'What more do you need than constructing a pipeline for an affiliate where it's not serving new market and providing no price benefit to customers? That just leaves the obvious red flag that it's for the benefit of the shareholders, not the customer,' Judge David Tatel said. He said the order turned the needs demonstration requirement into 'a meaningless check-the-box exercise.' Questions from the benchР”Вuring oral argument March 8, all three judges on a panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals pressed FERC on whether under the circumstances of the Spire case there wasn't a greater burden on the regulator to examine whether there was self-dealing between the pipeline company and its affiliate ( Environmental Defense Fund v. Of note, then-Commissioner Richard Glick, who now chairs the commission, dissented on FERC's November 21, 2019, rehearing order (CP17-040), contending neither Spire STL not Spire Missouri had explained why capacity on the preexisting pipeline owned by MRT was not sufficient to meet Spire Missouri's needs. Enable Mississippi River Transmission (MRT) and the Missouri Public Service Commission also raised objections during the FERC review that the project was unneeded and would negatively impact St.

The project faced objections from the Environmental Defense Fund, which argued FERC should have looked beyond the project's contract for 88% of capacity with affiliate Spire Missouri to assess the need. Receive daily email alerts, subscriber notes & personalize your experience.Р”Р„ decision in the case could have implications for the level of scrutiny the commission must use to assess the market need for future gas projects.Р”Р„t issue is the 65-mile Spire STL project, approved by FERC in August 2018 and entered into service in November 2019, moving 400,000 Dt/d of gas from the Rockies Express Pipeline system into the St.

Spire gas