Challenge to AIM Pipeline Approval Before DC Circuit Court

Oral arguments were heard Oct. 19 in the case pitting opponents of the Algonquin Pipeline expansion against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Ellen Weininger from Westchester County made the trip to DC Circuit Court for oral arguments Thursday.

The opponents said it was about time.

"From its inception Spectra's massive Algonquin pipeline expansion violated federal law to avoid a full review of its cumulative impacts," she said in a press release. "While the courts finally hear oral arguments on the case today in D.C., tens of millions of people in New York and across New England, living and working in the pipeline's path, continue to remain in harm's way."

Spectra Energy officials told Patch they could not comment on matters in litigation.

FERC approved the first phase of Spectra Energy’s pipeline expansion in March 2015. The project, called the Algonquin Incremental Market Expansion (AIM), was the first of a three-part expansion designed to increase the volume of gas carried by an existing pipeline through New York into New England and to Canada.

From April of 2015 until January 2016 a “Tolling Order” issued by FERC blocked opponents in groups from New York to Massachusetts from proceeding with legal action to challenge the approval. Thursday, lawyers representing those grassroots organizations, including SAPE, the non-profit organization Riverkeeper, the City of Boston, and the Town of Dedham, MA presented oral arguments in the case.

In the intervening two and a half years much has happened, opponents said. The pipeline's parent company, Spectra, was purchased by Canadian oil and gas giant Enbridge, a partner in the Dakota Access Pipeline. The second project, Atlantic Bridge, was approved by FERC, and Spectra began work in New York and asked FERC to put certain portions into operation. The third pipeline expansion project, Access Northeast, was halted by the company, which wants to have ratepayers foot the bills.

Residents and environmental groups argue that FERC's approval of the AIM project violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

“Every day we live with the risk of this pipeline next to the elementary school, the nuclear power plant, the church, and before we can even get our day in court, FERC gives Spectra permission to pick up where they left off with AIM by just changing the project name to Atlantic Bridge. Same pipe, same place, same project,” said Peekskill resident Courtney Williams.

Opponents allege that NEPA requires that FERC consider the cumulative environmental impacts of the projects it considers. FERC examined and rejected that argument, saying it could only consider the projects brought before it.

The challengers contend that the AIM project was merely the first step in a massive expansion of the pipeline, arbitrarily broken into the parts to avoid a full accounting of the impacts it would have. They argued that marketing materials for the projects show they follow-on one another in time and location like pieces of a puzzle, clearly interconnected.

In a previous filing with FERC, Spectra argued that the law about unfair segmentation only applies to proposals. The company said the Atlantic Bridge and Access Northeast projects were still in their development phases and neither was a ’proposal’ subject to NEPA review. "As a result, the Atlantic Bridge project and Access Northeast project need not be considered as 'cumulative actions' in the [AIM] Project EIS.”

A decision is expected from the Circuit Court in two to six months.

SEE:

• Feds Approve Spectra's AIM Project
  
• FERC Says Environmental Impacts of Pipeline Expansion Minimal
  
• Work Can Start on 1st Algonquin Pipeline Project: FERC
  
• Is Algonquin Expansion Part of System Upgrade: FERC
• Hearing on Next Stage of Algonquin Pipeline Expansion