Would this U.S. Court of Appeals ruling mean FERC needs to consider the cumulative effects of the proposed Sabal Trail pipeline on the same properties as the existing SONAT pipeline? And what about those LNG export authorizations FERC has repeatedly claimed it knows nothing about? And how can FERC justify that project at all, given that solar power is faster, cheaper, and far less environmentally damaging?
Katie Colaneri wrote for NPR 6 June 2014, Court rules federal regulators must consider cumulative impacts of pipeline project,
Regulators violated federal law by not considering the cumulative environmental impacts of multiple upgrades to a natural gas pipeline that runs from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, a federal appeals court said on Friday.
Three environmental groups argued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should not have been allowed to conduct an environmental review for one expansion project on the Tennessee Gas Pipeline without considering three other proposed upgrades on the same line.
The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed.
The judges ruled that FERC failed “to include any meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the upgrade projects.” The judges also found Continue reading FERC has to consider cumulative pipeline effects