Courts & the Law, Environment

Court decision out of DC could portend trouble for Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Hundreds of people turned out in Rocky Mount to comment on the water quality, riparian buffer and climate change impacts of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. (Photo: Lisa Sorg)

During the state’s public hearings and listening sessions about the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline, many concerned citizens talked about how the $5.5 billion project would contribute to climate change. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. The fracking operations in West Virginia, the starting line for the 600-mile pipeline, would leak methane, a potent greenhouse gas. And the pipeline itself would eventually leak methane as well.

Now in the case of a different pipeline — Southeast Markets — a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia has ruled 2-1 that federal regulators inadequately considered climate change and greenhouse gases in approving the project. The Hill reported the story this morning.

The ruling sets a legal precedent should the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approve the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. If FERC does — a decision is due Oct. 19 — then it’s almost assured that environmental groups will sue.

The Southeast Markets pipeline is owned by three companies: TransCo, which already operates a pipeline that runs through North Carolina; Sabal Trail Transmission, and Florida Southeast Connection. The 688-mile pipeline would run through Alabama and Georgia before ending in Florida, where it would fuel existing and planned power plants. (This scenario is similar to the ACP, which would bring gas to Virginia and North Carolina to fuel Duke Energy’s and Dominion Energy’s facilities.)

The Sierra Club sued FERC following its 2016 approval of Southeast project. The court denied all of the Sierra Club’s objections, except the one about greenhouse gases.

Judge Thomas Griffith, who was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush, wrote the opinion. From The Hill:

“As we have noted, greenhouse-gas emissions are an indirect effect of authorizing this project, which FERC could reasonably foresee, and which the agency has legal authority to mitigate,” Griffith said.

However, the court’s decision doesn’t kill the pipeline. The project returns to FERC, which is required to complete the necessary greenhouse gas analysis.

 

FERC Pipeline Appeals by LisaSorg on Scribd

One Comment


  1. […] Sorg, The Progressive Pulse (North Carolina), 22 August 2017, Court decision out of DC could portend trouble for Atlantic Coast Pipeline, contains nothing really new, except it’s from yet another […]

Check Also

Illegal oil and gas commission postponed, one statement of economic interest still missing

The state oil and gas commission, which had ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

This story has been updated with comments from Jim Womack, who did not respond earlier to questions. [...]

For the 18 months, Gary Brown has been traveling through northeastern North Carolina like an itinera [...]

It will be at least another month before state Superintendent Mark Johnson can take over at the helm [...]

Eric Hall, in the midst of a rainy drive to rural Robeson County to pitch North Carolina’s ambitious [...]

5---number of days since Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham unveiled a new proposal to repeal [...]

The post The stench of hate speech appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

When a Navy recruiter visited his high school, Carlos was among those students eager to sign up. In [...]

Website with ties to Civitas Institute promotes anti-Semitic attack on Attorney General Stein There [...]

Featured | Special Projects

NC Budget 2017
The maze of the NC Budget is complex. Follow the stories to follow the money.
Read more


NC Redistricting 2017
New map, new districts, new lawmakers. Here’s what you need to know about gerrymandering in NC.
Read more