Profit is not an emergency, say landowners to FERC:

Sabal Trail hopes to cry wolf to get relief. No Emergency exists to warrant the relief they seek. No shortage or national energy crisis exists to warrant the relief that they seek.

Like WWALS and Sierra Club, GBA Associates point out the pipeline has been shut down much of the past six weeks. Like Sierra Club, the landowners cite federal law that requires at least thirty days after an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before issuing certificates, referring to the so-called Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) FERC filed yesterday after the WWALS motion to deny the Applicants’ cry of wolf.

Attorney Jonathan P. Waters cuts to the chase:

As the Circuit Court stated, “All of these pipelines, of course, are being built for a reason: to make a profit for their shareholders, and their shareholders’ shareholders.” This is the fact driving the Sabal motion.

Less than two weeks ago, Sabal Trail partner and thus Applicant for the so-called “emergency” relief, Spectra Energy’s new owner Enbridge Energy of Alberta, Canada, told its shareholders and the public in a Quarterly Earnings Call that Enbridge is “the leading developer and operator of wind, solar, and battery storage projects.” While praising solar and wind power at length, that Earnings Call mentioned Sabal Trail only once, yet managed to contradict the public record twice in that one sentence.

Clearly FERC would be doing a favor to Enbridge’s shareholders by denying the Applicants Request, their cry of wolf over a nonexistent emergency, so the Applicants can get on with solar power for the Sunshine State.

Meanwhile, the Applicants’ Request mostly just repeats arguments already denied by the DC Circuit Court:

It is important to note that in the litany of documents filed in those consolidated cases Duke Energy and others made these same requests utilizing the same arguments, (namely that the certificate not be vacated due to energy emergency), The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit did not grant any such relief in the court proceeding or in any way change its decision that the Certificate of February 2, 2016 should be vacated.

Also today appeared on the FERC Sabal Trail docket, FERC Accession Number 20180206-5027, “Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s Letter In Support under CP15-17, et. al.”, signed by Harry Sideris, State President – Florida, Duke Energy Florida, LLC. In that filing, DEF mostly echoes the Applicants’ Request, including this claim:

The SMP Project will deliver natural gas to the Citrus Plant through a lateral (“Citrus County Line”) that recently has been completed. If the SMP Project is not in position to provide services to the Citrus Plant, it will seriously impede Duke Energy’s ability to meet its current and growing customer requirements. Simply put, a significant and critical power plant will be stranded without access to natural gas supply.

Once again, that is not what DEF in previous years told the public and the Florida Public Service Commission; DEF said Sabal Trail would be one source of gas, and DEF did not need Sabal Trail. Did DEF forget its promises of redundant supply? That would seem to be a business error that might, yes, result in loss of profit. But it is not an emergency.

To the pipeline companies’ own FERC-required Informational postings, DBA adds this evidence that the pipeline has been already largely shut down:

FERC need only look to its own docket in this matter to answer this request on Sabal’s behalf. I direct you to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s letter to FERC of December 14, 2017 stating simply that, “The station has continued to operate below full horsepower load” and that they can not conduct the required full load survey.

But maybe the Applicants are right:

So what they are saying is the Court has vacated the certificate requiring the shut down for environmental reasons, yet if that occurs it will have an unforetold catastrophic impact on the environment. In other words Sierra Club is trying its best to orchestrate harm to the environment.

Maybe Sierra Club really is sabotaging the environment. That’s about as likely as that the Applicants hold the best interests of the environment or the public above their own profit.

See below for the full text of the FERC Filing by GBA.

 -jsq, John S. Quarterman, Suwannee RIVERKEEPER®

You can join this fun and work by becoming a WWALS member today!

GBA FERC Filing

FERC Accession Number 20180206-5019, “Opposition by Landowner G.B.A. Associates to Sabal Trail’s Request for Expedited Issuance of Order on Remand Reissuing Certificates, or in Alternative Temporary Emergency Certificate by Jonathan P. Waters Attorney at Law under CP15-17.”

Note the GBA letter says it was filed February 5, 2018, yet FERC only got around to posting it the next day, today, February 6, 2018.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Florida Southeast Connection, LLC Docket Nos. CP14-554-000
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC CP15-16-000 Sabal Trail
Transmission, LLC CP15—17-000

OPPOSITION BY LANDOWNER G.B.A. ASSOCIATES, LLC T0 SABAL TRAIL’S REQUEST FOR EXPEDITITED ISSUANCE OF ORDER 0N REMAND REISSUING CERTIFICATES, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ABBREVIATED APPLICATION FOR TEMORARY EMERGENCY CERTIFICATES

INTRODUCTION

Sabal Trail seeks on an expedited basis that which the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already denied. It would be a circumvention of justice and this agencies regulations for this Agency (FERC) to grant Sabal Trail the emergency relief it seeks and it is not warranted factually or by precedent under the facts of this matter.

Sabal Trail hopes to cry wolf to get relief. No Emergency exists to warrant the relief they seek. No shortage or national energy crisis exists to warrant the relief that they seek. The use the words of ambiguity repeatedly, “could be”, “might risk”, “risks significant”, etc. They do not state the adjectives of fact. In fact, for months the pipeline has gone through periods of shut down and zero gas flow. There is no reason to grant expedited issuance of the permit when Federal regulations require 30 days from the issuance of the EIS until the certificate can be validly issued.

As the Circuit Court stated, “All of these pipelines, of course, are being built for a reason: to make a profit for their shareholders, and their shareholders’ shareholders.” This is the fact driving the Sabal motion.

GBA, a landowner in South Georgia, is directly and significantly impacted by the Project, insofar as the pipeline is constructed across a very valuable large commercial development tract of land owned by GBA. It crossed this commercial land in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the project route in that it significantly deviates from the route to cross this particular parcel As GBA has demonstrated in comments submitted to FERC during the application process and has expressed to Sabal officials on numerous occasions, the Project has imposed significant adverse impacts on the GBA property both during the construction period by disrupting traffic and destroying development of the parcel. This high- pressure gas pipeline poses a severe safety risk in the event of an accident or explosion and a huge determent to any development whatsoever.

GBA contends that FERC should not give Sabal Trail a free pass or merely be a rubber stamp in its application process. FERC must follow its’ own mandate from Congress, Afier a lengthy court battle, the court followed the argument of Sierra Club and brought this agency to task for the manner in which the EIS was conducted. A Final Supplemental EIS has been prepared and filed today (February 5, 2018) in the Docket CP15-17-000 of this project. The legally required, “Notice of Availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project” was docketed as well and should be placed in the Federal Register for 30 days prior to issuance of any Certificate on this project. The proper action of FERC would be to let the Court ordered mandate issue and let this pipeline be shut down and then allow FERC to make a unbiased decision to either grant the certificate or not.

GBA requests, therefore, that FERC deny Sabal’s requests for either expedited issuance of a certificate or issuance of an emergency temporary certificate or both. FERC must show it is giving the Circuit Court of Appeals’ concerns due deference and follow a timetable that reflects the objective of a reasoned outcome and Federal law. Not the schedule desired and demanded by the regulated entity.

II. STATEMENT OF PARTIES

GBA Associates, LLC is a limited liability company based in Georgia. It owns a commercial parcel of land on the pipeline route in Moultrie, Georgia. GBA intervened in Docket No. CP15-17-000 Sabal Trail Project. Appendix A of the Order incorrectly states “Late, Unopposed Motions to Intervene” with regard to G.B.A, Associates, LLC and Gregory K. Isaccs. In any event GBA intervened in this proceeding rather timely or late unopposed and therefore has standing to file this opposition to Sabal’s Motion.

Sabal Trail Tranmission, LLC is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Spectra Energy of Houston, Texas.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On September 26, 2014, Florida Southeast Connection, LLC (Florida Southeast) filed an application in Docket No. CP14-554-000, pursuant to section 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act¹ (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations,² for authorization to construct and operate the Florida Southeast Connection Project (Florida Southeast Project), a new 126-mile natural gas pipeline and related facilities.³

¹ 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012).

² 18 CPR. Pt. 157 (2015).

³ Commission staff’s draft and final Environmental Impact Statement for this proceeding refer to Florida Southeast as “FSC” and the Florida Southeast Project as “FSC Project.”

1. On November 18, 2014, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-16-000 under sections 7(b) and 7(0) of the NGA and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations, requesting authorization to construct and operate the Hillabee Expansion Project and abandon the capacity on the Hillabee Expansion Project by lease to Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) The Hillabee Expansion Project would include approximately 43.5 miles of pipeline looping facilities and 88,500 horsepower (hp) of compression at one new and three existing compressor stations in Alabama. Sabal Trail will utilize the project capacity to provide up to 1,131,730 Dth/d of firm transportation service.
2. On November 21, 2014, Sabal Trail filed an application in Docket No, CP15-17-000 requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations authorizing Sabal Trail to construct and operate the Sabal Trail Project. The Sabal Trail Project would include approximately 515 miles of new pipeline, six compressor stations, and six meter stations in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida to provide up to 1,075,000 Dth/d of firm transportation service. Sabal Trail also requested authorization to lease the capacity created by the Hillabee Expansion Project; a blanket certificate pursuant to Subpart F of Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations for Sabal Trail to perform certain routine construction, operation, and abandonment activities; and a blanket certificate pursuant to Subpart G of Part 284 of the Commission’s regulations authorizing Sabal Trail to provide open access transportation services.
3. These applications proposed three separate but connected natural gas transmission pipeline projects. The upstream project, Transco’s Hillabee Expansion Project, will create capacity for Sabal Trail’s customers to access upstream natural gas supplies, The middle project, the Sabal Trail Project, will extend from an interconnect with Transco’s system at the Tallapoosa Interconnection in Tallapoosa County, Alabama, to an interconnect with the downstream project, the Florida Southeast Project, near Intercession City, Florida. From there, the Florida Southeast Project will extend to a delivery point with Florida Power & Light Company (Florida Power & Light) at its Martin Clean Energy Center near Indiantown, Florida.
4. GBA. Associates, LLC (hereinafier “GBA”) owns land currently on the Sabal Trail pipeline route. G.B.A. has in good faith tried to get a reroute off of their property.
5. On February 27, 2015 GBA filed Motion to Intervene No. 2015 0203 5076 and supplemental submission 2015-0302-5112 to FERC in support of Motion to Intervene. On November 5, 2014 GBA filed Submission No. 527642 116-2014 Accession No. 2014-1107-5027 complaint with FERC to start GBA’s objection to the Sabal Trail proposed route.
6. On April 30, 2015 GBA Filed Motion with FERC Accession No. 2015-0416-5115.
7. On June 4, 2015 G.B.A. Associates, LLC filed Accession 2015-0514-5170 Pleading Motion Request for FERC to make a decision on routes. Filed Accession 2015-0601-5241 Answer to Sabal Trail’s Response 2015-0515-5216 and subsequently filed Accession 2015—0608-5102 Answer to Sabal Trail response 20150522-5441.
8. On February 2, 2015 without notice under the Government in the Sunshine law (Pub. L No.94-409) FERC issues ORDER authorizing certificate.
9. March 1^st 2016 GBA timely files this request for rehearing of the February 2, 2016 order.
10. Each of these above referenced docket filings incorporated herein as if restated in their entirety are evidence of comments and requests for reroutes including Maps and plotted reroutes prepared by GBA with the assistance of experts Land Owner Consulting, Inc. and its president Steve Jones.
11. In each instance Sabal refused to agree to these reroutes and refused further to mediate this disagreement.
12. As of this date, GBA continues to engage in discussions with Sabal representatives, but without waiving any rights to file this Request or pursue other avenues of appeal in opposition to the Sabal Pipeline Project.
13. FERC denied G.B.A.’s petition for rehearing on September 7, 2016 and G.B.A. filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a consolidated case Sierra Club, et al also challenged the FERC Certificate.
14. Oral Argument was held in April of 2017 in the United States District for Court for the DC Circuit on the consolidated cases and a decision was rendered on August 22, 2017 vacating the Certificate of February 2, 2016 and remanding the case.
15. FERC requested rehearing of this decision both by the panel and by the full court En Banc Such requests were denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on January 31, 2018. It is important to note that in the litany of documents filed in those consolidated cases Duke Energy and others made these same requests utilizing the same arguments, (namely that the certificate not be vacated due to energy emergency), The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit did not grant any such relief in the court proceeding or in any way change its decision that the Certificate of February 2, 2016 should be vacated.

IV. ARGUMENT

It is well established that after FERC staff complete their environmental analysis and cooperating agency consultations regarding a certificate application, the commission issues a draft EIS that will include its initial recommendations for approval or denial of the pipeline certificate.

Only intervenors to the proceeding have the right to file briefs, attend hearings, and appeal the commission’s decision regarding the certificate G.B.A. here is such intervenor and landowner of the effected property. They may also challenge final commission actions in the US. Circuit Courts of Appeal. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to the commission’s rules (18 CPR. §385,214). Intervenors receive the certificate applicant’s filings and other FERC documents related to the case, as well as materials filed by other interested parties. GBA received a copy of this filing on Friday February 2, 2018 at 4:53 pm.

FERC issues a final environmental impact statement with final recommendations for approval or denial of the certificate Under NEPA, a final agency record of decision—in this context a FERC order—cannot be issued until at least 30 days afler FERC publishes a notice of availability of the final E18 (40 CPR. §1506.10(b)(2)). Afier the 30-day period is over, the commission may issue an order approving or denying the pipeline certificate application A FERC certificate confers on the developer in this case Sabal Trail Transmission eminent domain authority (15 UiS.C. §717f(h)).

Specifically Sabal Trail’s request states:

“Absent a stay of the D. C. Circuit’s mandate, unless the Commission either issues an Order on Remand reissuing the certificates for the SMP Project or grants temporary emergency certificates for the Project by the date the D. C. Circuit’s mandate issues on February 7, 2018, the Applicants will be forced to shut off all gas supplies flowing through their respective facilities certificated in the captioned dockets. To avoid irreparable harm to the public, the shippers on these certificated facilities, and the Applicants from a shutdown, the Applicants respectfully request that the Commission reissue the SMP Project certificates or issue temporary certificates by February 6, 2018, which is one day before the scheduled issuance of the D. C. Circuit’s mandate implementing the August 22 Order.”

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court’s mandate is scheduled to issue on February 7, 2018, one week following the D. C. Circuit’s January 31 Order that denied petitions for rehearing. The DC Circuit has “previously recognized that agencies [like this Commission] possess authority to address issues identified by the court prior to the issuance of its mandate. ” Chamber of Commerce of the US v, SEC, 443 F.3d 890, 898 (DC. Cir. 2006).

Yet, according to its own FERC-required information postings, Sabal Trail already has been shutdown for most of the past six weeks, carrying zero gas for much of that time. Sabal Trail posted a nominated capacity (Nom) of only 53 thousand Dekatherms/day (MDTH/day) on that day of the Applicant’s Request, less than 7% of its posted operational capacity (Cap) Then Sabal Trail’s Nom dropped back to zero. Sabal Trail’s own data since FERC permitted it to start shipping gas, demonstrating that Sabal Trail’s shipments have been extremely erratic and that it has been shut down completely numerous times, including the last half of November 2017 and most of January 2018. Since November 14, 2017 the gas in the pipe has dropped to long periods of zero usage. During this time no reported leak or damage has been reported to support such drop in usage other than simply no demand. Lack of demand would therefore not support Sabal’s argument that there is a huge energy emergency in central Florida. This is contrary to Sabal’s argument about overwhelming winter heating demand. Sabal also has lost one of its major contracted customers Duke Energy as of January 5, 2018. From the beginning of this project it was known to be a redundant line based on a future forecasted need. Since that is the case it is only proper that it be shut down until the issues with its permit are properly addressed. Profit Motive of the regulated party should not be dispositive of emergency decisions by FERC. Emergency actions should be utilized specifically when an emergency exists.

Sabal also argues that, “In addition to reliability impacts, an interruption in the service on the Project risks substantial increased costs to consumers from supply constraints. Further, if the Court’s mandate were to issue before the Commission reissues the authorizations contained in the February 2 Order, Applicants would face irreparable financial harm from lost revenue and the costs of additional operations required to shut down and later restart the Project operations following the Commissioner’s action on remand. Without reissuance of the SMP Project certificates or issuance of temporary emergency certificates, the Applicants will face substantial financial harm from lost revenues for each day the pipeline is not in service. Moreover, without such certificates, the Applicants may lose the ability to continue key safety measures such as providing cathodic protection against corrosion Recommissioning the SMP Project after a shutdown is estimated to take a substantial amount of time before operations could resume. Such a lag would further exacerbate and extend the negative practical impacts from shutdown.”

Basically it would be inconvenient for Sabal Trail if the pipeline is shut down due to the Court’s ruling. This again is not a valid reason to grant the relief they request.

The biggest red herring is that, “A shutdown of pipeline operations also threatens additional environmental harm by forcing reliance on higher emitting fuels of power generation in lieu of the gas supplied by the Project. Without service from the Project, DEF may be forced to delay the retirement of two 1960’s era coal units that the scheduled for retirement in 2018. DEF cannot retire those units until it is able to place into service the Citrus County Combined Cycle Plant, which is entirely dependent on the SMP Project. Moreover, shutting down the Project increases the risk of integrity problems and other potential environmental impacts. Any required blow down of the pipeline facilities due to shutdown would result in additional air emissions.” So what they are saying is the Court has vacated the certificate requiring the shut down for environmental reasons, yet if that occurs it will have an unforetold catastrophic impact on the environment. In other words Sierra Club is trying its best to orchestrate harm to the environment.

By its own admission there are two other interstate pipelines serving central and southern Florida, Gulfstream and Florida Gas Company, L.L.C., as stated above this is a redundant line. GBA denies that any interruption in service on the Project would threaten significant adverse consequences that are contrary to the public interest. It would merely allow FERC to complete its work on evaluating the project and rendering an informed decision.

The stated purpose of an environmental impact statement that must be prepared by a Federal agency is to “provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and . . [to] inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts[.]” 40 CFR §1502.1. Further, in determining the scope of examined alternatives, the agency is to consider connected, cumulative, and similar actions. 40 CFR §1508.25. The 30 day period that the availability of the Final EIS must appear in the Federal Register is simply a safeguard created by Congress in the process.

Numerous letters were placed in the Docket from citizens groups, landowners and even SONAT pipeline officials raising this safety issue. FERC and the EIS have not adequately addressed this issue. As the order reflects, “Commentors expressed concern regarding potential damage to existing, older pipelines during construction of the projects, and the potential cumulative safety risk of multiple colocated natural gas pipelines. Colocating natural gas transmission facilities is common and encouraged for a variety of reasons, including minimization of environmental impacts.”

FERC need only look to its own docket in this matter to answer this request on Sabal’s behalf. I direct you to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s letter to FERC of December 14, 2017 stating simply that, “The station has continued to operate below full horsepower load” and that they can not conduct the required full load survey. Also the recent request of Sabal to get an extension of time to complete construction of parts of the project that were supposed to have been completed by February 2, 2018. It was granted extensions to August 31, 2018; May 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021. These examples along with many others show that extensions have been requested recently showing that delays have already existed in this project and a mandate forced shut down would not have a dramatic impact of this project in light of construction delays and lack of gas flow now. See letter of January 26, 2018 and the subsequent granting of this extension by FERC incorporated herein by reference as if restated in their entirety

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, G.B.A. Associates, LLC asks FERC too respectfully deny the Emergency Request for a Temporary Certificate and deny Sabal Trail’s request for Expedited issuance of a new certificate GBA also seeks a hearing on said issue if warranted by FERC.

Respectfully submitted,
this 5^th day of February 2018,

s// Jonathan Perry Waters

G.B.A. Associates, LLC By its attorney,
Jonathan Perry Waters
Law Offices of Jonathan Perry Waters
2476 Vineville Avenue,
Macon, Georgia 31204
Telephone: 478,750.1800
Email: jonathan.waters.1aw@gmail.com

Dated: February 5, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day personally e-served a copy of this document upon all parties listed on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in the above-captioned proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 C.F.R. § 385.2010).

Dated this 5th day of February 2018 in Macon, Georgia

Respectfully submitted,

S// Jonathan Perry Waters

Attorney for G.B.A. Associates, LLC


Law Offices of Jonathan Perry Waters
2476 Vineville Avenue,
Macon, Georgia 31204
Telephone: 478.750.1800
Email: jonathan.waters.law@gamil.com

 -jsq, John S. Quarterman, Suwannee RIVERKEEPER®

You can join this fun and work by becoming a WWALS member today!

Short Link: