Federal regulators to reconsider controversial Springfield compressor station

A post marking a pipeline along Route 75 in Agawam, Oct. 28, 2010.Don Treeger/The Republican

INTO THE RED: Climate and the fight of our lives

Federal regulators will have to reconsider their approval of a controversial plan to expand natural gas infrastructure in the Springfield area, a federal court ruled on Friday.

The proposal, put forth by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC — a subsidiary of the energy giant Kinder Morgan — aims to build 2.1 miles of new gas pipeline and replace two small compressors with a larger unit at its Agawam site.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — an independent agency that grants permits to build interstate fuel pipelines and compressor stations — approved the plan in 2019 after conducting a necessary environmental review. But Friday’s decision, from the DC Circuit Court, calls that 2019 review into question.

The ruling came in response to a 2020 lawsuit filed by environmental groups Food and Water Watch and Berkshire Environmental Action Team, which alleged that the commission had ignored precedent requiring regulators to consider all potential greenhouse gas emissions of proposed pipelines.

In their lawsuit, the environmental groups argued that, though regulators assessed the emissions that will come directly from building and operating the new pipeline, they ignored the indirect “downstream” emissions that will come from burning the gas it would bring.

“FERC failed to review the emissions that would result due to more gas being pushed into a local distribution network for combustion by residential and commercial customers,” Adam Carlesco, staff attorney at Food and Water Watch.

Jane Winn, executive director of the Berkshire Environmental Action Team, said the ruling was a “big victory.” But she wished the court would have gone further.

The court’s ruling did not uphold another argument raised in the suit, that FERC should have also considered the greenhouse gas pollution that would come from producing and transporting gas to fill the new pipeline, saying the issue wasn’t adequately fleshed out.

The suit also argued that FERC’s 2019 assessment didn’t adequately consider how the project could worsen air quality in an area already plagued by pollution. But the court found that because none of its members live in close proximity to the proposal, Berkshire Environmental Action Team did not have legal standing to make those claims.

That’s particularly “disappointing,” said Winn, because just last month, FERC announced a new policy to consider projects’ effects on both the climate and environmental justice communities.

“The ruling falls in line with the first half of that policy ... but not the second,” she said.

Carlesco said the decision won’t be enough to put the new project in jeopardy since FERC allows projects to proceed with construction even while litigation is pending. Building is already underway.

“While the matter has been remanded back to FERC for additional review, it is unlikely that they will halt operation of the compressor unit,” said Carlesco.

However, the ruling could set precedent for future permits. Until now, the commission has only calculated pollution from proposed pipelines’ new fuel capacity “if the pipeline led directly to a known power plant,” said Carlesco. Friday’s decision says the commission must consider those emissions from pipelines that distribute gas to local companies and homes.

“This decision will have a ripple effect,” he said.