to review the full scope of environmental impacts and then you're doubling up gas capacity through the now primary delivery point to the springfield massachusetts local distribution grid the project involves installation of a new compressor station that is significantly larger that's predecessors at a critical juncture point between well the largest interstate transmission operators in the country and it local distributor of gas this project was specifically designed to facilitate increasing residential commercial purring of gas in the th largest city of new england ignition found that the large operating project would not have any significant impact and that's required no further environment but it did so only because it ignored all reasonably foreseeable upstream downstream impacts  the commission failed to take required hard look at the reasonably foreseeable downstream impacts of increased combustion of gas facilitated by this project despite having known a great capacity no contract in volume note purchase purchaser and known and used and that ninety seven percent of gas use in the us is through combustion he noted that this makes a relatively easy case to determine that the downstream impacts were reasonably foreseeable so could transport or volumes or know even if the precise destination or method is not necessary despite the fact that we know that the destination is the springfield local distribution grid and that consumption will be used through commercial residential combustion nd the project as a potential to spur demand in this case both tennessee gas and columbia gas with an advertisement cheerio have recognized that the development of this infrastructure specifically to address future demand and potentially lift moratoriums of gas expansion within the springfield distribution network is a reasonably foreseeable growth inducing impact further commission argues that variability over the lifespan of this on the whole but it's extent is not an agency can't simply ignore that fact in this case the commission said that upstream impacts of extraction generally are fully understandable but more of this project allows for the twenty year contract it's a reasonable for them to predict where this gas might come from because it might be over the course of the lifetime of twenty years to purchase from other different type lives throughout the region but in this  with the principal development territory within the northeast and tennessee owns gas pipelines that run directly from it to this pressure station territory and moreover they make an argument that it might be getting gas from a drop at massachusetts was going to cause anyone well to be trailer it's going to come from here versus there as opposed to well the state has that generally it's going to require some sort of incremental increase in the production of gas from wherever that the reason of the commission's use here for this being fully unforeseeable despite just the nature of extraction big know is that they say that if they don't know the specifics we're supporting i eat the specific well it's coming from but it's not reasonably  so we specifically did raise the foreseeability of upstream impacts and that's really the issue here is that the natural gas act requires you to use arguments that you would be raising before this panel here and however the specificity of it is not necessary at this course i think consolidated edison company of new york which is a two thousand and three case of that it has to be brought clearly to the attention of the commission and that's exactly what happened here the commission argument that the record is fairly undeveloped but they fail to raise that development issue with their here we argue here that the nature of the upstream impact is no even if the extent are particular area be they still can't ignore that effective target did you do you make the argument that they needed to gather more information we did not raise that argument for upstream impacts because they had a list of pipelines that would be coming from and they had a number of maps that showed tennessee gas pipelines proper type lines that that run into that region so you're talking about the analysis that should have been made on the existing record yes significance of greenhouse gas emissions in this case look commission has categorically excluded all consideration of greenhouse gas emissions not just in this case but if this principle were applied it would exclude consideration greenhouse gas emissions across any agency decision because they argue that there is no universally accepted this is an impossible standard here and they raise the standard significantly higher than they did in the earth reports case two thousand and sixteen there they argue that there's no standard methodology here they're raising the bar to something that no methodology with scientific literature ever really and in doing so they've reached the decision that this project w d have no significant impact because they categorically ignore those impacts on the whole and we would argue to see that there are tools that are available to it the commission here is kind of put the cart before the project level which is rare for regulates the largest gas industry on planet at least on the transmission side every single individual projects impact on climate change is functionally zero and the th circuit is found in the center for biological diversity versus the national highway transportation safety administration that while there are a range of cost figures for greenhouse gas emissions they are most certainly much zero and the reason the commission is able to reach so many respects the commission speaking out two sides of its mouth and saying that this is significant while also refusing to do any sort of significance assessment here additionally i like to raise the issue of segmentation additional asked you this was specifically designed to anticipate the additional capacity gets facilitated by the suppressor station and the compressor station and longmeadow have overlapping construction schedules and their utility here is to move stations are meant to measure the volume of flow that would be coming through it if you aren't increasing the capacity of what is being pushed through it then it doesn't need to be upgraded to a meter that increased capacity so they do have similar utility get you for the federal energy regulatory commission in this case the commission made a record based fastest if it determination that this particular reliability project designed to address local reliability ne would have minimal addition and minimal environmental impacts my colleagues arguments are not tethered to the record in this case going to a question that judge millette asked about the standard that should be applied to whether upstream induced gas production could be reasonably forseeable as a result of a particular pipeline project the answer is the standard is not relevant in this particular case here the commission made at the station and made a record based decision that any induced production was not reasonably forseeable because this particular project which involves a two mile pipeline loop located adjacent to existing pipeline and upgrades to aging compressor station unit that this particular project is taking gas from other intrastate pipeline that's in the certificate order a paragraph six gas the local distribution company is to enhance the reliability of the columbia system the project was designed to serve existing customers of columbia gas in fact what they were doing was replacing pool service was not reliable and extremely costly and they're trying to replace that interoperable service secondary capacity with firm transmission capacity which would enable them to meet winter heating demands in the new england has said that to the extent the new customers would be served these new customers would be transitioning from oil heat to natural gas that's more gas possibly but the record doesn't show what portion might be to customers what i understood it to say was you can't tell us which wells will be drilled as a result of this i did not understand it and please correct me if there's a fact finding that i've missed where it says we don't think there's going to be any increase in volume of gas and that's why we don't need to analyze upstream the facts please tell me that my understanding from the decision was that they said you haven't shown us which well we'll be dogged as a result that well will be dug as a result of this project right you're on to the commission did say that we didn't say the former didn't say there's no upstream effect because there's not going to be any change in the volume of gas the commission did not say that there would be no change in volume but it wasn't it didn't quite understand or that there would be some we are on our commission has to decide whether upstream induced production might be reasonably forseeable so the standard is the reasonably forseeable standard and that is necessarily a fact based determination and the commission reasonably found here that it could not determine whether increased production might be reasonably forseeable on the basis of this record because again we're needs to know a source but i will say that in this case if it's a small project it's taking gas from other interstate high prices and as your father was saying that the gas in these pipelines is fungible there is record wells drilled to this to supply this particular and why does there have to be a new well drilled affairs existing wells are going to produce more i said i did not understand i'm just telling you i really struggled to try to understand why on earth the commission thought that was the relevant as opposed to whether there's going to be an increase in volume and then they will assess whether it's sort of a material one with environmental impacts but they didn't i didn't see them even doing that st thing is they're going to be an increase in  right that's got my concern they're focused on the specific source of the gas having to be identified and i don't understand i think that's what i'm asking that seems to me the wrong question the question is whether there's going to be a usually applies it that it needs to to determine the source and it needs it needs to be concrete i think that's that's the commission's understanding and using the standard i would i will say i don't see that as any any court decision said  if you would like that you have a case where we have said that there's no obligation to analyze upstream of facts unless the gas context the specifics of source can be identified that would be of interest to me i couldn't i didn't i didn't find it necessary i understand you're going to ability i'm guessing would say it seems an odd inquiry to me let me look into that and we will submit that information to you but i'll say that i don't think that that will look into it but that standard is before the certificate order issued before the rehearing order issued the commission could have addressed any change that would be warranted by the response but i think it's important in this regard to note that the commission made the in information that's critical to evaluating downstream effects the day before it's environmental assessment and that's not wait for response before doing it i don't think i've ever seen that before why did you write it that was the nd da request and i understand added that they thought was relevant till evaluating downstream effects or not i think they asked because i thought it was relevant to probably was but it may have been you know it may have been additional information that team up as staff was users that you know the specific and uther because colombia again is a local distribution company and has different kinds of customers has different classes of customers purchased gas for marketers rather than directly case that that that educated estimates are done here and it seems to me back in many cases that you're going to have this sort of close set of how much is coming out how much increase capacity coming in and we know exactly where it's going right your honor i mean i of course the agency can make educated estimates and and it does but in this particular case petitioners did not ask the commission to make  analyze downstream effects because on this record and they said yes you can that's a space before us and they have to have a reason why explanation for why they couldn't do it and to say that well there could always be more information doesn't seem to me responsive to the question of whether you could have made an educated estimate on this record this existing record player although the commission always can make estimates but i guess on this particular rather than an educated estimate hair well i think the agency decided that here it would be meaningful to make estimates are that that profit would be a truly educated estimate because of the specific facts in this case that make it appear that an estimate would not be meeting full why well st of all we did the earlier was that this really isn't about people transitioning from oil take ask if they are that will be a small amount so you can that can certainly be addressed through mathematics and the adjustment and if you know you're going to have increased capacity you know where it's going you know it's going to be born to be is for residential and customer we're replacing well you know we're replacing a certain amount of capacity with another you know the same amount of capacity just more reliable capacity that's that's just in the record in the commission decided cannot ignore the fact that adding farm transportation capacity is likely to spur demand for natural gas and for that reason the commission mussel least examinee of facts that an expansion of pipeline capacity might have on consumption and production does not flag the necessary question to that part of your response was that the commission wasn't put on notice in the petition for a hearing on the need to look into this and it seems like that's what's being asked here right here and i think that's the it's a generalized argument it doesn't that particular argument doesn't for example ask the commission to do a full burn i mean it's a very generalized argument that it doesn't engage with the facts of what the what the commission was doing in terms of commission had been alerted with specificity that its interpretation of the data request was on charge was being challenged then the commission could have addressed it more specifically in the rehearing order but we didn't have that opportunity because it wasn't raised on rehearing not specifically i ask you which to regard to downstream facts why do you even need to know how the end users and i soon as a matter of science there's just some equation which tells you that when you burn a cubic foot of natural gas you're going to get a certain amount of carbon dioxide or whatever and that won't change depending on whether the person burning the gas is an individual home for heat or a power plant or whatever so what does it matter who's burning the gas as long as you know how much gas is going through the pipeline and and the overwhelming the commission view is that it be more information about the burning of the gas at least the commission view and were selected in this order what else would you do with the gas other than burn it have any other use not that i'm aware your honor of you know apart from selling it i mean i guess one could be sell it if you're a market or a local distribution company i mean that that would be the other use that i could think of spend that ninety seven percent statistic not that i'm aware of your honor i don't i don't know that it was addressed in the order itself i know i don't think the order itself addresses the ninety seven percent statistic at least not the majority order as far as the explanation see here i should think they would know the statistic so they could just discount any number by three percent i felt i needed to know that would seem to be part of an educated  is that it's possible your honor i don't think that it was necessary to do that on the record of this case but that's possible your honor because this wasn't necessary right i think in the record arrived i believe counsel for the pipeline will also have additional information but my understanding is that the pipeline is complete and in service and the compressor station upgrades have been delayed because of the that's right this is a reliability project and we can't lose sight of that it's a relatively minor project from tennessee's perspective but it's a critical one for columbia yes it secondary point capacity which is interrupted the new capacity is firm they can rely upon it year round and don't have to have any concern about it being interrupted in addition they are replacing the antiquated  it eighty seven and it's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of this capacity is is necessary to replace the capacity that i just described a reliable also very quickly council for petitioners refer to a pamphlet as j a two hundred and ninety six as being an indication that there is increased demand touch on you commissions argument that this is so we are a liability increased it is a reliability increase in that it increases the amount of gas that come into the area the issue with their  reasonably expected future demands this is very much meant to anticipate additional growth they also state that the supreme requisite for increased gas expansion through the distribution network so this is very much