Opinion ID: 165264
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of project

Text: 28 An agency may not define [a] project so narrowly that it foreclose[s] a reasonable consideration of alternatives. Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1119 (10th Cir.2002). FERC described the scope or purpose of the GSX pipeline project as provid[ing] a transportation system for natural gas to supply the growing demand for natural gas on Vancouver Island [and][i]n particular ... [to] transport natural gas ... to two new electric-generation facilities on Vancouver Island. Final Envtl. Impact Statement: Georgia Strait Crossing Project at1 — 1, R. Vol. III. 29 FSW argues that FERC's narrow definition of the project's scope — to provide natural gas as a means to meet the increased need for electricity on Vancouver Island — compelled it to ignore other ways to meet that need for electrical power. We disagree. In discussing a no-action alternative, FERC discussed various other ways to increase electrical power on the island: alternative fuels, clean-coal technology, solar power, wind-powered electricity, small-scale hydroelectric generation, and wave energy. The FEIS explained why each was not a feasible alternative. The FEIS went on to observe that: 30 [s]everal commentators on the draft EIS suggested that replacing or upgrading the underwater electric transmission cables serving Vancouver Island could reduce the near-term need for electric generation capacity on the island and should be considered as an alternative to the GSX Project. Because the direct transmission of electricity to Vancouver Island does not meet the stated objectives of the proposed project to provide a transportation system for natural gas, consideration of replacing or upgrading the transmission cable can only be considered in terms of the no-action alternative. If a project sponsor were to replace or upgrade existing cables or were to install new cables, demand for energy production on Vancouver Island could be reduced to the extent that the demand for natural gas could also be reduced. Despite this fact, no such project has been proposed by potential sponsors. 31 FEIS at 4-3, R. Vol. III. FERC also noted that generating electricity on the mainland and replacing and upgrading its electric transmission cables would cost about $100,000,000 (Cdn) more than building the GSX Project and generating electricity on Vancouver Island. Id. As discussed more fully below, FERC then considered a number of different natural gas pipeline alternatives. 32 FERC had before it a particular project proposal by a private natural gas company, involving the building of a natural gas pipeline as a means to provide electrical power on Vancouver Island. Where the action subject to NEPA review is triggered by a proposal or application from a private party, it is appropriate for the agency to give substantial weight to the goals and objectives of that private actor. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030. FERC was not obligated to reject that project in favor of a non-natural gas alternative which was purely hypothetical and speculative. Given that the agency is only obligated to consider reasonable, non-speculative alternatives, we cannot say that its review of non-natural gas pipeline alternatives, and rejection of them in favor of the GSX project, was arbitrarily and improperly restricted by its definition of the scope and purpose of the project.