Louisiana Court Vacates LNG Permit, Must Consider Climate Change and Environmental Justice

On October 10, 2025, a Louisiana district court in Cameron Parish vacated the Louisiana Department of Conservation and Energy's (LDCE's) Coastal Use Permit (CUP) issued for the Commonwealth LNG facility on Calcasieu River in Cameron Parish.  Sierra Club v. La. Dep't of Energy & Nat. Resources, C-1021127 (38th J.D.C. Oct. 10, 2025). (As of October 1, 2025, LDCE is the new name for the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources.) The court found the state agency had violated its Public Trust Duty under the Louisiana Constitution by failing to analyze climate change and environmental justice (EJ) impacts. 

The CUP was challenged by national and local non-profit organizations, arguing that:

• LDCE failed to assess all cumulative and secondary impacts, namely climate change;

• LDCE failed to adequately protect Cameron Parish residents from the risks of explosions or accidents; and

• LDCE failed to consider the coastal use impacts on EJ communities.

The court found that while LDCE’s decision adequately protected Cameron Parish residents from the risks of explosions or other accidents, LDCE was required to analyze climate change and EJ in issuing the CUP and failed to do so. 

Climate Change. In issuing the CUP, LDCE relied on the federal government’s Final Environmental Impact Statement’s (FEIS) discussion of cumulative and secondary environmental impacts. LDCE did not discuss climate change and argued that it did not have legislative authority to assess global climate change impacts. However, the court found that because Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (SCLRMA) mandates that LDCE “minimize detrimental effects of foreseeable cumulative impacts on coastal resources,” the agency was required to consider the project’s local impacts, combined with impacts from two nearby LNG facilities, on storm severity and/or sea level rise in the coastal zone. The court found this analysis to be particularly important given the rapid rate of LNG industry growth in Southwest Louisiana. The court found the statutory mandate to be augmented by LDCE’s Public Trust Duty to ensure environmental protection.

Environmental Justice. Relying on Rise St. James v. LDEQ, 2023-0578 (La. App. 1 Cir. 01/19/24); 383 So. 3d 956, a First Circuit decision holding that EJ is part of the Public Trust Duty, the court concluded that LDCE was required to consider whether the environmental impacts of the facility would have “a disparate or exaggerated effect on surrounding low-income and minority communities.” LDCE argued that only LDEQ was authorized to consider EJ concerns and had already done so in its permitting. However, the court explained that the requirement arises from the Public Trust Duty which applies to all state agencies, including LDCE. The court noted that LDEQ’s EJ analysis focused on impacts caused by air pollution and wastewater discharge, not impacts to natural resources. The court also noted that LDCE was required to consider how “loss of marshes (storm surge protection), disruptive social patterns (forcing people to move), cumulative impacts (of other facilities already in the area), public use resources (recreational and subsistence fishing), and water quality (water temperature, discharge of solids)” would impact “environmental justice communities, namely those living in poverty, and those who fish not only for recreation but for their livelihood.”

The district court vacated the CUP and remanded the matter back to LDCE to incorporate climate change and EJ in its permitting decision. It remains to be seen if LDCE will address these concerns on remand and/or appeal the decision. 

Here, the requirement to consider climate change cumulative impacts appears to be unique to LDCE and CUPs, given that the mandate stems from the state statute governing coastal resources. However, the requirement to consider EJ is presented as a global constitutional duty that applies to all relevant state agencies. This decision reinforces the need for industry to be aware that Louisiana state agencies are obligated to fulfill their constitutional Public Trust Duty in issuing permits. Industry should aim to proactively address agency information needs in this regard during the application process. 

This decision also highlights the shifting landscape of cumulative impacts and EJ considerations at not only the state and federal level, but also between the executive and judicial branches. The current federal administration has largely eliminated requirements for these considerations in permitting decisions, and the current Louisiana administration appears to be following a similar path. However, with the issuance of this opinion, two Louisiana courts have now opined that Louisiana’s constitution requires agencies to undertake EJ analyses – and this opinion raises the bar for assessing cumulative impacts of projects on coastal resources under SCLRMA and the Public Trust Duty. 

Please contact Liskow attorneys Greg Johnson, Clare Bienvenu, Emily von Qualen, and Colin North, and visit Liskow's The Louisiana Industrial Insights Hub to follow along to stay up-to-date on Public Trust Duty developments.