Hey, there! Log in / Register

Boston moves to tie up West Roxbury pipeline in court

City lawyers this week moved to delay construction of a proposed high-pressure natural-gas pipeline down Washington and Grove streets by arguing the gas company can't simply start digging a trench without city approval.

The filings, by the city's outside counsel in US District Court, come as West Roxbury and Dedham opponents of the proposed pipeline gear up for a two-community protest this Sunday that will end with people holding hands at the town line on Washington Street.

Algonquin Gas Transmission recently asked a federal judge to let it begin construction of the pipeline on the grounds a federal natural-gas law overrides any local concerns once federal regulators have approved a pipeline, which they have in this case and that it was exercising its right under the eminent-domain part of the law to block the city from blocking it.

But in a filing with the judge, Boston attorneys argue the city Public Improvement Commission never got the chance to negotiate permission for the pipeline with Algonquin, because the company was acting in bad faith and sued even as it was refusing to give a city engineer detailed plans for the pipe, which would run from Westwood to a new facility at Grove and Centre, where the gas would be pumped into National Grid's system.

The city says the commission was willing to exercise its normal procedures for granting permission for the pipeline - which would require a public hearing - says that's vital given the location of existing water, sewer and gas pipes and electric lines under the roads, that a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year held that the federal Natural Gas Act does not give gas companies the right to do whatever the hell they want and that, in any case, the company is seeking easements, which is different from the permissions the commission grants for under-road pipelines.

But Algonquin, the city charges, sent a letter to the city on June 23 demanding it provide the easements the company needed immediately:

Algonquin's "negotiating" strategy was: accept our offer within a week or be sued. And it made good on its threat. That is not good faith negotiaton.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Boston response to Algonquin demand831.77 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I think Algonquin has something to hide here. The fact that they were not willing to engage in the city process followed by: Verizon, Comcast, Nstar, Natl Grid, the Federal Freaking Govt (comms conduit between federal buildings), Veolia, the MBTA... etc. to me says that there is something on their stamped plans that would damage their public appearance or otherwise show that this project is not what they say it is.

up
Voting closed 0

Next to an active quarry may be the wrong place, but we do need more gas pipeline capacity. If anybody wants to not heat their home in winter, please turn off your furnace and hot water heaters for the rest of us.

http://patch.com/massachusetts/arlington/icymi-massachusetts-3rd-most-en...

up
Voting closed 0

Given the leakage from the existing distribution system, I would be skeptical. Fix the damn leaks first and then you can start demanding that people live without heat. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/22/natural-gas-leaks-boston-ar...

Oh, and your're quadrupling down now? Why don't you just move to Texas?

up
Voting closed 0

Algonquin's department is distribution not last-mile, so I think these issues are fairly well decoupled. If you want to be mad at the City, Nstar and Nat'l Grid about the failure to keep up with old pipes, then so be it, but at least these ones would be modern and have electronic sensors. Presumably, since they haven't shared actual engineering plans with the City, an uncontested claim in the City's Motion.

up
Voting closed 0

But if this is supposedly "demand driven", as he who hates everyone is implying, then the solution would be to fix the leaks before raising the amount supplied.

Of course, MarkK whines endlessly when public funds are spent for other people's needs, and complains that not catering to his whims with public money is the same as telling him how to live.

up
Voting closed 0

Nobody disputes that. The problem is how. How do we restructure utility laws so that gas losses come out of CEO pay instead of customer pockets? How to force leak fixing that costs way more than losses in cases where leaks are so small that there is no safety hazard? I'd love it if leaks came out of CEO's pockets but they have our lawmakers in theirs.

up
Voting closed 0

While people are against the project, the City, as an entity and in faith, is not. If the City is compelled to grant easements for permanent and temporary use under the roadway to satisfy Algonquin's monomaniacal lawsuit, there would be nothing to stop them from doubling, tripling, quadrupling the pipes under the roadway. It would also allow them to lease space in their easement to other companies which would then, in my reading, also be able to escape public scrutiny. The City has an interest in knowing the precise location of any and all pipes, conduits, drainage, etc under a roadway.

up
Voting closed 0

No we don't, and I don't need to turn off my furnace, we use wood to heat our home and have solar, we have a "warm room" off of our living room, why don't YOU try it, it's pretty damn easy and cheap!

up
Voting closed 0

than natural gas. Shame on you! Polar bears are dying.

up
Voting closed 0

Assuming new trees are planted, burning wood is basically carbon neutral. Those trees and the captured carbon were already exposed. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are sequestered until we extract them.

up
Voting closed 0

Wood is less so, such than now catalytic converters are required for new wood stoves.

up
Voting closed 0