opportunity for comment. Id. at 237.

FN13. DOE states that it evaluated elec-tric transmission congestion by: (1) re-viewing historical data related to conges-tion from dozens of sources, (2) develop-ing projections of future congestion, and (3) comparing the two. Moreover, DOE consistently reiterates that impacts from persistent congestion are not readily sub-ject to empirical measurement and that the task of drawing boundaries around geographic areas' experiencing constraints or congestion is not one that lends itself to technical precision.

C. The Failure to Consult Was Not Harmless Er-ror

[7] More importantly, we cannot conclude that DOE's failure to consult was harmless error. Cer-tainly, American Radio Relay League notes that any failure to disclose information for public comment is subject to the rule of prejudicial error. Id. at 237.

We also have held that when reviewing agency ac-tion under the APA, we must take due account of the harmless error rule. Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir.2005). We have stressed, however, that a court must exercise great caution in applying the harmless error rule in the adminis-trative rulemaking context.

Id.

In Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir.1992), which involved a failure of an agency to fulfill the notice-and-comment procedures of the APA, we stated:

It's true, as plaintiffs argue, that we must exercise great caution in applying the harmless error rule in the administrative rulemaking context. The reason is apparent: Harmless error is more readily abused there than in the civil or criminal context.

An agency is not required to adopt a rule that conforms in any way to the comments presented to it. So long as it explains its reasons, it may ad-opt a rule that all commentators think is stupid or unnecessary. Thus, if the harmless error rule were to look solely to result, an agency could always claim that it would have adopted the same rule even if it had complied with APA procedures. To avoid gutting the APA's procedural requirements, harmless error analysis in administrative rule-making must therefore focus on the process as well as the result. We have held that the failure to provide notice and comment is harmless only where the agency's mistake clearly had no bear-ing on the procedure used or the substance of de-cision reached. Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v.

Hodel, 790 F.2d 760, 764-65 (9th Cir.1986).

Id. at 1487.

[8] We have applied this definition of harmless errorclearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reachedin a number of cases over the last eighteen years. For

example, see

Paulsen, 413 F.3d at 1006-08 (adopting the no bearing standard, noting that the agency's mistake clearly had a bearing on the pro-cedure used, and commenting that the fact that petitioners had an opportunity to protest an already-effective rule prior to the time it was ap-plied to each of them does not render the APA viol-ation harmless); City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1220 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that in the rulemaking context, we exercise great caution in applying*1091 the harmless error rule, holding that failure to provide notice and comment is harmless only where the agency's mistake clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Gifford Pinchot Task Force v.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that in the context of agency review, the role of harmless error is con-strained and may be employed only when a mis-take of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the sub-stance of decision reached); and Buschmann v.

Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 358 (9th Cir.1982)

(holding that an agency can rely on harmless error Page 19 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

only when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted).FN14 FN14. Furthermore, we are not alone in us-ing this standard. It was set forth by the D.C. Circuit in Braniff Airways, Inc. v.

C.A.B., 379 F.2d 453, 462 (D.C.Cir.1967),

when it stated that an error does not mechanically compel reversal when a mis-take of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.

Massachusetts Trustees of Eastern Gas and Fuel Associates v. United States, 377 U.S. 235, 248, 84 S.Ct. 1236, 12 L.Ed.2d 268 (1964). See also Silverton Snow-mobile Club v. U.S. Forest Service, 433 F.3d 772 (10th Cir.2006) (noting that harmless error may be employed only when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of the de-cision reached) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); and Conservation Law Foundation v. Evans, 360 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir.2004) (noting that the omission of a formal public comment before it clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of [the] decision reached).

The dissent, however, posits that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shinseki v. Sanders, ---

U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1696, 173 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009)

, requires a different definition of harmless error.

We do not agree. In Sanders, the Supreme Court clarified that in agency cases, as in appellate review of civil cases, the burden of showing an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination. Id. at 1706. The Supreme Court struck down the Federal Circuit's harmless error framework, in part because it require[d] the VA, not the claimant to explain why the error [was]

harmless. Id. at 1705.

The Court, however, did not redefine harmless error, but rather embraced a commonsense ap-proach to the concept.

To say that the claimant has the burden of showing that an error was harmful is not to im-pose a complex system of burden shifting rules or a particularly onerous requirement. In ordinary civil appeals, for example, the appellant will point to rulings by the trial judge that the appel-lant claims are erroneous, say, a ruling excluding favorable evidence. Often the circumstances of the case will make clear to the appellate judge that the ruling, if erroneous, was harmful and nothing further need be said. But, if not, then the party seeking reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm. If, for ex-ample, the party seeking an affirmance makes a strong argument that the evidence on the point was overwhelming regardless, it normally makes sense to ask the party seeking reversal to provide an explanation, say, by marshaling the facts and evidence showing the contrary. The party seeking to reverse the result of a civil proceeding will likely be in a position at least as good as, and of-ten better than, the opposing party to explain how he has been hurt by an error.

129 S.Ct. at 1706.

[9] We do not think that this approach to harm-less error allows us to depart from *1092 our con-sistent case law holding that harmless error re-quires a determination that the error had no bear-ing on the procedure used or the substance of[the]

decision reached. Paulsen, 413 F.3d at 1006 (quoting Sagebrush, 790 F.2d at 764-65). In Miller

v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc),

we held that where the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher au-thority, a three-judge panel should consider itself bound by the later and controlling authority, and should reject the prior circuit opinion as having been effectively overruled. Id. at 893. Certainly, Sanders clarifies that the burden of showing an Page 20 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

agency's deviation from the APA was not harmless rests with the petitioner, but we see nothing in Sanders that is clearly irreconcilable with the reas-oning or theory underlying our definition of harm-less error.FN15 FN15. We note that the law review article cited by the dissent, Craig Smith, Taking Due Account of the APA's Prejudi-cial-Error

Rule, 96 Va.

L.Rev.

1727 (2010), is in accord. It opines that Sanders declared something already widely under-stood: the burden of demonstrating harm is borne by the parties challenging agencies' decisions, but left unexplored the inter-esting and important question of how parties can persuade a court that an error was prejudicial. Id. at 1728.

Moreover, here our concern with process is very different from the issue in Sanders. There, the Supreme Court's exclusive focus on the harmless-ness of the error in affecting the final outcomethe determination of disabilitywas a logical applica-tion of the statutory and regulatory requirements of notice by the agency to the veteran as to how to pursue his claim. The notice requirement was not an end in itself; it was a means to permit the veter-an to develop his claim for disability. If a failure of notice had no effect on the determination of the dis-ability claim, there could be no harm; the failure of notice by itself was of no consequence.

In contrast, here, as in Riverbend Farms, the congressional notice requirement reflects the de-sirability of the interactive process itself. FN16 958 F.2d 1479. The consultative process dictated by Congress serves the purpose of permitting the States to participate in the formulation of federal policy in an area of major interest to the States. As in Riverbend Farms, Congress did not require the agency to accept the views of the States; its require-ment was directed at process and not merely a final result (although early consultation often will lead to a better result). Id. at 1487. Under such a scheme, we are not free to depart from our consistent case law holding that a finding of harmless error re-quires a determination that the error had no bear-ing on the procedure used or the substance of [the]

decision reached. Paulsen, 413 F.3d at 1006 (quoting Sagebrush, 790 F.2d at 764-65) (emphasis added).

FN16. We noted in Riverbend Farms:

Procedure, not substance, is what most distinguishes our government from oth-ers. In the not-so-distant past, a govern-ment agency in the Soviet Union could impose controls on the production of commodities without bothering to in-volve the public in the decisionmaking process.

By

contrast, a

government agency in the United States must usually give notice to, and accept comments from, the public before undertaking to place manacles on the invisible hand.

Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1482.

The dissent, however, prefers the D.C. Circuit's approach in Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173, 182 (D.C.Cir.2002), that to show that error was preju-dicial a plaintiff must indicate with reasonable spe-cificity what portions of the documents it objects to and how it might have responded if given the *1093 opportunity. (internal quotation marks and cita-tions omitted). The dissent asserts that other cir-cuits have adopted a similar approach for showing prejudice from procedural errors.FN17 FN17. The dissent cites Conservation Law Found. v. Evans, 360 F.3d 21, 29-30 (1st Cir.2004); Texas v. Lyng, 868 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir.1989); Miami-Dade Cnty. v.

EPA, 529 F.3d 1049, 1061 (11th Cir.2008);

and Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin.,

494 F.3d 188, 202-03 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Although we are compelled to follow our prior case law, we would reach the same conclusion ap-Page 21 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

plying the standard proffered by the dissent. We find that the petitioners have demonstrated that they were excluded from the decisionmaking process, have indicated what evidence and information they would have provided if given the opportunity, and have shown how their interests were harmed by their exclusion.

Placing the burden of showing that DOE's fail-ure to consult was not harmless on the petitioners, we determine that the affected States have shown that DOE's failure to comply with Congress's man-date in § 216 was harmful. First, we note that al-though the nature of consultation makes it difficult to determine the precise consequences of its ab-sence, the prejudice to the party excluded is obvi-ous. Consultation requires an exchange of informa-tion and opinions before the agency makes a de-cision. This requirement is distinct from the oppor-tunity to offer comments on the agency's decision.

The essential verity of this distinction is illustrated by posing the question: would any attorney forgo the opportunity to argue his client's case before a judge renders a decision in favor of seeking recon-sideration after the judge has made a decision? Of course not; such a decision might well amount to malpractice. Similarly, here, the opportunity to comment on DOE's completed Congestion Study does not compensate for the lost opportunity of consulting with DOE in the formation of that study.

FN18 FN18. In Sanders, the Court noted that it had previously made clear that courts may sometimes make empirically based gener-alizations about what kinds of error are likely, as a factual matter, to prove harm-ful. 129 S.Ct. at 1707. A reasonable argu-ment can be made that a failure to consult prior to making a discretionary decision, when such consultation is mandated by law, is the type of error that is likely to prove harmful. However, in light of the af-fected States' showing of prejudice we need not consider such an argument.

Another drawback of the dissent's approach is its failure to appreciate that DOE's failure to con-sult has a substantive, as well as procedural com-ponent. The exclusion of the affected States from the decisionmaking process not only limited the in-formation available to DOE, it altered the way in which DOE made its discretionary decisions. In Kurzon v. United States Postal Service, 539 F.2d 788 (1st Cir.1976), the First Circuit indicated that where there was an alleged substantive error, it would remand only if the court is in substantial doubt whether the administrative agency would have made the same ultimate finding with the erro-neous finding removed from the picture. Id. at 796 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, we are left with substantial doubt as to whether DOE would have made the same findings had it consulted with the affected States.

[10] Second, the impact of the lack of consulta-tion before a decision is made as contrasted to com-menting after the agency has made a decision is particularly severe here because, as DOE admits, its decisions were for the most part discretionary. In its May 7, 2007, Notice, DOE stated that there is no generally accepted understanding*1094 of what constitutes constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers, 72 Fed.Reg. at 25,843, and noted that [t]he statute provides little direction on how the Department should draw the boundaries of a National Corridor, id. at 25,848. Thus, DOE ad-mits that its determinations and conclusions in the Congestion Study were not decisions compelled by some mathematical formulae, but important discre-tionary decisions for which there was little guid-ance.FN19 The value of consulting with an agency before it makes a decision is greatest when the agency is tasked with adopting a novel approach that will then affect all stakeholders. In such a situ-ation, as here, a court can hardly conclude that the agency's refusal to consult with the affected States had no bearing on the substance of the decision reached. See Paulsen, 413 F.3d at 1006.

FN19. The May 7, 2007 Notice commen-Page 22 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

ted that DOE recognizes that FPA section 216(a) adopted a novel approach to ad-dressing the need for new transmission in-frastructure, an approach that poses chal-lenges to all stakeholders as we collect-ively work to address this problem. 72 Fed.Reg. at 25,845.

The dissent's recitation of the States' opportunity to comment reflects its failure to ap-preciate how consulting is different from comment-ing. Of course, the States were aware that Congress had directed DOE to conduct a Congestion Study.

They had to protect themselves, and perhaps try to reduce the potential harm from a lack of consulta-tion, by responding to DOE's request for comments.

But, contrary to the dissent's suggestion, there is no evidence that DOE ever consulted with any State.

FN20 FN20. The dissent claims that DOE parti-cipated in conference calls from state entit-ies and met and corresponded with com-missions from five states. It bases this as-sertion on DOE's lists of its contacts with states. However, there is no indication that these provided any real opportunity for consultation. Less than half of the contacts listed at 72 Fed.Reg. 25,850 n. 35 were ac-tually with state officials rather than vari-ous organizations that may have included state officials. More telling, a review of the list compiled by DOE of outreach meet-ings held regarding the Congestion Study, reveals that only two of the sixty-two meetings were with officials of a state.

Finally, a review of the objections filed by the affected States and others reveals that DOE's failure to consult with the affected States in developing the Congestion Study was not harmless error and that consultation would probably have resulted in a dif-ferent study.FN21 Among the over 400 comments that DOE received when it published the Conges-tion Study were assertions that: (1) the focus of the Congestion study is too narrow to accommodate State laws and policies on renewable portfolio standards; (2) DOE had adopted too broad a defin-ition of adverse effects; (3) designations should only be made for areas actually experiencing con-gestion adversely affecting consumers and not areas that *1095 may experience congestion in the future; and (4) DOE should clarify the criteria it would use in deciding whether to designate a National Cor-ridor. 72 Fed.Reg. at 25,842-43.

FN21. The dissent's failure to appreciate the practical impact of DOE's failure to consult with the affected States renders the Congressional directive to consult with the affected States unenforceable. Under the dissent's approach, an agency could refuse to consult in its decisionmaking process, but no State could show harm because the agency would argue that it allowed for comments after it rendered its decision and it declined to adjust its decision on the basis of those comments. Because no State could show that the agency would have made a different decision if it engaged in consultation, no State could shoulder the burden of showing prejudice. Indeed, this is precisely the argument that the dissent makes in rejecting the Eastern States claim that DOE had incorrect and flawed docu-mentation. The dissent accepts as dispos-itive DOE's post-Congestion Study explan-ation that the discrepancies and reporting errors did not affect the analysis and find-ings of the Congestion Study. Dissent at 1114.

DOE does not claim that its decisions in the Congestion Study were compelled or that consulta-tion could not have produced variations. Rather, DOE's responses to the comments stress its discretion, implicitly recognizing that consulta-tion might well have resulted in different decisions.

For example, the first line of DOE's response stresses that § 216 gives it discretion. Id. at 25,843. It admits that the term constraints or con-Page 23 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

gestion that adversely affects consumers... is am-biguous and the statute attaches no modifiers to the term to specify the particular type of magnitude of adverse effect intended. Id. DOE's admission that a term is ambiguous and that the statute provides little guidance in its interpretation indicates that its decisions might well have been altered through consultation with the affected States.

The likelihood that consultation would produce different results may be seen, for example, in the petitioners' objections to DOE's designation of the entire Mid-Atlantic region as a NIETC Corridor and to their assertions that DOE failed to consider regional efforts to address energy constraints and congestions. This is not to suggest that DOE's de-terminations were unreasonable. Rather, it appears that petitioners' objections are not frivolous, may well have some merit, and thus, we cannot conclude that DOE, were it to exercise its discretion when in-formed by consultation with the affected States, would not modify its decisions.

The failure to consult was not some technical error, but resulted in a decisionmaking process that was contrary to that mandated by Congress and one that deprived DOE of timely substantive informa-tion. We conclude that DOE's failure to consult with the affected States, as directed by Congress, was not harmless error.

IV. THE REMEDY

[11][12][13] When a court determines that an agency's action failed to follow Congress's clear mandate the appropriate remedy is to vacate that action. See, e.g., Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. EPA, 537 F.3d 1006, 1026-27 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that the district court's decision to vacate the EPA's ac-tion was the proper remedy when EPA acted out-side of its authority and in defiance of Congress's clear intent). Similarly, where a regulation is pro-mulgated in violation of the APA and the violation is not harmless, the remedy is to invalidate the reg-ulation. See Paulsen, 413 F.3d at 1008. Accord-ingly, as we have determined that § 216 required more than the notice-and-comment procedure adop-ted by DOE, and that DOE's failure to consult with the affected States was not harmless error, preced-ent and reason require that we vacate the Conges-tion Study and remand for the DOE to prepare a Congestion Study in consultation with the affected States.

DOE's suggestion that we might vacate only those portions of the Congestion Study for which the States have shown prejudice, misconstrues the nature of the right to consultation as well as the de-ference we owe to DOE's decisions. As noted, it is almost impossible to determine the precise impact of a decisionmaker's failure to consult prior to mak-ing a discretionary decision. Because the Conges-tion Study invokes DOE's sound discretion for which there are few, if any, objective criteria, we simply cannot know what DOE would have decided had it considered the affected State's perspectives before it completed the study, or foretell what it will decide after consulting with the affected States.

1096 Accordingly, DOE must prepare a Conges-tion Study in consultation with the affected States which thereafter may be judicially reviewed. We express no opinion as to the form or results of the collaboration. Indeed, presumably DOE could, in the exercise of its sound discretion, come to the same or similar conclusions that it did in the initial study. Of course, it might reach very different con-clusions. What is critical is that it follow the stat-ute's mandate and consult with affected States, par-ticularly as § 216 requires DOE to prepare a con-gestion study every three years.

V. THE FAILURE TO UNDERTAKE AN EN-VIRONMENTAL STUDY

[14] We next address DOE's failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) for either of the NIETCs. We do so for two reasons. First, even if we had not determined that the Congestion Study must be vacated, we would nonetheless hold that the NIETCs must be vacated because DOE violated the law in failing to consider the environmental consequences of the NIETCs. Second, because Page 24 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

DOE will now have to prepare new NIETCs based on a new Congestion Study, our guidance on this issue should be useful for all concerned.

A. The Applicable Law All parties agree that pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C),

DOE, like any other federal agency, must include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions sig-nificantly affecting the quality of the human envir-onment, a detailed statement by the responsible of-ficial on the potential environmental consequences of the action.FN22 Id.

FN22. Section 4332(2)(C) provides that:

all agencies of the Federal Government shall:

(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human envir-onment, a detailed statement by the re-sponsible official on (I) the environmental impact of the pro-posed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the pro-posal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdic-tion by law or special expertise with re-spect to any environmental impact in-volved.

In Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Coun-cil, 490 U.S. 360, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989), the Supreme Court noted that NEPA pro-motes its sweeping commitment to prevent or elim-inate damage to the environment and biosphere by focusing Government and public attention on the environmental effects of proposed agency action so that the agency will not act on incomplete in-formation, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct. Id. at 371, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S.

7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008), the Su-preme Court reiterated that [p]art of the harm NEPA attempts to prevent in requiring an EIS is that, without one, there may be little if any informa-tion about prospective environmental harms and po-tential mitigating*1097 measures. 129 S.Ct. at 376; see also Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms,

--- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2768, 177 L.Ed.2d 461 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (noting that an EIS is especially important where the environment-al threat is novel). Ultimately, our role is to insure that the agency has taken a hard look at environ-mental consequences.... Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976).

In accord with this approach, we have reiter-ated that the agency bears the primary responsibil-ity to ensure that it complies with NEPA.

Ilioulaokalani Coal. v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Dep't of Transp. v.

Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 765, 124 S.Ct. 2204, 159 L.Ed.2d 60 (2004) ). We reiterated in Alaska Ctr. for Environment v. U.S. Forest Service, 189 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Cir.1999), that [w]hen an Page 25 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

agency decides to proceed with an action in the ab-sence of an EA or EIS, the agency must adequately explain its decision. Id. (internal citation omitted).

We commented that [a]n agency cannot avoid its statutory responsibilities under NEPA merely by asserting that an activity it wishes to pursue will have an insignificant effect on the environment.

Id. (quoting The Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382, 1393 (9th Cir.1985) ).

In Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v.

Boody, 468 F.3d 549 (9th Cir.2006), we noted that an EIS must be prepared if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause signi-ficant degradation of some human environmental factor. Id. at 562 (internal citation omitted). We explained that [t]he plaintiff need not show that significant effects will in fact occur, but if the plaintiff raises substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect, an EIS must be prepared, and noted that [t]his is a low stand-ard. Id. (internal citation omitted). In addition, we stated:

Furthermore, not only did BLM fail to conduct an EIS prior to implementing either of the ASR De-cisions, it did not even conduct an EA. NEPA's implementing regulations state that EAs should be conducted to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1).

Indeed, as we explained in Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1143 (9th Cir.2000), [b]ecause the very important decision whether to prepare an EIS is based solely on the EA, the EA is funda-mental to the decision-making process. In this vein, we have held that [i]f the proposed action does not categorically require the preparation of an EIS, the agency must prepare an EA to de-termine whether the action will have a significant effect on the environment. Kern v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 284 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.2002).

Klamath, 468 F.3d at 562.

[15] Thus, our precedents hold that an agency cannot merely assert that its decision will have an insignificant effect on the environment, but must adequately explain its decision. Alaska Ctr., 189 F.3d at 859. In The Steamboaters, we reversed and vacated the agency's order because the agency failed to prepare even an EA and did not discuss the evidence presented by the various agencies or how the particular conditions placed on the project would prevent environmental damage. 759 F.2d at 1393. We explained that the agency must supply a convincing statement of reasons why potential ef-fects are insignificant. Id. (internal citation omit-ted). The appellate court must be able to determine whether the agency took a hard look at the poten-tial environment impacts of the project *1098 and

[t]he statement of reasons is crucial to such a de-termination. Id.

B. Evaluating DOE's assertion of no environ-mental impact We apply these standards to DOE's assertion that, although NEPA applies, it was not required to undertake any review of potential environmental consequences because the NIETCs do not have any environmental effects. FN23 We are compelled to reject DOE's assertion because (1) its conclusory statement does not allow us to determine whether DOE took a hard look at the potential environ-mental consequences; and (2) although the effects of the NIETCs may be uncertain and difficult to quantify, the potential consequences of such effects are significant enough to undermine DOE's con-clusory determination that no EA need be prepared.

FN24 FN23.

See 72 Fed.Reg.

57,022; 73 Fed.Reg. 12,968.

FN24. For these reasons, as elaborated in the following sections, although recogniz-ing that this is a close case, we disagree with the dissent's perspective that the Des-ignation Order constitutes an adequate EA (dissent at 1117).

Page 26 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

1. The NIETCs do not determine the siting of any particular facility

[16] DOE argues that the NIETCs do not have any environmental effect because they do not ap-prove of the siting of any transmission facility, and furthermore, any particular siting will be subject to NEPA review. Our precedent, however, provides that agency action may constitute a major Federal action even though the program does not direct any immediate ground-breaking activity.

In Forelaws on Board v. Johnson, 743 F.2d 677 (9th Cir.1984), the petitioners challenged the Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) offers of long-term contracts for power. Id. at 679. Al-though BPA argued that its actions that merely al-locate federal power to different customers do not significantly affect the environment, we held that the contracts raised considerations of far greater historic and regional import and significantly affect the environment. FN25 Id. at 682. Accordingly, we concluded that BPA's action was not sufficient and required the preparation of an EIS.

Id. at 686.

FN25. Among the other potential effects warranting review under the NEPA were the fact that by defining the federal base system and new large single loads' the contracts help determine the magnitude of BPA power obligations in the future and thus will have an impact upon long-range regional energy plans and that the con-tracts significantly affect the environment because they involve important policy choices affecting energy conservation.

743 F.2d at 682.

DOE recognizes the relevancy of Forelaws, but seeks to distinguish the case on the ground that DOE has no authority to site electric transmission facilities. This distinction is not persuasive because the NIETCs, in essence, influence the areas in which electric transmission facilities will be loc-ated, even though they do not determine the precise locations of the facilities. As in Forelaws, the loca-tions of those areas could have great historic and regional consequences that significantly affect the environment. Thus, the fact that the NIETCs do not approve the actual sitings of specific transmission facilities does not excuse DOE from considering the NIETCs' environmental impacts.

Furthermore, Forelaws does not stand alone in holding that broad agency programs may constitute major Federal actions, even though the programs do not direct any immediate ground-disturbing activity. See Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. BLM, 531 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.2008) *1099 (finding EIS inadequate for land use plan covering a large portion of Oregon);

N.

Alaska Envtl.

Ctr v.

Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2006)

(noting that an EIS was prepared for agency action making entire Northwest Petroleum Reserve avail-able for oil and gas leasing despite the lack of site specific analysis for particular locations where drilling might occur); Friends of Yosemite Valley

v. Norton, 348 F.3d 789, 800-01 (9th Cir.2003)

(evaluating programmatic EIS for land use plan for national park); FN26 Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir.1998) (finding EA inadequate and requiring EIS for log-salvaging plan for national forest).FN27 FN26. In Friends of Yosemite, we recog-nized that:

[A]n agency's planning and management decisions may occur at two distinct ad-ministrative levels:

(1) the programmatic level at which the

[agency] develops alternative manage-ment scenarios responsive to public con-cerns, analyzes the costs, benefits and consequences of each alternative in an

[EIS],

and adopts an amendable

[management] plan to guide manage-ment of multiple use resources; and (2) the implementation stage during which individual site specific projects, consist-ent with the [management] plan, are pro-posed and assessed.

Page 27 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

348 F.3d at 800. We also recognized that an agency must prepare an EIS at each level. An EIS for a programmatic plan (such as the CMP) must provide suffi-cient detail to foster informed decision-making, but site-specific impacts need not be fully evaluated until a critical de-cision has been made to act on site de-velopment.

Id.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

FN27. We noted that a project may have significant environmental impacts where its effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks and warned that general statements about possible ef-fects and some risk do not constitute a hard look absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided. Blue Mountain, 161 F.3d at 1213 (quotation marks and citations omit-ted).

2. The NIETCs are major federal actions

a. Northcoast Environmental Center v. Glickman DOE asserts that the NIETCs are not major federal actions because it would be pure speculation to predict their environmental impacts.

Citing Northcoast Environmental Center v. Glickman, 136 F.3d 660 (9th Cir.1998), DOE asserts that an agency action that has only speculative environ-mental impacts is not a major federal action.

Our holding in Northcoast is more nuanced than suggested by DOE. At issue in that case was a proposal by the Forest Service (FS) to establish guidelines for research, management strategies, and information sharing concerning a root rot fungus on federal land in Oregon. Id. at 670. The district court found that the programs did not constitute final agency action subject to judicial review and that even if they did, they were not major federal ac-tions significantly affecting the environment. Id. at 668.

On appeal, we first noted that where review is sought under the general review provision of the APA, the agency's decision must be a final agency action and the plaintiffs must establish they have suffered a legal wrong, or will be adversely af-fected or aggrieved within the meaning of the relev-ant statute. Id. We proceeded to comment that the agency action must (1) be federal, (2) major, and (3) have a significant environmental impact. FN28 Id. The opinion focused on the third requirement.

We concluded that the

1100 district court properly recognized that none of the activities had an actual or immediately threatened effect on the environment and correctly decided that the FS reasonably found that its actions did not significantly affect the quality of human environ-ment. FN29 Id. at 669-70. Although sympathetic to plaintiffs' concern that agencies should conduct a full NEPA analysis when management plans are implemented or proposed, we concluded that the current forest management programs did not call for specific enough action to trigger NEPA's pro-cedural requirements, and noted that plaintiffs could challenge the sufficiency of an agency EIS when discrete agency action is called for. Id. at 670.

FN28. We further noted that an EIS is not necessary where a proposed federal action would not change the status quo. 136 F.3d at 668. Here there is no question that the NIETCs change the status quo.

FN29. We noted:

The FS Action Plan's Action Items/

Objectives section does not create activities which impact the physical en-vironment. Rather, the Action Items/

Objectives set forth guidelines and goals for POC

research, management strategies and information sharing. They do not provide for specific activities with a direct impact on POC. Similarly, BLM's POC Management Guidelines provide management strategies and goals for dealing with POC preservation and Page 28 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

timber sales on BLM managed land. The Guidelines neither propose any site-specific activity nor do they call for spe-cific actions directly impacting the phys-ical environment. Therefore, we find the Secretaries reasonably decided that an EIS was not required for their POC man-agement programs.

136 F.3d at 670.

[17] Northcoast offers several points of guid-ance. First, in determining whether the program had a significant environmental impact, we implicitly held that the program was a final agency action subject to review under the APA, even though we recognized that plaintiffs could challenge the suf-ficiency of an agency EIS when discrete agency ac-tion is called for. FN30 Id. Second, we determined that the program was, at least potentially, a major Federal action. It is not clear whether the require-ment that agency action be major was considered separately from the requirement that the action have significant environmental impact, or whether the latter was treated as an element of the former. In any event, the opinion certainly implies that if the program did have a significant environmental im-pact, it would have been a major federal action.

FN30. The district court had held that the program was not a final agency action and, thus, not subject to review. 136 F.3d at 668. However, in determining whether the program had a significant environment-al impact, we implicitly rejected this de-termination. If the program had not been final, then it would not have been subject to judicial review under the APA and plaintiffs' complaint would have been dis-missed.

[18] Third, although Northcoast states that an agency need not prepare an environmental study when its action does not have a significant environ-mental impact, it also holds that the record must be sufficient to allow the court to determine that the agency's conclusion was reasonable. See 136 F.3d at 670.

Here, the NIETCs are undoubtedly final agency actions. The NIETCs conclude DOE's responsibilit-ies under § 216. They establish the boundaries for two national electric transmission corridors. Once the NIETCs become final, any question as to the actual siting of a facility within the corridors will be addressed to FERC. See 73 Fed.Reg. at 12,969 (DOE agrees that the effect of a National Corridor is to delineate geographic areas within which, under certain circumstances, FERC may ultimately au-thorize the construction or modification of electric transmission facilities.).

1101 Both the intent and impact of the NI-ETCs support the conclusion that they constitute major Federal action. They create National In-terest corridors to address national concerns. The NIETCs cover over a 100 million acres in ten States. Moreover, they create new federal rights, in-cluding the power of eminent domain, that are in-tended to, and do, curtail rights traditionally held by the states and local governments. See 16 U.S.C.

§ 824p(b), (e). In sum, we hold that the NIETCs are final agency actions that constitute major Federal actions.

b. The NIETCs raise significant environmental im-pacts

[19] The remaining question is whether the NI-ETCs could have significant environmental impacts or, more accurately, whether DOE has created a re-cord sufficient to allow us to evaluate whether its no effects determination is reasonable.

DOE proffers four arguments against being re-quired to undertake an environmental study. First, DOE contends that no potential project-specific im-pacts are reasonably foreseeable or caused by the NIETCs. DOE contends that the NIETCs are not decisions to add transmission capacity to solve the problems of congestion or to site transmission facil-ities along preselected routes. DOE claims that these decisions remain to be made by multiple inde-Page 29 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

pendent actors, and given the vast range of options available... it would be pure speculation to predict environmental impacts or assign them (as a matter of causation) to the Designation Order. DOE fur-ther asserts that under § 216 its limited task was to determine the conditional availability of a federal forum for siting transmission projects, and it would have been premature for DOE to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of new trans-mission facilities when deciding merely whether a federal forum should be made available. DOE also contends that even if the NIETCs were certain to result in specific projects being submitted to FERC, DOE was not required to prejudge the potential impacts of those projects because a project-spe-cific NEPA review is required before a permit is-sues.

Second, DOE claims that the NIETCs have no foreseeable programmatic effects. DOE admits that in some instances NEPA may require review of programmatic decisions that prescribe future ac-tions, even though project-specific NEPA review will occur before a particular project is undertaken.

FN31 Nonetheless, DOE maintains that the NIETCs are not programmatic decisions*1102 with reason-ably-foreseeable future effects because each NIETC is not a plan to guide land management or energy policy decisions, but merely makes available a federal procedural remedy (i.e., a forum for the consideration of interstate transmission lines), in the event that FERC finds relevant State forums to be inadequate per the standards set by Congress.

DOE maintains that the addition of a backstop fed-eral forum does not mean that States and FERC will approve a greater number of projects and it does not favor transmission solutions over non-transmission alternatives... nor particular genera-tion sources over others. DOE recognizes that it is tasked with choosing the geographic boundaries of the National-Interest Corridors, but asserts that pe-titioners have failed to show that these boundaries circumscribe relevant alternatives as they place no limits on State siting authorities.

FN31. DOE cites 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b),

which reads:

(b) Federal actions tend to fall within one of the following categories:

(1) Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and interpretations ad-opted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.;

treaties and international conventions or agreements; formal documents establish-ing an agency's policies which will result in or substantially alter agency pro-grams.

(2) Adoption of formal plans, such as of-ficial documents prepared or approved by federal agencies which guide or pre-scribe alternative uses of Federal re-sources, upon which future agency ac-tions will be based.

(3) Adoption of programs, such as a group of concerted actions to implement a specific policy or plan; systematic and connected agency decisions allocating agency resources to implement a specific statutory program or executive directive.

(4) Approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area.

Projects include actions approved by permit or other regulatory decision as well as federal and federally assisted activities.

Id. DOE appears to recognize that NI-ETCs may be federal actions under sub-section (b)(3).

Third, DOE denies that the NIETCs could have any impacts on sensitive areas such as critical hab-itat for endangered species, scenic rivers, wilder-ness areas, and historic sites. DOE points out that an EIS must be prepared whenever substantial Page 30 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

questions are raised about whether a specific project may have a significant effect. DOE further asserts that petitioners have the burden of showing that the potential impacts to sensitive resources are a reasonably foreseeable result of the designa-tions. DOE maintains that [t]he very breadth of these designations belies any suggestion that im-pacts can be meaningfully evaluated at the designa-tion stage, even if it is assumed that the designation will prompt additional transmission projects. DOE disagrees with petitioners' claim that the inclusion of land within a corridor will discourage conserva-tion, opining that a NIETC might as readily spur the expansion of parks and conservation easements within the Corridors, as interested parties seek to protect sensitive resources.FN32 DOE further ar-gues that claims of potential habitat fragmentation within a corridor cannot be meaningfully reviewed because of the many variables and wide range of al-ternatives. DOE claims that any suggestion that en-vironmentally sensitive areas might be excluded from the corridors confuses DOE's threshold task (designating areas with congestion problems) with the States' and FERC's subsequent task (evaluating proposed solutions).

FN32. This argument exposes a weakness in DOE's position. In essence, DOE here reasons that because people see the Desig-nation as threatening conservation efforts, they will redouble their efforts to protect sensitive resources.

Fourth, DOE argues that the NIETCs do not di-minish any legal protections because Congress provided that nothing in § 216 alters federal envir-onmental laws, including laws requiring special au-thorization for use of federal lands or federal per-mits for impacting air and water resources. The NIETCs do not allow power companies to run away from state and federal environmental and land use laws because they, in themselves, have no preemptive effect, and FERC's authority to preempt State law under § 216(b) is project-specific and limited to circumstances enumerated by Congress.

According to DOE, there are no foreseeable ad-verse effects from the mere threat of federal inter-vention because potential acceleration of State proceedings does not dictate the outcome of those proceedings and because DOE does not have any discretion to alter the statutory time frames, which might preclude meaningful review of their poten-tial effects.

There may be merit to some of DOE's argu-ments in terms of limiting the scope of *1103 an EIS or in explaining why an EA and not an EIS should be prepared, but they fail both as a matter of law and fact to justify DOE's failure to undertake any study of the potential environmental impacts.

DOE's primary argument appears to be that be-cause the NIETCs do not approve any specific sites, they have no meaningful environmental impact.

This perspective fails to appreciate that a decision to encourage, through a number of incentives, the siting of transmission facilities in one municipality rather than another has effects in both municipalit-ies in terms of the values of land and proposed and potential uses of land. The effects may be difficult to measure and may be determined ultimately to be too imprecise to influence the Designation, but this is precisely the type of determination that only can be intelligently made after the preparation of at least an EA.

Recognition of these consequences flowing from the NIETCs defeats most of DOE's reasons for not preparing an EA or EIS. Without such a study, it is impossible to fairly determine whether project-specific impacts are reasonably foreseeable, wheth-er there are programmatic effects, FN33 and whether the Designation has any impact on sensit-ive areas. Furthermore, the NIETCs do diminish legal protections at least as to whether any particu-lar geographic area should be included in a cor-ridor. The particular siting of a transmission facility may be challenged before a State or FERC, but a challenge to a specific site cannot challenge the in-clusion of the area involved in the NIETCs by DOE. Thus, the alleged impact of the NIETCs' in-Page 31 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

clusion of particular areas as within the corridors, and the exclusion of other areas, are subject to re-view for environmental impacts at this time or not at all.

FN33. DOE's argument that the Designa-tion is not a programmatic decision be-cause it is not a plan to guide land man-agement or energy policy decisions and merely makes available a federal proced-ural remedy does not withstand scrutiny.

This argument assumes that making avail-able a federal procedural remedy is not a plan to guide land management or energy policy. Here, the converse is true. The fed-eral remedy was created as part of an en-ergy plan. Moreover, the Designation is more than a procedural remedy because it also creates authority for federal action (by FERC) where no such authority previ-ously existed, and arms that authority with the power of eminent domain.

c. The relevance of the environmental study for the West-wide Corridors Any remaining doubt as to whether it is pos-sible to consider the environmental impacts of the NIETCs dissipates in light of DOE's preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for its designation of the West-wide Cor-ridors for federal lands in eleven western states. See U.S. Department of Energy et al., Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 West-ern States (DOE/EIS-0386),

2007 (hereinafter PEIS). A separate and distinct provision in the EPAct, § 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (

Pub.L. No. 109-58, § 368, 119 Stat. 727, codified at 42 U.S.C.

§ 15926),

directs federal land-management agencies to identify rights-of-way across lands they administer to serve as energy cor-ridors. DOE points out that the statute provides that any corridor designated under this section shall, at a minimum, specify the centerline, width, and com-patible uses of the corridor. 42 U.S.C. § 15926(e).

Together with the Department of Interior, DOE pre-pared the required PEIS. See 42 U.S.C. § 15926(a)

(2) (providing for the preparation of any environ-mental reviews that may be required *1104 to com-plete the designation of such corridors).

The federal agencies issued the PEIS in Octo-ber 2007. Two aspects of the PEIS are of particular relevance to this case. First, in response to the ques-tion why conduct an environmental review under NEPA and prepare a programmatic analysis, the PEIS's executive summary states:

Section 368 requires the Agencies to conduct any environmental reviews necessary to complete the designation of Section 368 energy corridors.

The proposed designation of Section 368 energy corridors would not result in any direct impacts on the ground that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Nevertheless, the Agencies have decided to pre-pare a PEIS to conduct a detailed environmental analysis at the programmatic level and to integ-rate NEPA at the earliest possible time.FN34 FN34. The executive summary goes on to state:

NEPA requires that federal agencies pre-pare a detailed statement for major fed-eral actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Here, the Agencies have concluded that pre-paring a PEIS at this time to examine re-gion-wide environmental concerns is ap-propriate, even in the absence of on-the-ground environmental impacts res-ulting from the designation. Actual local environmental impacts must inevitably await site-specific proposals and the re-quired site-specific environmental re-view.

Page 32 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

The decision to prepare an EIS for a pro-grammatic action such as that described by Section 368 is supported by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regula-tions at Title 40, Part 1502.4(b), of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R.

1502.4(b)),

which states that Environmental Impact Statements may be prepared and are sometimes required for broad federal action such as the ad-option of new agency programs or regu-lations (section 1508.8). Agencies shall prepare statements on broad action so that they are relevant to policy and are timed to coincide with meaningful points in agency planning and decision mak-ing.

PEIS, supra, Executive Summary, at ES.8 (footnote omitted).

Second, after identifying an unrestricted conceptual West-wide network of energy transport paths, the executive summary explained:

Next, the locations of individual segments of the conceptual network defined in Step 1 were ex-amined and revised to avoid major known envir-onmental, land use, and regulatory constraints (such as topography, wilderness areas, cultural resources, military test and training areas, and Tribal and state natural and cultural resource areas, etc.).... The revision resulted in a prelimin-ary West-wide energy corridor network that avoided private, state and Tribal lands, many im-portant known natural and cultural resources, and many areas incompatible with energy transport corridors because of regulatory or land use con-straints while meeting the requirements and ob-jectives of Section 368.

PEIS, supra, at ES.12.2.1.

We recognize that the PEIS and the West-wide Designation were undertaken pursuant to a separate and distinct provision of the EPAct. Nonetheless, the creation of the PEIS and its impact on the res-ulting corridor designation is strong evidence both that it is possible to determine the environmental impacts of a proposed energy corridor and that the study of such environmental impacts may result in modifications of a corridor's boundaries. The West-wide Corridors Designation, like the NIETC Desig-nation, did not approve any specific sites, but desig-nated specific areas for sites. Nonetheless, the lead agencies, including DOE, reshaped the corridors in

1105 response to the PEIS to exclude certain sens-itive lands. Certainly § 15926 contains a more spe-cific requirement for a study of environmental im-pacts than § 216, but DOE's ability to undertake a PEIS for West-wide Corridors, and to modify the boundaries based on the PEIS, undermines its as-sertion that it is not possible to evaluate the envir-onmental impacts of a NIETC.

3. DOE has not adequately documented its decision DOE also asserts that it has adequately docu-mented its decision not to undertake any review un-der NEPA. It argues that similar to the situation in Northcoast, neither NIETC is a specific proposal with environmental consequences that can be mean-ingfully evaluated at this time. 136 F.3d at 663 (internal quotations omitted). We doubt that a NI-ETC is similar to the management guidelines at is-sue in Northcoast, but even if we were to engage in this fiction, this case does not contain the critical factual element present in Northcoast: a record that supports the reasonableness of the agency's de-cision not to prepare an EIS or EA. We cannot ac-cept DOE's unsupported conclusion that its final agency action that covers ten States and over a 100 million acres does not, as a matter of law, have some environmental impact. See Alaska Ctr., 189 F.3d at 859; The Steamboaters, 759 F.2d at 1393. If the smaller West-wide Corridors are worthy of a PEIS, as detailed in the statement's executive sum-mary, then a much larger NIETC is also pre-sumptively worthy of an EA or EIS. In any event, DOE has failed to present the documentation neces-sary to allow us to determine that there are no en-vironmental impacts or that DOE took a hard Page 33 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

look at the environmental impacts.

4. The failure to undertake an environmental study is not harmless error

[20] Finally, DOE suggests, citing 40 C.F.R. § 1500.3, that even if we were to determine that a formal EA was required to document DOE's no ef-fects determination, DOE's failure to do so was, at most, harmless error. As noted in Section III C, supra, following the issuance of the Supreme Court's opinion in Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696, we place the burden on petitioners to show that the failure to undertake an environmental study is not harmless error. Here, even a cursory review of peti-tioners' contentions raises substantial questions...

as to whether [the NIETCs] may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor.

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands, 468 F.3d at 562 (internal citation omitted).FN35 FN35. We note that DOE's reference to a part of the regulation is no substitute for its obligation to supply a convincing state-ment of reasons why potential effects are insignificant. The Steamboaters, 759 F.2d at 1393. The regulation does state, as DOE notes, that any trivial violation of [CEQ]

regulations [does] not give rise to any in-dependent cause of action. However it also provides that the provisions of the Act and of these regulations must be read together as a whole in order to comply with the spirit and letter of the law. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.3. Here, the failure to under-take any environmental review unsuppor-ted by a record that factually supports such a decision is not a trivial violation.

For example, petitioners note that the Southw-est Corridor includes the Joshua Tree National Park and the Sonoran Desert National Monument. It in-cludes more than three million acres of national wildlife refuge as well as national parks and 57 state beaches, reserves and recreational areas. The Mid-Atlantic Corridor encompasses four national forests, over a million acres of national reserves, historic properties, and environmentally sensitive lands. In light of the agencies' sensitivity to envir-onmental*1106 impacts in their creation of the West-wide Corridors, we cannot conclude that the DOE's failure to undertake a study of the NIETCs' environmental impacts constitutes harmless error.

In sum, NEPA requires that for all major Fed-eral actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment an agency must prepare a de-tailed statement on the environmental impact of the action and any adverse environmental effects. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c). DOE did not prepare an EIS or even an EA for its NIETC Designation.

Its proffered reasons for not doing sothe NIETC Designation is not a major Federal action, NEPA review will take place in subsequent requests for specific sitings, and there are no significant impacts from the Designationare not persuasive as a mat-ter of law and are not supported by the record. Ac-cordingly, because DOE has not shown that it has taken the requisite hard look at the environmental consequences of the NIETCs, we vacate the NIETC Designation and remand the matter to DOE to pre-pare at least an EA to determine whether there are any environmental impacts that significantly affect the quality of human environment, and whether, if so, the impacts warrant adjustments.FN36 FN36. In Northwest Environmental Advoc-ates v. EPA, we noted that when the EPA acted outside its authority and failed to fol-low Congress's clear mandate, the appro-priate remedy was to vacate that action.

537 F.3d 1006, 1026-27 (9th Cir.2008).

VI. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVA-TION ACT Petitioners also argue that DOE violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531

, by failing to consult with the Secretary of Interior pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). We have re-cently stated that [t]he threshold for triggering the Endangered Species Act is relatively low; consulta-tion is required whenever a federal action may af-Page 34 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

fect listed species or critical habitat. Cal. ex rel.

Lockyer v. USDA, 575 F.3d 999, 1018 (2009)

(quoting 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a)) (emphasis added).

DOE responds that petitioners' arguments concern-ing the ESA echo their NEPA arguments.

Petitioners also contend that DOE violated the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) by failing to comply with 16 U.S.C. § 470f, which re-quires that it accept comments from certain entities, including the Advisory Council on Historic Preser-vation (ACHP), prior to the approval of the ex-penditure of any Federal funds on an undertaking that has the potential to adversely affect historic properties. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.1(c); 800.3(a);

800.16(y). DOE argues that it reasonably declined to initiate historic-preservation review under NHPA, and further claims that it adequately re-sponded to the two letters it received from the ACHP.

As we hold that the Congestion Study and the NIETCs Designation must be vacated and the mat-ter remanded to the DOE, we need not consider pe-titioners' claims under the ESA and NHPA. Should DOE on remand designate NIETCs in a manner that petitioners believe violates either the ESA or NHPA, they can then seek judicial review of those decisions.

VII. CHALLENGES TO SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE NIETCS Petitioners have raised numerous challenges to particular aspects of the Mid-Atlantic Corridor and the Southwest Corridor. However, as the Designa-tion of these corridors is vacated, these challenges are moot and we need not address them. Petitioners will have the opportunity to *1107 present their concerns to DOE in the proceedings on remand. We are confident that whatever actions DOE takes, the subsequent challenges to those actions (if any) will turn, at least in part, on facts and arguments that are not before us now.

CONCLUSION In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress specifically directed DOE to undertake a Conges-tion Study in consultation with affected States. 16 U.S.C. § 824p(a)(1). It further directed that in un-dertaking this study and in designating any national interest electric transmission corridors, DOE was to comply with NEPA. We determine that DOE failed to consult with the affected States prior to issuing its Congestion Study and that this failure was preju-dicial to the States. Accordingly, the Congestion Study is vacated. We further find that DOE's state-ment that its designation of NIETCs does not sig-nificantly affect the quality of the human environ-ment is not supported by sufficient evidence to show that DOE has taken the requisite hard look at the environmental consequences. See Kleppe v.

Sierra Club, 427 U.S. at 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718; California ex rel. Lockyer, 575 F.3d at 1012. We further find that the record does not allow us to conclude that the failure to take a hard look at the environmental consequences was harmless. Accord-ingly, the Designation of the NIETCs is vacated. In light of our vacation of the Congestion Study and the NIETCs Designation, we decline to consider the petitioners' challenges (1) under the Endangered Species Act, (2) under the National Historic Preser-vation Act, and (3) to specific aspects of the Mid-Atlantic Corridor and the Southwest Corridor.

The petitions for review are GRANTED, the Congestion Study and Designation of NIETCs are VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

IKUTA, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

This is a tale of two errors. First, the DOE erred by not consulting with affected states at the threshold of a massive, year-long, nationwide study of electric transmission congestion. But this error was harmless. Petitioners have not shown that DOE's error prevented them from submitting in-formation or making arguments to DOE, nor have they shown that DOE would have made a different decision absent the error. In short, they have failed to offer even a scintilla of evidence to establish pre-judice. Under controlling Supreme Court precedent, Page 35 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

therefore, we must uphold DOE's actions. Shinseki v.

Sanders, U.S.

129 S.Ct.

1696, 1704-06, 173 L.Ed.2d 532 (2009).

But here is where the second error comes in, namely, the majority's ruling that DOE must com-plete the entire process again even though its con-sultation error caused no harm. Instead of recogniz-ing that Sanders rejected the presumption of preju-dice articulated in Riverbend

Farms, Inc.

v.

Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1487 (9th Cir.1992), the majority employs this discredited approach to nulli-fy DOE's efforts. In doing so, the majority inflicts the only real injury in this saga. I respectfully dis-sent.

I Motivated by concerns about the reliability of the national electricity system, Congress instructed DOE to conduct a study of electric transmission congestion and use it to designate any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission ca-pacity constraints or congestion that adversely af-fects consumers as a national interest electric trans-mission corridor. 16 U.S.C. § 824p(a)(1), (2).

DOE's *1108 efforts resulted in the Congestion Study, 71 Fed.Reg. 45,047 (Aug. 8, 2006), and the Designation Order, 72 Fed.Reg. 56,992 (Oct. 5, 2007), which examined congestion in over 150,000 miles of transmission lines and designated over 119 million acres over ten states as national interest electric transmission corridors (NIETCs).

Although I agree with the majority that the DOE failed to engage in consultation with affected States, § 824p, the record shows that this failure neither impacted the outcome of the designation process nor deprived petitioners of the required op-portunity to contribute all comments, facts, and analysis that they wished to submit. The affected states had actual notice that DOE was producing a congestion study that would inform its decision to designate NIETCs, and all but two of them actually participated and provided feedback by directly in-teracting with DOE personnel at various in-person conferences, one-on-one meetings, or conference calls, by submitting written comments, or by some combination of these various channels. Moreover, DOE considered and responded to these comments when it issued its final study and designation order, and no state now claims that it lacked notice of DOE's invitation to solicit comments or had specif-ic arguments or studies that it was unable to submit.

In fact, the petitioners do not (and cannot) demon-strate any prejudice from DOE's failure to engage in formal consultation: they cannot show that the outcome would have been different had they been formally consulted, nor can they point to any spe-cific information or arguments that they were un-able to submit because of the lack of consultation.

Accordingly, as explained in detail below, the states' failure to show any actual harm attributable to the lack of consultation dooms their claims under controlling Supreme Court precedent, Sanders, 129 S.Ct. at 1704-06, and the majority errs in holding otherwise.

II The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in-forms federal courts that, in reviewing agency ac-tions, due account shall be taken of the rule of pre-judicial error. 5 U.S.C. § 706. This section re-quires courts to apply the harmless error rule in re-viewing challenges to administrative agency pro-ceedings. See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 659-60, 127 S.Ct. 2518, 168 L.Ed.2d 467 (2007) (In adminis-trative law, as in federal civil and criminal litiga-tion, there is a harmless error rule. (quoting PDK Labs., Inc. v. U.S. DEA, 362 F.3d 786, 799 (D.C.Cir.2004))). Although Section 706 of the APA does not specify which party bears the burden of showing that prejudice resulted from alleged agency error, the general rule is that the party chal-lenging an erroneous procedure or ruling must carry the burden. See, e.g., NLRB v. Seine & Line Fisher-men's Union of San Pedro, 374 F.2d 974, 981 (9th Cir.1967) ( [T]he burden of showing that preju-dice has resulted is on the party claiming injury from the erroneous rulings.) (quoting Palmer v.

Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed.

Page 36 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

645 (1943)).

In a handful of cases involving alleged agency failures to comply with notice, comment, and con-sultation requirements, we departed from this long-standing rule. We justified this departure based on our concern that the burden for establishing preju-dice in such cases was too heavy. As we explained in Riverbend Farms, if the harmless error rule were to look solely to result, an agency could al-ways claim that it would have adopted the same rule even if it had complied with APA procedures.

958 F.2d at 1487. Therefore, we shifted *1109 the burden to the agency by presuming that an agency's failure to provide notice or consultation was preju-dicial. See Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th Cir.2005) (presuming that the Bureau of Pris-ons's failure to comply with the APA's notice and comment requirements was prejudicial and thus shifting the burden to the agency to prove other-wise).

A The Riverbend Farms approach is contrary to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sanders. In considering the rule of prejudicial error in the agency context, the Supreme Court repudiated the Federal Circuit's mandatory presumption that cer-tain types of notice errors were per se prejudicial.

FN1 129 S.Ct. at 1704. Rejecting a rule that when an agency provides a claimant with notice that is deficient in any respect, the agency should pre-sume that the error is prejudicial, id. at 1702, Sanders enunciated a number of general principles.

First, the Court prohibited reliance on a mandatory presumption of prejudice because doing so would frustrate Congress's express preference for determ-ining the harmlessness of an error on a fact-spe-cific, case-by-case basis. Id. at 1705. Second, the Court held that the burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination. Id. at 1706. Unless the circumstances of the case make clear to the appel-late judge that the ruling, if erroneous, was harm-ful, the party seeking reversal must marshal[ ] the facts and evidence to establish prejudice and explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm.

Id. at 1706. In this regard, the Court specifically disapproved the challenger's argument for the cre-ation of a special rule that placed upon the agency the burden of proving that a notice error did not cause harm. Id. Third, the Court held that while courts may sometimes make empirically based generalizations about what kinds of errors are likely, as a factual matter, to prove harmful, such generalizations must be based on case-specific factors; they cannot be rigid, mandatory presump-tions. Id. at 1707. The factors that inform such gen-eralizations are best left to the court that sees suf-ficient case-specific raw material so as to draw such empirical conclusions. Id.

FN1. Though Sanders addressed the harm-less error standard in the context of appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Court made clear that its articulation of the harmless error rule applies to our interpretation of the APA in all administrative contexts. Spe-cifically, the Supreme Court stated that the requirement that the Veterans Court take due account of the rule of prejudicial er-ror, 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2), should be in-terpreted in the same manner as § 706 in the APA. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. at 1704. Our sister circuits have complied with this dir-ective by interpreting Sanders as a clarific-ation of the harmless error standard in oth-er agency contexts. See, e.g., Jicarilla Apache Nation v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 613 F.3d

1112, 1121 (D.C.Cir.2010)

(citing and applying Sanders in a suit by an Indian tribe against the Department of the Interior); In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338-40 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing and applying Sanders in the patent context).

Commentators have also acknowledged Sanders's effect on the harmless error rule in the administrative agency context. See Craig Smith, Taking Due Account of the Page 37 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

APA's Prejudicial-Error

Rule, 96 Va.

L.Rev. 1727, 1740 (2010).

Thus, Sanders instructs federal appellate courts that they must take a case-by-case approach to de-termining whether an agency's error, whether pro-cedural or substantive, has a harmful effect. Under Sanders, we may neither presume prejudice nor place the burden of proof on the agency to disprove prejudice. The Supreme Court's direction to apply the same kind of harmless-error rule that courts ordinarily apply in civil cases, id. at 1704, *1110 and to eschew presumptions in favor of a case-specific approach is clearly irreconcilable with the rule that an agency's notice and comment failure is harmless only where the agency's mistake clearly had no bearing on the procedure used, Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1487 (quoting Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Hodel, 790 F.2d 760, 764-65 (9th Cir.1986)). Therefore, our burden-shifting presumption of prejudice has been super-seded. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). Indeed, we are bound by the later and controlling authority, and [must] reject the prior circuit opinion as having been effectively overruled. Id. at 893.

B Despite the majority's insistence to the con-trary, Maj. Op. at 1094 n. 21, the concern that an-imated our rule in the Riverbend Farms line of cases, namely that it would be impossible for plaintiffs to establish prejudice as a result of pro-cedural errors, was unwarranted. As noted above, we based the burden-shifting presumption of preju-dice approach on the concern that it would be virtu-ally impossible to mount a successful challenge to an agency's procedural error. This conclusion, in turn, was based on the assumption that a petitioner could demonstrate prejudice only by showing that an agency's outcome would have been different ab-sent the error. Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1487.

But as shown by our sister circuits, this assumption is not correct: a party can also show prejudice by establishing that an agency's procedural error prevented specific facts or arguments from being presented to an agency and entered into the admin-istrative record or that the error prevented the peti-tioner from mounting a credible challenge to the agency action. Craig Smith, Taking Due Account of the APA's Prejudicial-Error Rule, 96 Va. L.Rev.

1727, 1744, 1746 (2010)

(citing cases).

This record-based approach, see id. at 1744, is consist-ent with the basic agency law principle that notions of fairness and informed administrative decisionmaking require that agency decisions be made only after affording interested parties notice and an opportunity to comment, Chrysler Corp. v.

Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979); see also Sanders, 129 S.Ct. at 1707 (stating that in evaluating an agency's error for harmlessness, a reviewing court could consider the error's likely effects on the perceived fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceed-ings.).

The D.C. Circuit has applied this record-based test in a number of key cases. In Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173 (D.C.Cir.2002), for example, the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service issued an incidental take permit allowing real estate developers to build on an area inhabited by the endangered Delmarva fox squirrel. Id. at 175-76. Although the Service pub-lished the draft take permit, it erred by failing to publish a map of the proposed mitigation site for the squirrels. Id. at 177, 179. After a conservation group challenged this error, the D.C. Circuit held that the challengers successfully demonstrated pre-judice by identifying three specific critiques of the permit that they would have provided had they seen the map. Id. at 182. In reaching this conclusion, the court articulated the rule that in order to show pre-judice, a plaintiff must indicate with reasonable specificity what portions of the documents it ob-jects to and how it might have responded if given the opportunity. Id. at 182 (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, in Owner-Operator In-dep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., the D.C. Circuit held that the peti-tioner satisfied its burden of establishing prejudice Page 38 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

by raising arguments that *1111 amply demon-strate[d] that it would have mounted a credible challenge had it been afforded an opportunity to do so. 494 F.3d 188, 202-03 (D.C.Cir.2007). FN2 FN2. See also Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227, 230, 237-38 (D.C.Cir.2008) (holding that the FCC's failure to comply with notice-and-comment requirements was not harm-less error because the appellant showed that redacted portions of FCC reports appear[ed] to contain information in ten-sion with the [Commission's] conclusion and that it could offer commentary that would illuminate unaddressed strengths and weaknesses of the FCC's data (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)); U.S. Telecom Ass'n v.

FCC, 400 F.3d 29, 41 (D.C.Cir.2005)

(holding that the challengers had failed to show prejudice from the agency's failure to label its notice as Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where they cannot identify a single additional comment that they would have made but for the labeling of the no-tice, nor any other deficiency in the rule-making process.).

Other circuits have likewise adopted the D.C.

Circuit's rule for showing prejudice when the agency has made a procedural error. See, e.g.,

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1049, 1061 (11th Cir.2008) (citing the D.C. Circuit's decision in Owner-Operator and holding that to show preju-dice from the lack of opportunity to comment on a proposed rule, the petitioner must indicate with reasonable specificity the aspect of the rule to which it objects and how it might have responded if given the opportunity (internal quotation marks omitted)); Conservation Law Found. v. Evans, 360 F.3d 21, 29-30 (1st Cir.2004)

(holding that agency's failure to demonstrate good cause for waiving notice and comment requirement was harmless since conservation groups could not identify any comment that they were prevented from making and that would have made a differ-ence in the result); Texas v. Lyng, 868 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir.1989) (holding that agency's procedur-al error was harmless because appellants [did] not explain what they would have said in response to the... report and [did] not identify any new in-formation they would have submitted to the agency if given the opportunity).

Indeed, we have applied a similar principle on occasion. See Safari Aviation, Inc. v. Garvey, 300 F.3d 1144, 1152 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that agency's failure to consider comments before pro-mulgating a final rule was harmless because the substance of the comments had been extensively commented on and discussed in previous rulemak-ing proceedings).

In sum, a challenger can carry its burden of showing prejudice from an agency's procedural er-ror by demonstrating with reasonable specificity that it could present specific facts or arguments to an agency that may allow it to mount a credible challenge, or can point to key omissions in data and methodology that makes the agency's decision unreliable. Am. Radio, 524 F.3d at 237-38 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under this standard, the concern we expressed in Riverbend Farms, that a challenger could never succeed in showing preju-dice due to a procedural error, is unwarranted, and so is any presumption of prejudice based on that concern.

III Rather than comply with Sanders in this case, the majority applies Riverbend Farm's superseded presumption of prejudice, holding that an error is not harmless unless it clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of [the] de-cision reached. Maj. Op. at 1090 (quoting River-bend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1487). Because this articu-lation of the harmless error rule requires the agency to prove a negative, that an error clearly had no

1112 bearing on its procedure or decision, the test effectively presumes prejudice and shifts the Page 39 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

burden to the agency to prove otherwise. Indeed, this language not only creates a presumption of pre-judice, it also suggests that a procedural error is prejudicial per se, because it is doubtful that an agency could ever carry the heavy burden of prov-ing that a procedural error clearly had no bearing on the procedure used. Id. (emphasis added).

Building on this language, the majority indicates that a failure to consult is per se prejudicial because it affects the interactive process itself. FN3 Maj.

Op at 1092.

FN3. In fact, Riverbend Farms did not hold that the failure to engage in notice and comment was per se prejudicial: it cla-rified that such a procedural error is harm-less where its purpose has been satisfied, id.

at

1477, and concluded that the agency's failure to comply with a notice and comment requirement in that case was harmless. Id. at 1488. Thus, in indicating that a failure to consult with the states is per se prejudicial, the majority goes bey-ond the holding in Riverbend Farms.

The majority's adherence to the presumption of prejudice rejected by Sanders is demonstrated by its explanation of how the petitioners in this case proved harm. First, according to the majority, the affected states have shown harm because they did not have an opportunity to consult before DOE fi-nalized its decision. Maj. Op. at 1092-93 (alteration in original). This is nothing but a tautology (the af-fected states were harmed by DOE's failure to con-sult because the DOE failed to consult with them),

and a presumption of prejudice by another name.

FN4 FN4. The majority also suggests that per Sanders, it could make an empirically based generalization[ ] that a failure to consult prior to making a discretionary de-cision, when such consultation is mandated by law, is the type of error that is likely to prove harmful. Maj. Op. at 1093 n. 18 (quoting Sanders, 129 S.Ct. at 1707). But the majority is not offering an empirically based generalization, permitted by Sanders because the majority provides no empirical evidence that a failure to consult caused any actual harm. There is no such evidence in this case.

The majority's further explanation that the af-fected states have shown prejudice because DOE made a discretionary decision, and when an agency makes a discretionary decision, it might be influ-enced by consultation, is just another tautology.

Maj. Op. at 1093. Specifically, the majority claims that DOE admit[ted] that its determinations and conclusions in the Congestion Study were not de-cisions compelled by some mathematical formulae, but important discretionary decisions for which there was little guidance, and that in such situ-ations, [t]he value of consulting with an agency before it makes a decision is greatest. Id. In other words, the states are harmed by the failure to con-sult because they did not have the opportunity to consult. Again, this is nothing more than a restate-ment of the presumption that when an agency fails to consult, it is per se prejudicial.

As a review of the record amply demonstrates, if the majority had complied with Sanders, 129 S.Ct. at 1704-06, and placed the burden of showing prejudice on the affected states, it would have con-cluded that DOE's error was harmless. First, the af-fected states were well aware of DOE's plans for the study and NIETC designation. Six months be-fore issuing its congestion study, DOE published a Notice of Inquiry in the Federal Register seeking comments and information relevant to DOE's plans for conducting the congestion study. Through this notice, DOE requested comments on draft criteria for gauging the suitability of geographic areas as NIETCs and announce[d] a public technical confer-ence concerning the criteria for evaluation of can-didate areas as NIETCs. *1113 71 Fed.Reg. 5660, 5660 (Feb. 2, 2006). DOE specifically stated that it would consider well-supported recommendations from affected States and interested parties Page 40 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

throughout the study process regarding areas be-lieved to merit urgent attention from the Depart-ment. Id. at 5661. The notice also contained lists of transmission plans and studies already under review by DOE, and asked the public to send in-formation about existing, specific transmission studies and other plans, that DOE should review.

Id. at 5662.

Second, the states not only had the opportunity to comment on how the study should be conducted, but they used the opportunity to do so. Many states and state entities submitted comments in response to DOE's notice, including most of the state peti-tioners in this case and entities from those states.

Specifically, representatives from the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, Arkansas Public Service Commission, and Illinois Commerce Commission were confer-ence panelists at a public technical conference where DOE discussed issues raised by commenters regarding the ongoing Congestion Study. Confer-ence participants also included officials from Iowa, New York, California, Illinois, Arkansas, Wyom-ing, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kentucky, New Jersey, Vermont, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, and the District of Columbia.

DOE also reached out to affected states through multiple meetings with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), a quasi-governmental organization that includes rep-resentatives of all fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and whose membership represents all of the state com-missions responsible for economic and safety regu-lation of the retail operations of utilities. Similarly, DOE participated in conference calls with repres-entatives from state entities, and met and corres-ponded with the New York Public Service Commis-sion and the Florida Public Service Commission, the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Con-trol, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the California Public Utilities Commission, and the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission.

Given the undisputed fact that the affected states had ample opportunity to provide their views to DOE, Maj. Op. at 1090-91, which received and considered them,FN5 petitioners must show some other basis for their claim that DOE's failure to con-sult was harmful. They have failed to carry this bur-den. Indeed, the petitioners' briefs barely address the issue of prejudice, let alone marshal evidence showing what harm the petitioners suffered, what specific information they would have provided that was not already in the record, or how consultation would have affected the outcome of DOE's de-cisionmaking process.

FN5. Indeed, the state petitioners concede that only two states, Virginia and Arizona, did not submit comments or otherwise avail themselves of the consultation oppor-tunities afforded by DOE during its cre-ation of the Congestion Study. Neither state suggested that it did not have actual notice of DOE's Congestion Study, and neither state alleged it had new informa-tion that it would have presented had it been consulted by DOE.

The Western States assert merely that DOE failed to respond to the request for consultation by five Arizona commissioners. Without more, this fails to show that the Western States suffered any harm. And the Western States do not provide any further evidence of prejudice: they do not state how consultation would have affected the outcome of DOE's Congestion Study or NIETC designation, nor do they *1114 explain with reasonable spe-cificity what additional information or arguments they could have made had they been consulted. See Mkt. St. Ry. v. R.R. Comm'n of Cal., 324 U.S. 548, 561-62, 65 S.Ct. 770, 89 L.Ed. 1171 (1945)

(holding the Railroad Commission's error harmless in the absence of any showing of... prejudice by the petitioners who made [n]o contention... that the information was erroneous or was misunder-stood by the Commission, and no contention... that the Company could have disproved it or explained Page 41 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

away its effect for the purpose for which the Com-mission used it). Having failed to show prejudice, the Western States cannot prevail on their claim merely because DOE made a technical error.

The Eastern States similarly fail to show preju-dice. In attempting to do so, they raise only a single argument, namely that DOE incorrectly interpreted data as to the location and magnitude of conges-tion in New York. The Eastern States argue that DOE's incorrect and flawed documentation and interpretation of data could have been prevented if DOE had consulted with the New York Public Ser-vice Commission (NYSPC), which could have identified discrepancies between data from the Congestion Study and the 2005 State of the Market Report prepared by the New York Independent Sys-tem Operator (NYISO).

This argument is belied by the record. After the Congestion Study was complete, NYSPC informed DOE about alleged material discrepancies between DOE's study and the 2005 report produced by NYISO. In response, DOE explained that the dis-crepancies and reporting errors identified by New York did not affect the analysis and findings of the Congestion Study. 72 Fed.Reg. 25,838, 25,859 (May 7, 2007). Specifically, DOE explained that NYISO market data on congestion are not directly comparable to the Congestion Study's simulation results because the congestion study simulations reflect forward-looking data while NYISO relied on real-time congestion data. Id. at 25,858. In addition, DOE explained, its Congestion Study simulations reflected NYISO's planning

data, whereas NYISO's report was based on its operational data.

Id. Finally, according to the DOE, the Congestion Study accounted for new generation capacity that was added after NYISO's study, and considered fu-ture capacity additions as well. Id. at 25,859.

Because DOE considered the Eastern States' concerns and offered a reasonable explanation for the discrepancies identified by the NYSPC, the Eastern States have failed to show that had DOE consulted with New York, DOE would have inter-preted this data differently or reached a different decision. Nor do the Eastern States identify any ad-ditional facts and information they would have sup-plied, or different arguments they would have made, had they been consulted. Therefore, the East-ern States have not carried their burden of showing that they were prejudiced by DOE's failure to con-sult.

In holding that DOE's failure to consult with the states was per se prejudicial, despite the states' failure to demonstrate any harm, the majority em-ploys the sort of mandatory presumption rejected in Sanders.

The majority attempts to distinguish Sanders on the ground that it involved a notice er-ror rather than a consultation error, see Maj. Op. at 1090-91, asserting that a notice error is harmful only if it affects the outcome of agency decision-making, while a consultation error is harmful in it-self because Congress intended for there to be con-sultation, and a consultation error deprives parties of the opportunity to consult. Maj. Op. at 1090-91.

But Sanders's prejudicial error principles cannot be so *1115 confined. In considering whether an error is harmless, there is no principled basis for distin-guishing among any of the steps an agency must take before reaching its final decision, whether the step involves consultation, notice and comment, or merely notice. While an error in fulfilling any of these steps necessarily affects the decisionmaking process, a plaintiff must prove that such an error actually caused harm. Because there is no evidence of prejudice beyond the mere fact that DOE failed to consult the affected states, nor any basis for the majority's assertion that there is substantial doubt as to whether DOE would have made the same find-ings had it consulted with the affected States, Maj.

Op. at 1093 (quoting Kurzon v. United States Postal Service, 539 F.2d 788 (1st Cir.1976)), the majority errs in invalidating the DOE's Congestion Study and Designation Order.

IV The majority compounds its error by reaching out to discuss DOE's decision not to prepare NEPA Page 42 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

documentation regarding the potential environment-al impacts of the Designation Order. Maj. Op. at 1102-04. Because the majority vacates the Desig-nation Order, its discussion of this issue is entirely superfluous. Worse, the majority is entirely wrong in concluding that DOE's decision is a harmful er-ror. In fact, DOE adequately complied with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), by documenting its de-termination that no environmental impact statement (EIS) was required in the Designation Order.

The Supreme Court has set a practical limit to NEPA's requirement that federal agencies docu-ment the environmental impact of proposed pro-grams. Where it is impossible to predict the level of activity that will occur in a region, it is impossible to analyze the environmental con-sequences and the resource commitments involved in, and the alternatives to, such activity. Kleppe v.

Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976). Under such circumstances, any attempt to prepare an environmental analysis would be little more than a study... containing es-timates of potential development and attendant en-vironmental consequences. Id. In other words, un-less there is a plan for development that defines fairly precisely the scope and limits of the pro-posed development of the region, there is no fac-tual predicate for the production of an environment-al impact statement of the type envisioned by NEPA. Id.

Applying such a practical common sense limit-ation, we have likewise held that an EIS was not necessary for an action plan prepared by the Forest Service because it was a broad program lacking any identifiable concrete effects, did not call for specif-ic activities with a direct impact on a particular site, did not propose site specific activity, and did not call for specific actions directly impacting the phys-ical environment. Northcoast Envtl. Ctr. v. Glick-man, 136 F.3d 660, 668-70 (9th Cir.1998). The Fourth Circuit adopted a similar approach in decid-ing that FERC was not required to prepare an envir-onmental assessment (EA) or EIS in connection with its promulgation of regulations governing the process for issuing permits for the construction or modification of electric transmission facilities in areas designated as national interest corridors.

Piedmont Envtl. Council v. FERC, 558 F.3d 304, 316-17 (4th Cir.2009). As the Fourth Circuit ex-plained, such environmental planning would have no practical value, because FERC could not identi-fy projects that are likely to be sited and permitted, and thus did not have information about the ulti-mate geographic footprint of the permitting pro-gram. Id. at 316. In the *1116 absence of such in-formation, FERC could not present a credible for-ward look [that] would... be a useful tool for basic program planning. Id. In other words, NEPA does not require a futile act: if it is not possible to con-nect a federal plan to any particular action on the ground, there is no purpose in preparing an environ-mental study about the effects of that plan.

The Supreme Court's common sense rule ap-plies to DOE's Designation Order because the order cannot be connected to any particular action on the ground. In explaining why it cannot meaningfully examine environmental impacts of the designation of NIETCs, the Designation Order notes, National Corridor designations have no environmental im-pact because [t]hey are only designations of geo-graphic areas in which DOE has identified electric congestion or constraint problems. Other than identifying the 119 million acres where congestion is a problem, the DOE cannot determine the num-ber, size, or location of new transmission facilities that might be permitted within the National Cor-ridors. Nor does DOE know whether any new electricity generation, or what type of generation, will develop in the future. Further, DOE has no control over how and when any such development might occur and therefore cannot predict or estim-ate its impacts. Likewise, the siting decisions that may be made by FERC and various state agencies in the future are too attenuated and speculative to be meaningfully evaluated at the designation stage.

Page 43 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

Ultimately, because [c]umulative impacts are speculative and DOE cannot predict the level of activity that will occur anywhere in the 119 million acres it has designated, it cannot analyze the pos-sible impacts, resource commitments, or alternat-ives. As in Kleppe, any environmental report would be little more than a study... containing estimates of potential development and attendant environ-mental consequences. 427 U.S. at 402, 96 S.Ct.

2718. Such environmental planning would have no practical value; it could not present a credible for-ward look that would be a useful tool for basic pro-gram planning. Piedmont Envtl. Council, 558 F.3d at 316.

The majority points to the efforts by DOE and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare a Programmatic EIS for a much smaller project that involved the designation of energy corridors solely on federal land. Maj. Op. at 1101-02. Rather than serve as evidence that DOE could have prepared a meaningful environmental report in this case, as the majority claims, the PEIS in fact documents the op-posite. The PEIS admits up front that the agencies cannot make any predictions about whether or where future applicants would seek to site their projects, or about what sort of project might be proposed at a particular location (e.g., an under-ground pipeline as opposed to an aboveground transmission line). Nor can the agencies predict whether any potential future project would involve electricity, gas, hydrogen, or oil energy transport systems. At this level of generality, it is not sur-prising that the agencies concluded that land use impacts from designating corridors on federal land are substantially the same as the land use impacts from not designating such corridors. See Dep't of Energy et al., Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal land in the 11 Western States, S-25 (Nov.2008). The agencies are even blunter in their consideration of the effect the corridor designation project has on endangered species: without know-ing the specifics of when and where a project would occur within a corridor, or what such a project would entail, there was no credible basis on which to base a biological assessment.

1117 To the extent that an EA was required under DOE's regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b),

DOE satisfied that requirement in the Designation Order itself. An EA is a concise public document that provides an agency sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an en-vironmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1). As explained above, the Designation Order provided a reasoned discussion of the relevant factors and con-cluded that an EIS was not required because DOE could not meaningfully evaluate environmental im-pacts at this juncture. In light of DOE's reasoned statements, the majority errs in suggesting that DOE did not adequately explain its decision.

Maj. Op. at 1097 (quoting Alaska Ctr. for Env't v.

U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Cir.1999)

).FN6 Again, the majority departs from the Su-preme Court's direction that courts should not func-tion as citadels of technicality that automatically reverse agency action for errors that have no actual impact. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. at 1705 (quoting Kot-teakos, 328 U.S. at 759, 66 S.Ct. 1239); see also McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984).

FN6. Though the majority does not reach the states' arguments that DOE violated the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), and the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. § 470f, I would also hold that DOE's stat-utory obligations were not triggered under either statute because the effects of the Designation Order on endangered species, critical habitats, and historic properties were too speculative.

V Instead of taking the common sense approach mandated by the Supreme Court in reviewing agency action, the majority here invalidates two im-Page 44 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

portant studies because of a technical procedural er-ror that had no adverse effect. The majority takes this step in reliance on precedent that has been su-perseded by the Supreme Court. Its unnecessary ex-position of federal environmental law is equally flawed, ignoring both controlling Supreme Court precedent and common sense. I respectfully dissent.

C.A.9,2011.

California Wilderness Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Energy 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 END OF DOCUMENT Page 45 631 F.3d 1072, 72 ERC 1033, Util. L. Rep. P 14,799, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1522, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1851 (Cite as: 631 F.3d 1072)

ML12334A565

Text

Background:

Navigation menu

Search