Bold V FERC Amended Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BOLD ALLIANCE :
208 S. Burlington Ave., Ste 103, Box 325 :
Hastings, NE 68901 :
:
BOLD EDUCATIONAL FUND :
208 S. Burlington Ave., Ste 103, Box 325 :
Hastings, NE 68901 :
:
FRIENDS OF NELSON COUNTY :
P.O. Box 33 : Case No. 17-1822
Nellysford, VA 22958 :
:
CAROLYN MAKI, WILLIAM MAKI, EJ MAKI :
2228 Rockfish Valley Highway :
:
JAMES AND KATHERINE MCLEAN :
696 Vance Lane :
Warm Springs, VA :
:
LOUIS & YVETTE RAVINA :
3383 Churchville Ave :
Staunton, VA 24401 :
:
RICHARD (DICK) AVERITT III :
On route 151 across from Bold Rock :
:
WILLIAM S. MOORE AND CAROL M. MOORE :
TRUSTEES OF THE MOORE REVOCABLE :
TRUST :
2594 Bryant Mountain Road, :
Roseland, VA 22967 :
:
HERSHEL AND DARLENE SPEARS :
2215 Spruce Creek Lane, :
:
JONATHAN ANSELL AND PAMELA :
FARNHAM :
159 Fortune's Point Lane, :
LORA & VICTOR BAUM :
368 Fern Gully Lane :
Warm Springs, VA 24484 :
:
DEMIAN K. JACKSON; BRIDGET K. HAMRE :
(AS MEMBERS OF NELSON COUNTY :
CREEKSIDE, LLC ) :
106 Starvale Lane., :
Shipman, VA 22971 :
:
HORIZONS VILLAGE PROPERTY OWNERS :
ASSOCIATION :
P.O. Box 122 :
Common land and roads within Horizons Village :
Subdivision in Nelson County. :
No street address. :
:
ANNE AND KEN NORWOOD :
3509 Stagebridge Rd :
Lovingston, VA 22949 :
:
CAROLYN FISCHER :
184 Mountain Field Trail :
Nellysford, VA :
:
PEARL L. FINCH :
Near intersection of NC HWY 581 and Renfrow :
Road, :
Wilson County, NC :
:
HEATHER LOUISE FINCH :
Near intersection of NC HWY 581 and Renfrow :
Road, :
Wilson County, NC :
:
WADE RAYMOND FINCH :
near intersection of NC HWY 581 and Renfrow Road, :
Wilson County, NC :
:
RANDY AND KATHLEEN FORBES :
TBD Deerfield Rd :
Millboro, VA :
:
:
:
TODD RATH :
462 Winery Lane :
:
W. MARVIN WINSTEAD, JR. :
540 Sandy Cross Rd. , :
Nashville, NC 27856 :
:
SUSAN LAZERSON & CLIFFORD SAVELL :
14 Crystal Lane, :
Faber, VA 22938 :
:
BILL AND LYNN LIMPERT :
250 Fern Gully Lane :
Warm Springs, VA 24484 :
:
WADE A. & ELIZABETH G. NEELY :
10190 Deerfield Road, :
Millboro, Virginia 24460 :
:
NANCY L AVERY :
195 Flying Eagle Ct. :
Nellysford, VA. :
Nelson County Tax Map 21 13 14A :
:
NANCY & SHAHIR KASSAM-ADAMS :
360 Laurel Lane, :
Lovingston VA 22949 :
:
ROBERT TURNER AND STEPHANIE BARTON :
6237 Laurel Rd, :
Faber, VA 22971 :
Rt 639 Tax Map 59 A 29 30 31 :
:
JAMES A. HARDEE :
8431 Heathsville Rd., :
Enfield, N.C. 27823 :
:
HAZEL RHAMES (TRUSTEE - JOE RHAMES) :
Gullysville Lane :
:
JOE POLAND :
5740 Old Bailey Hwy, :
Nashville NC 27856 :
:
DAWN AVERITT :
330 Grace Glen, :
:
MARY ELLEN RIVES :
10239 Bottom Creek Road, :
Bent Mountain, VA. 24059 :
:
ANNE WAY AND STEPHEN BERNARD :
7879 Grassy Hill Rd :
Boones Mill VA 24065 :
:
GEORGIA HAVERTY; DOE CREEK FARM :
412 Doe Creek Farm Road :
:
BRENDA LYNN WILLIAMS :
261 Winding Way Drive, :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
SERINA GARST, PRESIDENT OF :
OCCANNEECHI, INC. :
1600 Cahas Mountain Road (farm land - no actual :
street address) :
:
JERRY & JEROLYN DEPLAZES :
291 Seven Oaks Road, :
Newport VA 24128-3558 :
:
NEWPORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC :
Winding Way Road, :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
CLIFFORD A. SHAFFER :
249 Brookside Lane, :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
TAMARA HODSDEN :
237 Clover Hollow Rd. :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
FRANK S AND KATHERINE A QUINN :
215 Zells Mill Rd., :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
:
:
CHARLES F FLORA & STEPHANIE M FLORA :
1906 Arden Rd SW :
Roanoke, VA 24015 :
:
CHARLES F FLORA & STEPHANIE M FLORA :
Cahas Mountain Road; :
Tax Map Id - 038 00-020 02 :
:
BENNY L. HUFFMAN :
606 Blue Grass Trail, :
Newport, VA 24128-3556, :
Tract # VA-GI-5779 :
:
IAN ELLIOTT REILLY & CAROLYN :
ELIZABETH REILLY :
AND DAVE J. WERNER & BETTY B. WERNER :
404 Old Mill Creek Lane, :
Rocky Mount, VA 24151 :
:
MARY E. AND BRUCE M. COFFEY :
10303 Russwood Road, :
Bent Mountain, VA :
:
JACQUELINE J. LUCKI :
10289 Russwood Road, :
Bent Mountain, VA 24059 :
:
DAVID G. AND KAREN M. YOLTON :
8165 Virginia Ave., :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
CLARENCE B. GIVENS AND KAROLYN W. :
GIVENS :
199 Leffel Lane, :
Newport, VA 24128 :
:
WALTER AND JANE EMBREY :
495 Signal Hill Drive, :
Callaway, VA 24067 :
:
GUY W, AND MARGARET S. BUFORD :
985 Iron Ridge Rd. :
Rocky Mount, VA 24151 :
:
:
:
REBECCA J DAMERON :
10721 Bent Mountain Road :
Bent Mountain, VA 24059 :
:
KEITH WILSON :
887 Labellevue Dr., :
Boones Mill, VA 24065 :
:
FRANK AND JACQUELINE BISCARDI :
128 Labellevue Drive :
:
WENDELL & MARY FLORA :
150 Floradale Farms Lane, :
Boones Mill, VA 24065 :
:
REINHARD & ASHOFTEH BOUMAN :
282, Ashwood Dr., :
Meadow Bridge, WV 25976 :
:
JAMES GORE :
6355 Blue Lick Road, :
Greenville, WV 24945 :
:
MIKE CRAIG :
5464 Wheelers Cove Rd. :
Shipman, VA 22971 :
:
GERALD & ELIZABETH WOZNIAK :
22344 Governor Harrison Pkwy., :
Freeman, VA 23856 :
:
CHRIS & EMILY PROSISE :
4054 White Oak Road, :
Blackstone, VA 23824 :
:
JUDY ALLEN :
10027 Dry Run Road, :
Burnsville, VA 24487 :
:
KEITH & MERRIFIELD EHRHARD :
Lot 44, Treehouse Place, Horizon Village, :
:
:
:
:
IRENE S ELLIS, TRUSTEE, RANDOLPH H. :
LEECH, IRENE E. LEECH, MARGARET ANNE :
MARTIN, TIMOTHY MARTIN :
9161 West James Anderson Hwy., :
Buckingham, VA 23921 :
:
JOHN C GEARY :
714 Hotchkiss Rd., :
Churchville, VA 24421 :
:
GEORGE SPROUL :
744 West Augusta Rd, :
West Augusta, VA 24485
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

COMMISSION
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20426
and
CHAIRMAN NEIL CHATTERJEE,

COMMISSIONER CHERYL LAFLEUR,
COMMISSIONER ROBERT POWELSON in their
official capacities
as Commissioners of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20426
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE

Serve Registered Agent:
CT Corporation System
4701 Cox Road Ste. 285
Glen Allen, VA 23060
ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE LLC

CT Corporation System
4701 Cox Road Ste. 285
Glen Allen, VA 23060
DEFENDANTS
BOLD ALLIANCE ET. AL. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs Bold Alliance, Bold Educational Fund, Friends of Nelson,
and the named individual landowners file this First Amended Complaint
against Defendants Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);FERC
Chairman Neil Chatterjee and FERC Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and
Robert Powelson in their official capacities; MountainValleyPipeline,LLC;
and Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC. Plaintiffs allege and pray as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. In the 80 years since the Natural Gas Act was enacted, the
natural-gas industry has changed dramatically. With the deregulation of
natural-gas markets beginning in the1980s,theindustryhastransformed,
evolving from a heavily regulated enterprise subject to strict oversight by
regulators to a free market dominated by unregulated players in search of
lucrative opportunities, including spot-market sales, participation in
gas-commodities markets, and export. Yet even as the role of interstate
pipelines and the nature of the natural-gas industry have changed, the
eminent-domain provisions of the Natural Gas Act have not. In light of
changes in the gas industry and the evolution of FERC policies and
practices related to regulation of pipelines, FERCs Certificate Program
and its application to the eminent-domain provisions of the Natural Gas

Act no longer further a truly public use and instead unlawfully opens the
gate to allow private gascompaniestoexercisecondemnationpowersfarin
excess of what Congress ever intended or what the Fifth Amendment
allows.. This statutory and constitutional challenge is long overdue.
2. This lawsuit challenges the process by which FERC confers
eminent-domain powers on private, for-profit natural-gas pipeline
companies. Under section 7f(h) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et
seq.), any company that obtains a certificateofconvenienceandnecessity
(CCN) from FERC has the power to condemn. The only way this
arrangement can satisfy statutory requirements and the Constitution is if
FERC provides procedural due process to condemnees and grants
certificates only those projects that serve a public use.
3. FERCs certificate program and its gatekeeping role in
safeguarding the use of eminent domain under the NGA fall short in
numerous ways. By way of example:
FERC does not require pipeline companies to demonstrate
their projects serve a public use.
FERC does not inform potentially impacted landowners whose
property will be taken by a pipeline through eminent domain
that they must intervene to avoid waiving the right to
challenge FERCs grant of a certificate.
2
FERC grants not only CCNs but also conditioned certificates
and blanket certificates, which are not statutorilyauthorized
and which give pipeline companies eminent-domainpowersfar
beyond statutory and constitutional limits.
FERC withholds information from landowners that they could
use to refute project need.
FERC does not require companies to post bonds or otherwise
demonstrate sufficient assets beforecommencingprojects,thus
creating a risk that those private, for-profit companieswillnot
actually and ultimately pay constitutionally mandated just
compensation for the property they take.
4. Collectively, these shortcomingsand othersentail that
FERCs certificate program violates the NGA itself aswellasconstitutional
provisions including the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth
Amendment (among others), resulting in a delegation of extraordinary
eminent-domain powers to private companies far beyond what Congress
ever intended and an assault on landowners property rights.
5. These shortcomings impact the landowner Plaintiffs in this
case personally. Now that FERC has issued Certificates of Necessity and
ConveniencetoMVPandACP,theindividualPlaintiffsalongwithmembers
of Plaintiff BOLD Alliance face actual or imminent condemnation
3
proceedings for two pipeline projectsthe proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline
(ACP) andMountainValleyPipeline(MVP).Indeed,justlastweek,MVP
filed condemnation complaints in federal district court for the Western
District of Virginia (Docket No. 2:17-cv-04214) and the Southern District of
West Virginia (Docket No. 7:17cv-492) against approximately hundreds of
landowners in West Virginia and Virginia.
6. This lawsuit seeks a declaration that FERCs certificate
program, as implemented, violates the Natural Gas Act and the U.S.
Constitution. Asrelief,PlaintiffsasktheCourttodeclaretheMVPandACP
certificates unlawful under the NGA and the United States Constitution
and to enjoin MVP and ACP from proceeding with eminent-domain actions
under the unlawful FERC certificates. Further, the Court should prohibit
FERC from awarding any pipeline certificates under its flawed program
until the Commission corrects the statutory and constitutional deficiencies
in the certificate process. Unless the Court grants this relief, Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated will have their statutory protections and
constitutional rights violated.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This action arises under the Due Process and Takings Clauses
of the Fifth Amendment as well as separation-of-powers provisions of the
United States Constitution. It also arises under the Natural Gas Act, 15
4
U.S.C. 717f(h). Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1331. The Court also has jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 717u, which
establishes exclusive jurisdiction in federal district courts for violations of
the Natural Gas Act and rules and regulations arising thereunder.
8. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment under the federal
Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202, and appropriate
injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
9. Venue is proper in the federal district court for the District of
Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1)(A) and 15 U.S.C. 717u.
Defendant FERC is an agency of the United States and resides in this
judicial district, while Mountain Valley LLC and Atlantic Coast Pipeline
LLC have submitted to the processing of its certificate application in the
District of Columbia.
10. The individually named landowners have standingtobringthis
action because they own realty in the path of the MVP and ACP Projects.
Now that FERC has granted the certificates to MVP and ACP, the
individual landowner Plaintiffs realty will be subject to eminent domain.
The landowner Plaintiffs who reside along the MVP line have been named
as defendants in condemnation lawsuits filed by MVP in federal district
courts, while ACPs condemnation actions are imminent.
5
11. Plaintiff Bold Appalachia has organizational standing because
its members are directly impacted by the MVP and ACP projects and have
individual standing to sue.
12. This Court can and must act now to grant the declaratory and
injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek because, without it, MVP and ACP rely on
statutorily and constitutionally deficient certificates to proceed with
condemnation lawsuits in federalcourtswithnoopportunityforlandowners
to mount a challenge.Meanwhile,FERCwillpersistinawardingstatutorily
and constitutionally flawed certificates.
13. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs claims
which specifically challenge the statutory and constitutional soundness of
the MVP and ACP certificates and more broadly, the interpretation and
as-applied constitutionality of the Natural Gas Act and systemic flaws in
FERCs implementation thereof. FERC itself has already disclaimed
jurisdiction over a determination of the constitutionalityoftheNaturalGas
Act in the MVP and ACP Certificate Orders. Civil Action No. 16-cv-416
(March 2017) (addressing challenges to FERCs systemic bias in funding
raised by intervenors in certificate proceeding at FERC).
14. Further, Plaintiffs need not seek rehearing and judicial review
of the FERC certificates under section 717r(a) and (b) of the Natural Gas
Act, 15 U.S.C. 717r, nor wait for MVP and ACP to actually take their
6
property in a condemnation proceeding in order to bring this suit. The
Supreme Court of the United States allows individuals threatened with a
taking to seek a declaration of the constitutionality of the disputed
governmental action before potentially uncompensable damages are
sustained. See Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group,
438U.S.59(1978)(allowingdeclaratoryreliefforpotentialtaking).Further,
at least nine of the Plaintiffs did not intervene in the FERC process and
thereforeareforeclosedfromavailingthemselvesoftheproceduralremedies
set forth in section 717r. See 15 U.S.C. 717r(a)(providingthatonlyparties
may seek rehearing which is jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review).
PARTIES
I. Plaintiffs
15. Plaintiff Bold Education Fund is a 501(c)(3) organization
formed under Nebraska law to educate the public about eminent-domain
issues and the protection of water and climate. The Bold Education Fund
includes as members landowners in the Appalachia Region whose property
will be subject to eminent domain by the MVP and ACP Projects, including
some of the individually named landowners in this suit.
16. The Bold Alliance, a 501(c)(4) organization formed under
Nebraska Law, advocates onbehalfofimpactedlandownersandthegeneral
public to stop the use of eminent domain for private gain.
7
17. Plaintiff Friends of Nelson is a citizen-run, community-based
membership organization dedicated to the protection of property rights,
property values, rural heritage and the environment for all the citizens of
Nelson County, Virginia. Some of its members are individual landowners
named as Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
18. Theindividuallandownersinthisproceedingare:CarolynMaki
and William Maki; James and Katherine McLean; Louis & Yvette Ravina;
Richard Averitt III; William S. Moore and Carol M. Moore (Trustees of the
Moore Revocable Trust); Hershel and Darlene Spears; Jonathan Ansell and
Pamela Farnham; Lora and Victor Baum; Demian K. Jackson and Bridget K.
Hamre (members of Nelson County Creekside, LLC); Horizons Village
Property Owners Association; Anne and Ken Norwood; Carolyn Fischer; Pearl
L. Finch; Heather Louise Finch; Wade Raymond Finch; Randy and Kathleen
Forbes; Todd Rath; W. Marvin Winstead Jr.; Susan Lazerson and Clifford
Savell; Bill and Lynn Limpert; Wade A. and Elizabeth G. Neely; Nancy L.
Avery; Nancy & Shahir Kassam-Adams; Robert Turner; Stephanie Barton,
James A. Hardee; Hazel Rhames (Trustee- Joe Rhames); Joe Poland; Dawn
Averitt; Mary Ellen Rives; Anne Way and Stephen Bernard; Georgia Haverty -
Doe Creek Farm; Brenda Lynn Williams; Serena Garst, President of
Occanneechi, Inc; Jerry & Jerolyn Deplazes; Newport Development, LLC;
Clifford A.Shaffer;TamaraHodsden;FrankS.andKatherineA.Quinn;Charles
8
F. Flora and Stephanie Flora; Benny L. Huffman; Ian Elliott Reilly and Carolyn
Elizabeth Reilly andDaveJ.WernerandBettyB.Werner;MaryE.andBruceM.
Coffey; Jacqueline J. Lucki; David G. and Karen M. Yolton; Clarence B. Givens
and Karolyn W. Givens; Walter and Jane Embrey; Guy W. and Margaret S.
Buford; Rebecca Dameron; Keith Wilson; Frank and Jacqueline Biscardi;
Wendell & Mary Flora; Reinhard and Ashofteh Bouman; James Gore; Mike
Craig; Gerald and Elizabeth Wozniak; Chris and Emily Prosise; Judy Allen;
Keith and Merrifield Ehrhard; Irene S. Ellis, Trustee, Randolph H. Leech, Irene
E. Leech, Margaret Anne Martin, Timothy Martin; John C. Geary and George
1
Sproul.
19. All of these individual landowners own property that will be
crossed by the MVP Project or ACP Project and that will be taken by
eminent domain under 15 U.S.C. 717f(h). The individual landowners who
live along the MVP Pipeline and are plaintiffs in this action have already
been named as defendants in MVPs condemnation actions.
1
ttachment 1 to this Complaint lists each landowners address, the
A
pipeline that will cross their respective property and amount of property that will
be impacted by condemnation.
9
20. While the majority of the landowners who are plaintiffs
intervened in the FERC proceeding, at least nine of the landowners have

2
not.
21. The MVP and ACP will directly and adversely impact
Plaintiffs. Not only will both projects resultinanunconstitutionaltakingof
Plaintiffs propertybuttheprojectswillcausedirectharm. Theprojectswill
forever encumber Plaintiffs properties even if the pipelines are later
abandoned, diminish development potential and property value, raze trees
and destroy farms and generally pose risks to the health and safety of the
Plaintiffs and the surrounding environment.
II. Defendant Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
22. Defendant Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an
independent agency formed under 42U.S.C.7171(a).Asofthedateofthis
Complaint, the Commission consists of Acting Chairman Neil Chatterjee
and Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Robert Powelson.
23. The Commission claims authority under theNaturalGasActto
issue CCNs to companies that propose to construct, operate, and maintain
interstate natural-gas pipelines.
III. Defendant Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC
The landowner plaintiffs who did not intervene in the FERC process are
2
Jacki Lucki, Lyn Limpert, Scott Ballin, Carolyn Maki, Lora Baum, Guy Buford,
David Yolton, Ann and Stephen Bernard, Jacqueline Biscardi and George Sproul.
10
24. Defendant Mountain Valley Pipeline LLCisaprivate,for-profit
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of
Delaware. Mountain Valley is a joint venture between EQT Midstream
Partners, LP; NextEra Energy US GasAssets,LLC;WGLMidstream,Inc.;
Vega Midstream MVP LLC; RGC Midstream, LLC; and Con Edison Gas
Midstream. Mountain Valley was formed solely to develop the MVP.
IV. Defendant Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC
25. Defendant Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC (Atlantic Coast) is a
private, for-profit limited liability company organized under the laws of
Delaware with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Atlantic Coast is a joint venture of Dominion Resources (which has a 45%
interest in the venture), Duke Energy (40%), Piedmont Natural Gas
Company (10%) and AGL Resources (5%). Atlantic Coast was formed to
develop the ACP.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. FERCs Regulatory Policies
A. Overview
26. FERC oversees natural-gas companies, which the Natural Gas
Act defines as a person engaged in the transportation of natural gas in
interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of such gas for
resale. 15 U.S.C. 717(c). FERCs responsibilities include rate-setting,
11
oversight, and, critically, issuance of CCNs authorizing construction and
operation of interstate gas pipelines. By statute, any entity that receives a
CCN automatically has the power of eminent domain. 15 U.S.C. 717f(h).
While the Natural Gas Act confers eminent-domain power on pipelines
operating in interstate commerce, it does not confer eminent-domain power
on pipelines operating in foreign commerce.
B. No Public-Use Determination
27. Because thepowerofeminentdomainattachestoeveryholder
of a certificate of convenience and necessity under section 7f(h) of the
Natural Gas Act, the constitutionality of the eminent-domain provisions
hinges on whether a certificate issued by FERC serves a public use and a
public necessity. By its own admission, however, FERC does not consider a
determination of public use to be a necessary part of a grant of a
certificate. See Transcontinental Pipeline, 158 FERC 61,125 (2017).
Instead, FERC reasons that its determination of a public necessity is
sufficient to allow certificate holders to exercise the power of eminent
domain, as Congress has determined that applicants who satisfy FERCs
public-necessity criteria will build or operate interstate pipelines that,
under the NGA, comply with the Constitutions public-use requirement.
12
3
28. In 1999,FERCadopteditsCertificatePolicyStatement, which
memorialized FERCs process for evaluating applications for CCNs. As the
Certificate Policy Statement sets out, FERC first determines whetherthere
is a need for the project, examining factors including market demand, the
amount of pipeline capacity contractually committed, and lack of
subsidization by existing ratepayers. FERCsreviewofneedissuperficialat
best, as FERC does not look behind precedent agreements (see e.g.,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC, 157 FERC 61,095, at P. 5
(2016)), even though the Certificate Policy Statementsuggeststhataffiliate
contracts are less probative than those negotiated at arms length.
29. Finally, FERC balances the projects benefits against project
impacts to the environment and landowners, using a sliding scaleapproach
to determine whether to grant a certificate.
C. No Bond or Asset Requirement
30. FERC does not require applicants to post bond or to
demonstrate assets sufficient to ensure payment of just compensation to
landowners. In fact, FERC has explicitly refused requests to condition
issuance of a certificate on the project sponsors posting bond or proving
adequate assets. Accordingly, landowners receive no assurance that the
3
Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities,88FERC61,227
(1999), clarified, 90 FERC 61,128, further clarified, 92 FERC 61,094 (2000)
(Certificate Policy Statement).
13
private, for-profit entities condemning them will actually pay and
ultimately be able to pay just compensation.
D. Extra-Statutory Certificate Programs
31. FERC has also implemented conditioned and blanket
certificate programs that are not expressly authorized bytheNaturalGas
Act.
1. Conditioned Certificates
32. Conditioned certificates are nominally issued under section
7f(e) of the Natural Gas Act, which grants FERC the power to attach to
the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted
thereunder such reasonabletermsandconditionsasthepublicconvenience
and necessity may require. As a matter of practice, however, FERC
routinely includes a standard condition in most certificates that states:
Prior to receiving writtenauthorization...tocommence

construction ofanyprojectfacilities,[theapplicant]shall
file with the Secretary documentation that it has
received all applicable authorizations required under
federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof.)
In other words, FERC routinely grants certificates for projects that are not
yet legally authorized because they depend on the subsequent grant of
additional permits by other federal and state agencies.
33. Although FERC characterizes conditioned certificates as
incipient authorizations without force or effect, (see e.g., Ruby Pipeline
14
LLC, 133 FERC 61,015 (2010) at P. 18), FERC interprets those
certificates as conferring the same power of eminent domain as
non-conditioned certificates.FERChas,infact,expresslyrefusedtorestrict
eminent-domain powers under conditioned certificates even though they
relate to projects that may never receive the proper approvals and
therefore may never be constructed at all.
2. Blanket Certificates
34. Pipeline companies can also request blanket certificate
authority. See 18 C.F.R. Part 157, Subpart F. As originally conceived by
FERC, the blanket certificate program was intended to enable a
natural-gas company to undertake repairs and various routine activities
without the need to obtain a case-specific certificate for each individual
project.
35. In practice, however, companies have used blanket certificate
authority for activities that fall well outside the definition of routine as
that term is ordinarily understoodincluding construction of lateral lines,
new compressor stations,andotherfacilitiesthatmayextendupto15miles
from a certificated project, impact previously unaffected properties, impact
properties owned by individuals who did not receive the opportunity for
notice and hearing as required by the NGA, and serve entirely new
purposes. When these activities occur under a blanket certificate, they may
15
proceed with minimal notice to landowners, with no opportunity for
landowners to participate in a hearing or application process at FERC, and
without any finding from FERC that the expansions will serve the public
convenience.
E. Notice to Landowners
36. After a pipeline files an application, FERC publishes notice of
the application onitswebsiteandintheFederalRegister.SeeAttachment2
(FERC Notices for MVP and ACP). The FERC Notices describe the location
and description oftheproposedprojectandexplainthattherearetwoways
to become involved in the Commissions review of the project: either by
filing a motion to intervene (and becoming a party) or filingcomments.The
FERC notices, however, do not mention that the proposed pipeline, if
approved, may potentially resultinatakingofpropertybyeminentdomain.
See Attachment 2.
37. FERCs regulations also require pipeline applicants to notify
potentially impacted landowners directly,eitherbymailorinpersonandby
publication in local newspapers. 18 C.F.R. 157.6(d). The applicants letter
must identify the project and docket number, summarize a partysrightsat
the Commission and an eminent-domain proceeding, and include the most
recent version of FERCs pamphlet entitled An Interstate Gas Pipeline on
My Property? What Landowners Need to Know. See FERC webpage, at
16
https://ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf. Although materials that
project applicants are required to provide put landowners on notice of a
potential condemnation action, critically, they do not explain that a
landowners failure tointerveneintheFERCprocesswillresultinwaiverof
potential statutory, constitutional, and other legal challenges to the
Certificate itself or to FERCs findings of public use and necessity. Thus,
there are serious due-process concerns with theory that 15 U.S.C. 717r is
the only vehicle for impacted landowners (including those who never
received notice that their property could be taken by eminent domain as a
result of the FERC process) to raise constitutional, statutory, and other
legal challenges to the FERC process.
II. The ACP
38. The ACP Project consists of (1)approximately 564 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina;
(2)three new compressor stationsprovidingapproximately125,000nominal
horsepower (hp) of compression; and (3)other minor facilities. See ACP
Application at 14-15. The ACP Project will have numerous delivery and
receipt points toserveshippers.AccordingtoACPsapplication,thepipeline
will carry up to 1.5 million dekatherms/day, bringing gas from the
Marcellus region of northern West Virginia Project to Virginia and North
Carolina.
17
39. As the ACP pipeline makes its way through West Virginia,
Virginia, and North Carolina, it will traverse mountainous topography and
karst-ridden terrain, cut large swaths through hundreds of acres of forest
(including theMonongahelaNationalForest(MNF)andGeorgeWashington
National Forest (GWNF)), cross more than 1,500 water bodies, and
adversely impact wildlife habitat and endangered species. In addition toits
substantial and devastating environmental impacts, the ACP Project will
jeopardize the safety, economic livelihood, and property values of
landowners in its path.
40. On September 18,2015,ACPappliedtoFERCforaCCNanda
blanket certificate. At the time of application, 96% of ACPs capacity was
already subscribed. The contracts for this capacity are with utility
companies that are subsidiaries of the ACPs joint venturers, as shown
below:
41. On October 2, 2015, FERC published the ACP Application.
18
42. In May2017,theLandownersattempted,throughtheFreedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and FERCs Critical Energy Infrastructure
Information (CEII) rules, to obtain additional documents that would
further corroborate the need for the project and intended use for gas
exports. FERC failed to timely process their requests, which remain
pending.
43. On October 13, 2017, FERC issued a Certificate for the ACP
ProjectandapprovedACPsrequestforablanketcertificateunderPart157
of FERCs regulations, with the FERC Chair andoneCommissionervoting
to approve the certificate and one Commissioner dissenting. AtlanticCoast
Pipeline, 161 FERC 61,042 (2017). Condition 10 of the Certificate
requires ACP to file documentation that it has received all applicable
authorizations required under federal law (or evidence thereof) as a
prerequisite to commencement of construction. As of the date of the
Certificate, ACP had not received numerous federal authorizations
including the section 401 water quality certificates from North Carolina
and Virginia and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section 404 wetlands
permit.
44. Also relevant here, theCommissiondeterminedthatitspublic
convenience and necessity finding is equivalent to a public use (ACP
Certificate Order at 79)butaddedthatthequestionoftheconstitutionality
19
of takings under the Certificate is beyond our jurisdiction; only thecourts
can determine whether Congress action in passingsection7(h)oftheNGA
conflicts with the Constitution. ACP Certificate Order at 81.
45. With the FERC certificate issued, ACP can and will
initiate-eminent-domain proceedings against landowners in state or federal
district court under section 7f(h) of theNaturalGasAct,15U.S.C.717f(h),
seeking immediate possession of the property in advance of payment of
compensation.
III. The MVP
46. The MVP Project consists of (1)approximately 301 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia; (2)three new
compressor stations providing approximately 171,600 nominal horsepower
(hp) of compression; and (3)other minor facilities. The MVP pipeline
extends from an interconnection with Equitranss existing pipeline in
Wetzel County, West Virginia to a termination point at Transcos Zone 5
Compressor Station 165 (which is also a gas-trading hub for the
mid-Atlantic) near Transco Village in Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
47. As the MVP pipeline makes its way through the mountainous
topography of West Virginia and Virginia, it will cut large swaths through
hundreds of acres of forest, cross more than 1,000 bodies of water, and
traverse miles of treacherous karst-laced terrain. In addition to its
20
substantial and devastating environmental impacts, the MVP pipeline will
jeopardize the safety and economic livelihood of landowners along its path,
assaulting their statutorily and constitutionally protected private property
rights by taking hundreds of tracts of property for a private enterprise.
48. In late October 2014, MVP initiated the pre-filing application
process, an informal review period thatenablesaprojectsponsortovetits
proposal. At that time, MVP began contacting landowners to survey the
properties to assist in preparation of its application and in some instances,
to initiate negotiations on easement rights for the proposed pipeline.
49. On October 23, 2015, following the conclusion of the
pre-application process, MVP submitted its application under section 7 of
the Natural Gas Act seeking a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to construct, operate, and maintain the MVP project as well as a
blanket certificate. In its application, MVP declared that its primary
purpose for constructing the pipeline is to deliver shale gas to Transco
Station 165, a gas-trading hub for the Mid-Atlantic Market and a strategic
point for serving the growing Mid-Atlantic and southeastern markets, as
well as unidentified existing and future markets directly along the
pipeline route.
50. At or around the time MVP filed its Application, its proposed
pipeline was fullysubscribedbyaffiliatedshipperswhoareeitherproducers
21
and marketers (accounting for 87 percent of contracted capacity)oraffiliate
utilities (committed to 13 percent of contracted capacity) as summarized in
the table below:
51. On November 5, 2015, FERC published notice of MVPs
Application.
52. On September 16, 2016, FERC issued a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Project. The DEIS also concluded thattheproject
would not export gas, notwithstanding comments that had identified a
contract between WGL Midstream, one of the project shippers,tosupplyan
Indian company with 430,000 dt/day of LNG gas.
53. In May2017,theLandownersattempted,throughtheFreedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and FERCs Critical Energy Infrastructure
Information (CEII) rules, to obtain additional documents that would
22
further corroboratetheprojectsintendeduseforgasexports.FERCdidnot
timely process their requests, which remain pending.
54. On October 13, 2017, FERC issued a Certificate for the MVP
Project and approved MVPs request for a blanket certificate under Part
157 of FERCs regulations, with the FERC Chair and one Commissioner
voting to approve the certificate and one Commissioner dissenting.
Mountain Valley Pipeline, 161 FERC 61,043 (2017). Condition 9 of the
Certificate requires ACP to file documentation that it has received all
applicable authorizations required under federal law (or evidence thereof)
as a prerequisite to commencement of construction. As of the date of the
Certificate, MVP had not received numerous federal authorizations
including the section 401 water quality certificates from Virginia and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers section 404 wetlands permit.
55. Also relevant here, theCommissiondeterminedthatitspublic
convenience and necessity finding is equivalent to a public use (MVP
Certificate Order at 61), but addedthatthequestionoftheconstitutionality
of takings under the Certificate is beyond our jurisdiction; only the courts
can determine whether Congress action in passing section 7(h) of the NGA
conflicts with the Constitution. MVP Certificate Order at 63. With a
certificate in hand, MVP has initiated condemnation actions against
hundreds of landowners along the pipeline route in West Virginia and
23
Virginia under section 7f(h) of the Natural Gas Act, seeking immediate
possession of the property in advance of the payment of compensation.
56. Now that the Commission has declined jurisdiction over the
constitutionality of the takings authorized by the projects and the takings
are imminent, Plaintiffs seek relief before this Court on the claims below.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1: Declaratory Judgment That FERCs Practice of

Granting Certificates Conditioned on Subsequent State
or Federal ApprovalsBut Allowing for the Exercise of
Eminent DomainExceeds FERCs Authority Under the
Natural Gas Act.
57. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs by reference.
58. 15 U.S.C. 717f gives FERC the power to attach to the
issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted
thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the publicconvenience
and necessity may require.
59. FERC has an established pattern and practice of issuing
certificates of public convenience and necessity for pipelines that are
conditioned on subsequent state and federalapprovals.(BoththeMVPand
ACP certificates contain such a condition. See MVP Certificate, Condition
No. 9, ACP Certificate, Condition No. 10.)
60. Congress did not delegate the power of eminent domain to
private entities that have failed to obtain required state and federal
24
approvals for a natural-gas pipeline. Even FERC itself characterizes
conditioned certificates as incipient authorizations without force or effect.
61. Because a conditioned certificate will never ripen into a final
authorization if state andfederalpermitsaredenied,anytakingofproperty
under a conditioned certificate would beprematureandunnecessaryforthe
projectand would violate NGA 717fs requirement that takings be
necessary and also raise serious constitutional problems, as explained in
Count 4.
62. The proper interpretation of reasonable termsandconditions
in 15 U.S.C. 717f(e) is that FERC may impose conditions on pipeline
activity in the sense of limitations but that certificates that are
conditional in the sense of needing to satisfy prerequisites (and that, per
FERC, are incipient authorizations without force or effect)cannotsupport
the exercise of eminent domain under the NGA.
63. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that FERCs practice of
issuing certificates conditioned on the issuance of state or federal
approvalswhile still purporting to allow the certificate holder to exercise
eminent domain authority under 15 U.S.C. 717f(h)violates the NGA.
COUNT 2: Declaratory Judgment That Certificate Holders

(Including ACP and MVP) Whose Certificates Are
Conditioned on Subsequent State or Federal Approvals
Cannot Exercise the Power of Eminent Under the
Natural Gas Act.
25
65. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that holders of
conditional certificates (including ACP and MVP) cannotexercisethepower
of eminent domain under the NGA when their certificates are conditioned
on subsequent state or federal approvals before pipeline construction can
begin.
COUNT 3: Declaratory Judgment That 15 U.S.C 717f(h)s Any

Holder of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity Language Does Not Include Holders of
Certificates That Are Conditioned on Subsequent State
or Federal Approvals.
67. As explained in Count4andelsewhere,FERChasapracticeof
issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity to applicants that
have not yet obtained all necessary state and/or federal permits to
commence construction.
68. FERC takes the position that holders of such conditional
certificates are entitled to exercise eminent domain under 15 U.S.C.
717f(h), which provides that any holder of a certificate of public
convenience and necessity can acquire property by eminent domain.
69. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that this interpretation of 15
U.S.C. 717f(h) is incorrect and that, under a correct interpretation of the
26
statute, only holders of non-conditional certificates are entitled to exercise
eminent domain.
70. This is the correct interpretation of 15 U.S.C. 717f(h) for two
reasons.
a. First, as FERC itself recognizes, conditional certificates are
incipient authorizations without force or effect. It follows
that they cannot justify private entities exercise of the
awesome power of eminent domain.
b. Second, as further explained in the following Count,
permitting such conditional certificate holders to take
private property creates significant constitutional concerns.

Granting Certificates Conditioned on Subsequent State
or Federal ApprovalsBut Allowing for the Exercise of
Eminent DomainViolates the Fifth Amendments
Takings Clause.
72. The Fifth Amendment forbids the taking of private property if
it is unnecessary for public use. An authorization of eminent domain under
a conditioned certificate violates the Fifth Amendment because until the
conditions are met, the property taken is unnecessary because the pipeline
cannot construct the project.
27
73. 15 U.S.C. 717f gives FERC the power to attach to the
issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted
thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the publicconvenience
and necessity may require.
74. FERC has an established pattern and practice of issuing
certificates of public convenience and necessity for pipelines that are
conditioned on subsequent state and federalapprovals.(BoththeMVPand
ACP certificates contain such a condition. See MVP Certificate, Condition
No. 9, ACP Certificate, Condition No. 10.)
75. Congress did not delegate the power of eminent domain to
private entities that have failed to obtain required state and federal
approvals for a natural-gas pipeline. Even FERC itself characterizes
conditioned certificate as an incipient authorizations without force or
effect.
76. Because a conditioned certificate will ripen into a final
authorization if state andfederalpermitsaredenied,anytakingofproperty
under a conditioned certificate is premature and unnecessary for the
project, in violation of the Fifth Amendments requirement that takings be
for apublicuse.Propertyisnottakenforpublicusewhenthepropertyis
not needed for a project that has not received publicapprovalandtherefore
will not be built.
28
77. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that FERCs practice of
issuing certificates conditioned on the issuance of state or federal
approvalswhile still purporting to allow the certificate holder to exercise
eminent domain authority under 15 U.S.C. 717f(h)violates the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution.
COUNT 5: Declaratory Judgment That, Under the Natural Gas Act,

FERC Cannot Grant Certificates Whose Sole or Primary
Purpose Is to Benefit Foreign Commerce.

79. Under 15 U.S.C. 717f, any certificate of convenience and
necessity must be for thetransportationininterstatecommerceofnatural
gas.
80. The Act defines interstate commerce as commerce between
any point in a State and any point outside thereof, or between points
within the same State but through any place outside thereof, but only
insofar as such commerce takes place within the United States.
81. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Natural Gas
Act does not allow FERC to grant certificates of convenience and necessity
whose sole or primary purpose is to benefit foreign commerce.
COUNT 6: Declaratory Judgment That Granting Blanket

Certificates Involving Property Located Outside the
Certificated Project Exceeds FERCs Statutory
Authority Under the Natural Gas Act.
29
83. Section 7(c) of the NGA bars the construction or expansion of
any facilitiesforthetransportationorsaleofnaturalgas,ortheacquisition
or operation of any such facilities or extensions, unless the Commission
issues a certificate specifically authorizing such acts or operations. 15
U.S.C. 717f(c)(1)(A).
84. The Commissions authority to grant a certificate under
Section 7(c) is also limited to approval of an operation, sale, service,
extension, or acquisition covered by the applicationthat is, theactivityin
question must have actually been proposed by the applicant and so
considered by the Commission. Id. 717f(e) (emphasis added).
85. Approval of particular activities is further restricted to those
that, upon the Commissions finding, are or will berequiredbythepresent
or future public convenience and necessity. Id.
86. Even so, FERC has arrogated to itself the power to issue
blanket certificates under Part 157, Subpart F of its regulations to allow
blanket certificate holders to perform certain routine constructionactivities
and operations, including future facility construction, operation, and
abandonment.
87. Without any need for further Commission approval, the
blanket certificate holder is allowed, subject only to a per-project cost
30
limitation just shy of $12 million, to do any of the following, among other
automatically authorized acts:
acquire, construct, replace, or operate any eligible facility,

defined to mean any facilitywithintheCommissionsstatutory
jurisdictionthatisnecessarytoprovideservicewithinexisting
certificated levels, subject to certain narrow exceptions, 18
C.F.R. 157.208(a), 157.202(b)(2)(i);

make miscellaneous rearrangementsofanyfacility,including
relocation of existing facilities for various reasons including
highway construction, erosion, or encroachmentofresidential,
commercial, or industrial areas, id. 157.208(a),
157.202(b)(6);
acquire, construct, replace, modify, or operate any delivery

point, id. 157.211(a)(1);
acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate facilities for

the remediation and maintenance of an existing underground
storage facility, id. 157.213(a); and
acquire, construct and operate natural gas pipeline and

compression facilities . . . for the testing or development of
underground reservoirs for the possible storage of gas, id.
157.215.
88. The facilities to which these activities apply include both
auxiliary ones installed to obtain[] more efficient or more economical
operation andreplacementsbutonlytotheextentthatsuchauxiliaryor
replacement facilities are not located within the certificated pipeline
right-of-way or an already authorized facility site. See id. 157.202(b)(3).
That is, the grant of blanket authority is expresslyalmost
exclusivelydirected toward projects that the Commission knows, to a
31
virtual certainty, will not be where the applicant describes the pipeline
project as being located.
89. In connection with these blanket certificate activities, the
blanket certificate holder has effectively unrestricted authority to exercise
eminent-domain power to force sales of private property, including of
properties outside the areas described inthecertificateholdersapplication.
15 U.S.C. 717f(h).
90. Under the guise of replacement or rearrangement, a
certificate holder can even move segments of its main line to different
property than the project footprint FERC has approved. And whenever it
does so, the blanket-certificate holder can seize whatever property it wants
from nearby landowners through eminentdomain,withoutanyoversightby
FERC.
91. FERC has granted such blanket certificates to MVP and ACP.
92. In light of the application and finding requirements of the
NGA, Plaintiffs seek a declarationthatFERCsauthoritydoesnotextendto
blanket approvals of unknown future extensions, expansions,
rearrangements, or replacements, at least where such actions are not
limited to the pipeline footprint actually proposed by an applicant and
considered and approved by FERC.
COUNT 7: Declaratory Judgment That Granting Blanket

Certificates Involving Property Located Outside the
32
Certificated Project Violates FERCs Statutory Mandate
to Evaluate the Economic and Environmental Impacts
of Proposed Projects.
94. FERC has a statutory mandate to ensure that a project
satisfies the public necessity and convenience, an analysis which includes
among other things, an evaluation of the proposed projects economic and
environmental impacts as well as other factors that have bearing on the
public interest. See 15 U.S.C. 717f(a) (projects must be in the public
interest).
95. By definition, however, whenever FERC grants a blanket
certificate that authorizesconstructionoutsideaprojectfootprintFERChas
expressly evaluated and approved, FERC is authorizing the applicant to
undertake a project that FERC has not determined is in the public
convenience and necessity and that FERC has not evaluated for economic
and environmental impact.
96. Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaration that FERCs practice of
granting blanket certificatesat least those that authorize construction
outside evaluated and approved project footprintsviolates FERCs
statutory mandate to determine the public convenience and necessity
including the economic and environmental impacts of proposed pipeline
projects.
33
Granting Blanket Certificates Violates the Natural
Gas Acts Requirements of Notice and Hearing on
Expansions Not Contemplated in Initial Applications.
98. 15 U.S.C. 717f(a) requires necessary expansions and
improvements ordered under the Act to be issued after notice and
opportunity for hearing to all interested persons.
99. Further, 15U.S.C.717f(c)requiresacertificateofconvenience
and necessity for all acts and operations, including the construction and
operation of any facilitiesorextensionsthereof:Nonatural-gascompanyor
person which will be a natural-gas company upon completion of any
proposed construction or extension shall engage in the transportation or
sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or
undertake the construction or extension of anyfacilitiestherefor,oracquire
or operate any such facilities or extensions thereof, unless there is in force
with respect to such natural-gascompanyacertificateofpublicconvenience
and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such acts or
operations.
100. Acts and operations, including the construction andoperations
of any facilities or extensions thereof, authorized under the Act are subject
34
to the noticeandhearingrequirementsof15U.S.C.717f(c),exceptthatthe
Commission may issue temporary certificates in cases of emergency.
101. Plaintiffs seek a declaration FERCspracticegrantingblanket
certificates violates the Acts requirements of notice and hearing on
expansions not contemplated in initial applications.
COUNT 9: Declaratory Judgment That FERCs Granting of

Blanket Certificates Violates Plaintiffs
Procedural-Due-Process Rights Under the Fifth
Amendment.
103. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that FERCs practice
granting blanket certificateswhich enablestheblanketcertificateholder
to exercise eminent domain for property interests not specified in a
certificate applicationviolates the procedural-due-process rights of
Plaintiffs and other interested parties under the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.
COUNT 10: Declaratory Judgment That the Grant of Blanket

Certificates, by Which the Certificate Holder May
Exercise Eminent Domain, Violates Constitutional
Separation-of-Powers Doctrines, Including the Private
Nondelegation Doctrine.
105. By statute, a natural-gas company may not condemn property
that is not specifically described in its existing FERC certificate,evenifthe
35
natural-gas company seeks to acquire such property inordertooperateand
maintain an existing pipeline facility.
106. A distinction exists between statutes that authorize officials
to exercise the sovereigns power of eminent domain on behalf of the
sovereign itselfandstatuteswhichgranttoothers,suchaspublicutilities,
a right to exercise the power of eminent domain on behalf of themselves.
United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 243 n.13(1946).Section7(h)ofthe
NGA is, by its nature, a grant[] of limited powers. Id.
107. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the certificates blanket
authorization, coupled with Section 7(h)s limited conferral of
eminent-domain authority, grants to a blanket certificate holder precisely
the type of unrestrainedabilitytodecidetotakeanothercitizensproperty
that the private nondelegation doctrine and other separation-of-powers
doctrines forbid and that such blanket certificatesthereforeviolatetheU.S.
Constitution.

Certificates to Private, Nongovernmental Entities
Without Ensuring the Entities Have Adequate
Assets Sufficient to Guarantee Payment of Just
Compensation Violates the NGA.
109. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the
payment of just compensation when private property is taken for public
36
use. Any act granting condemnation power must provide for compensation
with absolute certainty.
110. The owner is entitled to reasonable, certain, and adequate
provision before his occupancy is disturbed. Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380,
403 (1895). Proving adequate provision of just compensation requires
showing that the means for securing indemnity [are] such that the owner
will be put to no risk or unreasonable delay. Id. at 401. And astatutethat
attempts to authorize the appropriation of public property for public uses,
without making adequate provision for compensation, is unconstitutional
and void and does not justify an entry on the land of the owner withouthis
consent. Id. at 402.
111. Unlike government condemnors, which may rely on the full
faith and credit of the public fisc, private companies seeking the power of
eminent domain (including applicants for FERC certificates) must do much
more than just promise to pay the full measure of just compensation that
the Constitution guarantees to property owners.
112. To satisfy the Just Compensation Clause, the private,
nongovernmental condemnor must (1)have the ability to be sued and
(2)own such substantial assets that just compensation is, to a virtual
certainty, guaranteed by payment from an adequate fund.
37
113. FERC does not make such inquiries before granting
certificates, which open the door to the exercise of eminent domain.
114. MVP is a Delaware limited-liability company and is a
special-purpose, joint-venture entity set up in 2015 for the sole purpose of
creating the MVP Project. MVP does not currently own or operate any
interstate pipeline facilities and currentlyhasnoexistingcustomers.MVPs
owner-operator has already admitted in an SEC filing that MVP has
insufficient equity to finance its activities during the construction stage of
the project.
115. Like MVP, ACP is a fledgling joint-venture LLC set up
specifically for a single pipeline project. According to a 2016 SEC filing by
ACPs 40% owner (Duke Energy), ACP has insufficient equity to finance
[its] own activities without subordinated financial support. Even so, as
indicated in its filing, Duke does not have... the obligation to absorb
losses of ACP. ACPs other principal ownerDominion, which owns a 45%
membership interest in ACPlikewise concluded in a 2016 SEC filing that
ACP has insufficient equity to finance its activities without additional
subordinated financial support. And, like Duke, Dominion has not made
any financial guarantees to ensure payment of just compensation:
Dominions maximum exposure to loss is limited to its current and future
investment.
38
116. As private, for-profit companies, MVP and ACP could go bust
or otherwise become unable to pay just-compensation awards.
117. Accordingly, to avoid constitutional problems under the
Takings Clause, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that a holder of a
certificate of public convenience and necessity under the eminent-domain
provisions of 15 U.S.C.717f(h)referstoanentitythathasdemonstratedin
its FERC application that it (1)has the ability tobesuedand(2)ownssuch
substantial assets that just compensation is, to a virtual certainty,
guaranteed by payment from an adequate fund.

Certificates to Private, Nongovernmental Entities
Without EnsuringtheEntitiesHaveAdequateAssets
Sufficient to Guarantee Payment of Just
Compensation Violates the Fifth Amendments
Takings Clause.
118. Plaintiffs incorporate the above paragraphs by reference.
119. If the Court does not grant the declaratoryjudgmentsoughtin
Count 11, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that 15 U.S.C. 717f(h) is
unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs, since neither FERC, nor MVP,nor
ACP has shown that the certificate holders both (1)have the ability to be
sued and (2)own such substantial assets that just compensation is, to a
virtual certainty, guaranteed by payment to Plaintiffs from an adequate
fund.
39
COUNT 13: Declaratory Judgment That 15 U.S.C. 717f Does Not
Allow for Quick-Take Condemnations.
121. 15 U.S.C. 717f(h) provides: When any holder of a certificate
of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, orisunable
to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the
necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or
pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas, and the necessary land or
other property, in addition to right-of-way, for the location of compressor
stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations or equipment necessary to
the proper operation of such pipe line or pipelines,itmayacquirethesame
by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the
United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in
the State courts.
122. The NGA does not provide for quick-takesi.e., allowing a
condemnor to take the property at issue before the amount of just
compensation is finally decided.
123. Congress has authorized quick-takes by the federal
government and for certain other entities in particular situations (see, e.g.,
40 U.S.C. 3114), but has not done so under the NGA.
40
124. Even so, certificate holders have frequentlyand oftentimes
successfullyinvoked FERC certificates as a ground for courts to authorize
quick-take (rather than straight) condemnations.
125. FERC cannot grant any greater power to certificate holders
than what Congress has authorized under the NGA.
126. Congress is the sole keeper of the U.S. governments sovereign
power of eminent domain, and neither FERC nor the judiciary have power
to expand the use of that power by natural-gascompaniesbeyondthegrant
of eminent-domain authority that Congress conferred under the NGA.
127. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that 15
U.S.C. 717f does not authorize quick-take condemnations.
COUNT 14: Declaratory Judgment That FERC Certificates That

Allow Quick-Take Condemnations Are
Unconstitutional.
129. If FERC certificates allowing quick-take condemnations donot
violate the NGA itself, then such certificates are unconstitutional grants of
eminent-domain power that encroach on Congresss legislative power,
violating constitutional separation-of-powers principles such as the Vesting
Clause of Article I, section 1 of the Constitution.
130. Further, to the extent the judiciary reads such FERC
certificates as supporting or allowing quick-take condemnations and issues
41
ordersallowingquick-takes,thejudiciaryencroachesonCongressspowerto
define the scope of the eminent-domain authority conferred on natural-gas
companies.
131. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that FERC certificates allowing
quick-take condemnationsor judicial orders blessing quick-take
condemnations under the NGAviolate separation-of-powers doctrines and
are therefore unconstitutional.
COUNT 15: Declaratory Judgment That FERCs Refusal to Afford

Impacted Landowners Access to Confidential and
Privileged Filings by the Applicant To Allow Them To
Challenge Public Need Violates Landowners
Due-Process Rights.
133. CCN applicants routinely file confidential and privileged
information in support of their application that is also relevant to the
projects public use and necessity.Withoutthisinformation,landownersare
unable to effectively challenge the public use or need for the project.
134. The Plaintiffs have requested from FERC certain critical
documents filed by MVP and ACP, which MVP and ACP contend are
confidential and privileged. These critical documents have not been
disclosed.
135. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that FERCs reliance on such
allegedly confidential and privileged information withheld from impacted
42
landowners violates their due-process rights by depriving them of a
meaningful opportunitytochallengeprojectuseandrebuttheCommissions
findings of public need.
COUNT 16: Declaratory Judgment That FERCs RefusaltoConsider

Constitutional Questions Violates Landowners Fifth
Amendment Due-Process Rights.
137. Section 7r of theNaturalGasActprovidesamechanismforparties
to a FERC proceeding to seek rehearing and subsequently judicial review
of an adverse FERC ruling.
138. Section 7r governs review of only FERC orders. Critically, FERC
contends that review under Section 7r does not extend to determinations
of the constitutionality of the NaturalGasActandtheexerciseofeminent
domain thereunder. FERC claims that such matters are outside thescope
of its jurisdiction. See MVP Order at 61, ACP Order at 81.
139. As a result, landowners cannot raise constitutional challenges to
proposed pipeline projects in FERC. Rather, they have to wait until after
FERC has issued a certificate and denied rehearing before they can raise
those challenges in the first instance in federal appellate courts.
140. By that point, though, the damage is done, as certificated pipeline
companies have often long since taken property and commenced
construction, irreversibly altering the landowners property.
43
141. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that, by denying landowners any
opportunity to raise constitutional challenges until after their property is
already taken and irreversiblyaltered,FERCdeniesthoselandownersthe
due process of law required by the Fifth Amendment.
COUNT 17: Declaratory Judgment That Prohibiting

Non-Intervening Landowners from Challenging FERC
Orders Violates Those Landowners Due-Process Rights.

143. The remedies in NGA section 7r are unavailable to impacted
landowners who did not intervene in the FERC process but who
nevertheless stand to be deprived of their property rights without fair
notice. See 15 U.S.C. 717f(r)
144. Neither section 7r nor FERC policies require landowners to
intervene to participate in the certificate program before FERC. And the
notice provided to landowners by FERC, MVP, and ACP did not warn
landowners that failuretointervenemightresultinawaiveroftheirright
to mountstatutory,constitutional,andotherlegalchallengestothetaking
of their property.
145. At least nine of the landowner Plaintiffs in this proceeding didnot
intervene in the FERC process, yet, without fair notice, stand to lose
property rights by eminent domain. Confining these landowners to the
remedies under section 717r, which are now unavailable to them, would
44
deprive them of due process in the taking of their property, astheywould
be unable to raise certain statutory, constitutional, and other legal
challenges related to the takings.
146. Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaratory judgment that requiring
resolution of constitutional questions through FERC under the terms of
the Natural Gas Act violates landowners Fifth Amendment due-process
rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
147. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the paragraphs set forthaboveand
respectfully pray for the following relief:
A. the declaratory relief requested above;
B. an injunction preventing MVP and ACP from proceeding with
development of their respective projects or moving forward with
eminent-domain actions under their constitutionally and statutorily
deficient certificates;
C. an injunction preventing MVP and ACP from exercising
eminent-domain power under a certificateofconvenienceandnecessitythat
is conditioned on the receipt of federal or state authorizations;
D. in the alternative, an invalidation of the blanket authority
granted to ACP or MVP undertheirrespectiveblanketcertificatesinexcess
of demonstrated and certificated need;
45
F. in the alternative, an order granting Plaintiffs discovery on
MVPs and ACPsplanstotransportgasforexportandotherissuesrelevant
to Plaintiffs claims;
G. attorneys fees, other costs and such other relief as the Court
deems appropriate and just.
Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Elefant
_______________________________
Carolyn Elefant D.C. Bar #265433
Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant PLLC
2200 Pennsylvania Ave., 4th Flr. E
Washington, D.C. 20037
202-297-6100
carolyn@carolynelefant.com
46
ATTACHMENT 1
LANDOWNER LIST
Your property is
in route of
Landowner Name(s) Affected Property Address Area of Land Impacted And/Or Subject to Taking
which proposed
pipeline?
Carolyn Maki, William Maki, EJ Maki ACP 2228 Rockfish Valley Highway 5 acres
696 Vance Lane Warm

James and Katherine McLean ACP 2 acres
Springs, VA
3383 Churchville Ave
Staunton VA 24401
Permanent ROW: 6.02A
Temp ROW: 3.92A
Louis & Yvette Ravina ACP Extra Work Space: 0.63 3528 Linear Ft
Agricultural Lands Area: 1.39A
Water Impoundment Area:
2.07A
Total: 14 03 Acres
On route 151 across from Bold
Richard (Dick) Averitt III ACP 100 acres
Rock
William S. Moore and Carol M. Moore 2594 Bryant Mountain Road,
ACP 39 acres to include a stone mountain home and three additional building sites with 50 mile views
trustees of the Moore Revocable Trust Roseland, VA 22967
William S. Moore and Carol M. Moore 2594 Bryant Mountain Road,
ACP 39 acres
trustees of the Moore Revocable Trust Roseland, VA 22967
2215 Spruce Creek Lane,

Hershel and Darlene Spears ACP 5 acres
Nellysford, VA 22958
159 Fortune's Point Lane,
Jonathan Ansell and Pamela Farnham ACP 1.8 acres for permanent easement; additional 2 -4 for temporary workspace.
Roseland VA 22967
368 Fern Gully Lane Warm
Lora & Victor Baum ACP ? about an acre? It runs across the entire length of our 31 acre property
Springs, VA 24484
Demian K. Jackson; Bridget K. Hamre (as

106 Starvale Lane., Shipman,
members of Nelson County Creekside, ACP 6 AC in permanent right away (bisecting 105 AC with entire property in blast zone)
VA 22971
LLC )
Common land and roads within

Horizons Village Subdivision in
Horizons Village Property Owners Nelson County. No street
ACP ~2 acres plus use of private roads
Association address. Our mailing address
is P.O. Box 122
Nellysford VA 22958
3509 Stagebridge Rd
Anne and Ken Norwood ACP 1/4 mile
Lovingston VA 22949
184 mountain field trail

carolyn fischer ACP 1/4 acre
Nellysford, Va
near intersection of NC HWY

Pearl L. Finch ACP 581 and Renfrow Road, Wilson 1 acre+ or -
County, NC
Heather Louise Finch ACP 581 and Renfrow Road, Wilson 1-2 acres +/-
County, NC
Wade Raymond Finch ACP 581 and Renfrow Road, Wilson 1-2 acres (+ or - )
County, NC
TBD Deerfield Rd Millboro,

Randy and Kathleen Forbes ACP 5 acres
VA
462 Winery Lane Roseland VA

Todd Rath ACP 2 acres
22967
540 Sandy Cross Rd. ,

W. Marvin Winstead, Jr. ACP 70 acres
Nashville, NC 27856
Friends of Nelson on behalf of Nelson

ACP numerous in Nelson County numerous in Nelson County
County Landowners and Membership
14 Crystal Lane, Faber, VA
Susan Lazerson & Clifford Savell ACP 100 yards of access road
22938
250 Fern Gully Lane Warm

Bill and Lynn Limpert ACP About 10 acres
Springs, VA 24484
10190 Deerfield Road,

Wade A. & Elizabeth G. Neely ACP Parcel affected has 127 acres in it.
Millboro, Virginia 24460
My address: 195 Flying Eagle
Ct. Nellysford, VA. Affected
Nancy L Avery ACP property is: Nelson County Tax One tenth of an acre.
Map 21 13 14A - a vacant lot I
own.
360 Laurel Lane, Lovingston
Nancy & Shahir Kassam-Adams ACP 4.6 linear acres (according to ACP) with major impact on 2 parcels totaling 55 acres
VA 22949
6237 laurel Rd, Faber, VA

Robert turner stephanie barton ACP 22971 Six acres.
(rt 639 tax map 59 a 29 30 31)
Heathsville Rd. Enfield N.C.
James A. Hardee ACP 7.5 acres
27823
8431 Heathsville Rd., Enfield,
James A.Hardee ACP 8.5 acres
N.C. 27823
Hazel Rhames (trustee - Joe Rhames) ACP Gullysville Lane 9 acres of a 125 acre parcel
5740 Old Bailey Hwy, Nashville
Joe Poland ACP 40 acres
NC 27856
330 Grace Glen, Nellysford, VA
Dawn Averitt ACP 73 acres
22958
10239 Bottom Creek Road,

Mary Ellen Rives MVP 10 acres
Bent Mountain, VA. 24059
7879 Grassy Hill Rd Boones

Anne Way and Stephen Bernard MVP technically, about an acre
Mill VA 24065
Georgia Haverty; Doe Creek Farm MVP 412 Doe Creek Farm Road 4 acres (direct) 400 acres (indirect)
261 Winding Way Drive,

Brenda Lynn Williams MVP 69.5 acres owned by 7 generations
Newport, VA 24128
1600 Cahas Mountain Road

Serina Garst, President of Occanneechi, I would estimate that approximately 100 acres or more would be impacted by the pipeline. MVP is
MVP (farm land - no actual street
Inc. seeking easements for 11.5 acres for the Right of Way and 17.2 for temporary easements.
address)
291 Seven Oaks Road,

Jerry & Jerolyn Deplazes MVP 2.8 acres permanent ROW/4.2 acres temporary ROW
Newport VA 24128-3558
Winding Way Road, Newport

Newport Development Company, LLC MVP 2.95 acres permanent ROW; 4.43 acres temporary ROW
VA 24128
249 Brookside Lane, Newport
Clifford A. Shaffer MVP 1200 linear feet
VA 24128
237 Clover Hollow Rd.
Tamara Hodsden MVP 2 acres
Newport, Va. 24128
215 Zells Mill Rd., Newport, Va.
Frank S and Katherine A Quinn MVP two acres
24128
1906 Arden Rd SW Roanoke

Charles F Flora & Stephanie M Flora MVP 5 acres
VA 24015
Cahas Mountain Road; Tax

Charles F Flora & Stephanie M Flora MVP 5 acres
Map Id - 038 00-020 02
606 Blue Grass Trail, Newport
Benny L. Huffman MVP VA 24128-3556, Tract # VA-GI- Access Road right of way
5779
Ian Elliott Reilly & Carolyn Elizabeth Reilly 404 Old Mill Creek Lane,
MVP 4 acres directly impacted, but would lose access to bottom land pasture; approximately 17 acres
and Dave J. Werner & Betty B. Werner Rocky Mount, VA 24151
10303 Russwood Road, Bent

Mary E. and Bruce M. Coffey MVP 3.5 acres
Mountain Virginia
10289 Russwood Road, Bent

Jacqueline J. Lucki MVP 17 acres
Mountain Virginia 24059
8165 Virginia Ave., Newport,

David G. and Karen M. Yolton MVP twenty acres
VA 24128
Clarence B. Givens and Karolyn W. 199 Leffel Lane, Newport

MVP 3
Givens Virginia 24128
495 Signal Hill Drive, Callaway,
Walter and jane embrey MVP 100 sq ft
Va 24067
985 Iron Ridge Rd. Rocky
Guy W, and Margaret S. Buford MVP 5-6 acres
Mount, VA 24151
10721 Bent Mountain Road

Rebecca J Dameron MVP 1/2 acre
Bent Mountain, VA 24059
887 Labellevue drive, boones

Keith wilson MVP 16 acres (approx 1 acre on proposed route)
Mill, va. 24065
Frank and Jacqueline Biscardi MVP 128 Labellevue Drive 1-5 acres
150 Floradale Farms Lane,
Wendell & Mary Flora MVP 55 acres total farm land
Boones Mill, VA 24065
282, Ashwood Dr., Meadow
Reinhard & Ashofteh Bouman MVP Length of possible access road is approximately 1,100 ft
Bridge, WV 25976
6355 Blue Lick Road,
James Gore MVP 228 acres
Greenville, WV 24945
5464 Wheelers Cove Rd.,
Mike Craig ACP
Shipman, VA 22971
22344 Governor Harrison
Gerald & Elizabeth Wozniak ACP .5 acres
Pkwy., Freeman, VA 23856
4054 White Oak Rd.,
Chris & Emily Prosise ACP 900 acres
Blackstone, VA 23824
10027 Dry Run Road,
Judy Allen ACP
Burnsville, VA 24487
Lot 44, Treehouse Place,
Keith & Merrifield Ehrhard ACP Horizon Village, Nellysford, VA access road, 300 ft. easement on common land
22958
Irene S. Ellis, Trustee, Randolph H.
9161 West James Anderson
Leech, Irene E. Leech, Margaret Anne ACP approx. 1 mile
Hwy., Buckingham, VA 23921
Martin, Timothy Martin
714 Hotchkiss Rd.,
John C. Geary ACP .1 acre
Churchville, VA 24421
744 West Augusta Rd., West
George Sproul ACP < 1 acre
Augusta, VA 24485
ATTACHMENT 2
FERC MVP AND ACP NOTICES
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC Docket No. CP16-10-000

Equitrans LP Docket No. CP16-13-000
NOTICE OF SCHEDULE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPEINE PROJECTAND
THE EQUITRANS EXPANSION PROJECT
(June 28, 2016)
On October 23, 2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Mountain Valley) filed its
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in
Docket No. CP16-10-000, requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, and maintain certain
natural gas pipeline facilities. Equitrans LP (Equitrans) filed a companion application on
October 27, 2015 in Docket No. CP16-13-000. The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project, in West Virginia and Virginia, would transport about 2 billion cubic feet per day
(Bcf/d) of natural gas from production areas in the Appalachian Basin to markets on the
East Coast. The proposed Equitrans Expansion Project, in Pennsylvania and West
Virginia, would transport about 0.4 Bcf/d of natural gas and interconnect with the
Mountain Valley Pipeline. Because these are interrelated projects, the FERC staff
deemed it was appropriate to analyze them in a single environmental impact statement
(EIS).
On November 5, 2015, the FERC issued its Notice of Application for the projects.
Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of
the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the
request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staffs final EIS for the projects. This instant notice identifies the FERC
staffs planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the projects, which is based
on an issuance of the draft EIS in September 2016.
Schedule for Environmental Review
Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS March 10, 2017

90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline June 8, 2017
If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the projects progress.
Docket No. CP16-10-000, et al.
Project Description
The Mountain Valley Pipeline Project would consist of about 301 miles of new
42-inch-diameter pipeline, beginning at the Mobley Interconnect and receipt meter
station in Wetzel County, West Virginia, and terminating at the Transco Interconnect and
delivery meter station at the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company
Compressor Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. In addition, Mountain Valley
intends to construct and operate three new compressor stations and other aboveground
facilities.
The Equitrans Expansion Project would consist of a total of about 8 miles of

various diameter pipelines in six segments. These segments include the parallel 12-inch-
diameter H-158 pipeline and 6-inch-diameter M-80 pipeline extending about 0.2-mile
each in Greene County, Pennsylvania; the 24-inch-diameter H-305 pipeline that would
extend about 540 feet in Greene County; the 3-mile-long new 30-inch-diameter H-316
pipeline in Greene County; the 4.2-mile-long new 20-inch-diameter H-318 pipeline in
Allegheny and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania; and the new H-319 pipeline that
would extend about 200 feet in Wetzel County, West Virginia. Equitrans also proposes
to abandon its existing Pratt Compressor Station and replace it with the new Redhook
Compressor Station in Greene County, Pennsylvania; and to construct and operate taps in
Greene County and Washington County, Pennsylvania, and an interconnect and two taps
in Wetzel County, West Virginia,
Background
On October 31, 2014 and April 9, 2015, the Commission staff granted Mountain
Valleys and Equitrans requests to use the FERCs pre-filing environmental review
process and assigned the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project temporary Docket No. PF15-
3-000 and the Equitrans Expansion Project temporary Docket No. PF15-22-000. The
FERC issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare and Environmental Impact Statement for the
Planned Mountain Valley Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI) on April 17, 2015. An NOI for the
Equitrans Expansion Project was issued on August 11, 2015, with a scoping period for
that project that ended on September 14, 2015.
The NOIs were issued during the pre-filing review of the projects, and were sent
to our environmental mailing list that included federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; regional environmental groups and non-
governmental organizations; Native Americans and Indian tribes; local libraries and
newspapers; and other interested parties. The Mountain Valley Pipeline Project NOI
announced the date, time, and location of six public meetings sponsored by the FERC in
the project area, and a scoping period that ran to June 16, 2015 to take comments on the
project. Some of the major issues raised during scoping included potential impacts on
-2-
Docket No. CP16-10-000, et al.
karst terrain and caves; impacts on groundwater and springs, drinking water supplies, and
surface waterbodies; impacts on forest; impacts on property values and the use of
eminent domain; impacts on tourism; impacts on public recreational areas such as the
Jefferson National Forest, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and the Blue Ridge
Parkway; impacts on historic districts; and pipeline safety.
The United States (U.S.) Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Jefferson

National Forest; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington and Norfolk Districts; U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3; Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the
U.S. Department of Transportation; West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection; and West Virginia Division of Natural Resources are cooperating agencies in
the preparation of the EIS.
Additional Information
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all
formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service
called eSubscription (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp). Additional data
about the projects can be obtained electronically through the Commissions Internet
website (www.ferc.gov). Under Dockets & Filings, use the eLibrary link, select
General Search from the menu, enter the docket numbers excluding the last three digits
(i.e., CP16-10 or CP16-13), and the search dates. Questions about the projects can be
directed to the Commissions Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary
.
-3-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC Docket Nos. CP15-554-000

PF15-6-000
Dominion Transmission, Inc. CP15-555-000
PF15-5-000
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. CP15-556-000
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
(October 2, 2015)
Take notice that on September 18, 2015, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP), 120
Tredgar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural
Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commissions regulations requesting authorization to install,
construct, own, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities for its Atlantic Coast
Pipeline project consisting of: i) approximately 564.1 miles of various diameter pipeline; ii) three
greenfield compressor stations totaling 117,545 horsepower (HP) of compression; and iii)
various appurtenant and auxiliary facilities designed to transport up to approximately 1.5 million
dekatherms per day (MMDth/d) of natural gas. Facilities to be constructed are located in
Harrison, Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, and Pocahontas Counties, West Virginia; Highland,
Augusta, Nelson, Buckingham, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Nottoway, Dinwiddie, Brunswick,
Greensville and Southampton Counties and the Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia; and
Northampton, Halifax, Nash, Wilson, Johnston, Sampson, Cumberland and Robeson Counties,
North Carolina. Additionally, ACP is seeking Blanket Certificates of public convenience and
necessity pursuant to Part 284, Subpart G authorizing the transportation of natural gas for others,
and Part 157, Subpart F authorizing certain facility construction, operation and abandonment
activities, all as more fully described in the application.
In a related filing, on September 18, 2015, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI), 707 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act and Part 157 of the Commissions regulations requesting authorization to abandon, install,
construct, own, operate and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities for its Supply Header
Project (Supply Header) located in Westmoreland and Greene Counties, Pennsylvania; and
Harrison, Doddridge, Tyler, Wetzel, and Marshall Counties, West Virginia. The Supply Header
would provide transportation service of approximately 1.5 MMDth/d from supply areas on the
DTI system for delivery to the ACP. The Supply Header facilities would consist of: i) two
pipeline loops of 30-inch diameter pipeline totaling 37.5 miles; ii) added compression at three
existing compressor stations totaling 70,530 HP; and iii) various appurtenant and auxiliary
facilities. DTI also proposes to abandon two compressor units in Wetzel County, West Virginia,
all as more fully described in the application.
Finally, on September 18, 2015, ACP and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc.
(Piedmont), 4720 Piedmont Row Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina 28210, filed a joint
application under section 7(c) of the NGA and Part 157 of the Commissions regulations seeking
Docket No. CP15-554-000, et al. -2-
authorization of a lease pursuant to which ACP will lease capacity (Lease) on Piedmonts system
for use by ACP in providing service under its FERC Gas Tariff, primarily for the Public Service
Company of North Carolina, Inc. Piedmont, a local distribution company (LDC), also requests a
limited jurisdiction certificate in order to enter into the Lease with ACP for the interstate
transportation of gas through Piedmonts facilities. Piedmont also requests a determination that
the Lease will not affect its status and a LDC not otherwise subject to Commission regulation, all
as more fully described in the application.
The filings may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free
at (866) 208-3676, or TTY, (202) 502-8659.
Any questions regarding ACPs or DTIs projects should be directed to Angela Woolard,
Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond,
Virginia 23219; telephone: 866-319-3382.
Any questions regarding the ACP Piedmont Lease should be directed to Matthew Bley,
Director, Gas Transmission Certificates, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219; telephone: 866-319-3382.
On November 13, 2014, the Commission staff granted ACPs and DTIs requests to
utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket
Nos. PF15-6-000 and PF15-5-000, respectively to staff activities involving the combined
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Supply Header projects. Now, as of the filing of the applications on
September 18, 2015, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time
forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP15-554-000 for the Atlantic Coast
Pipeline and CP15-555-000 for DTIs Supply Header project, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
Within 90 days after the Commission issues a Notice of Application for the ACP, Supply
Header and ACP Piedmont Lease projects, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review that will indicate the anticipated date for the Commissions
staff issuance of the final EIS analyzing both the three proposals. The issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will also serve to notify federal and state agencies of the
timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all
federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staffs final
EIS.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First,
any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project
should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive
Docket No. CP15-554-000, et al. -3-
copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7
copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every
other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered.
The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as
possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The
Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide
copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should
submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission.
Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will
receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with
the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be
required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the
Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and
will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and

interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to
file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Comment Date: 5:00pm Eastern Time on October 23, 2015
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Bold V FERC Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bold V FERC Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bold V FERC Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY

CHAIRMAN NEIL CHATTERJEE,

MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE LLC

Plaintiffs Bold Alliance, Bold Educational Fund, Friends of Nelson,

against Defendants Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);FERC

Chairman Neil Chatterjee and FERC Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and

Robert Powelson in their official capacities; MountainValleyPipeline,LLC;

natural-gas industry has changed dramatically. With the deregulation of

natural-gas markets beginning in the1980s,theindustryhastransformed,

evolving from a heavily regulated enterprise subject to strict oversight by

regulators to a free market dominated by unregulated players in search of

lucrative opportunities, including spot-market sales, participation in

gas-commodities markets, and export. Yet even as the role of interstate

eminent-domain provisions of the Natural Gas Act have not. In light of

practices related to regulation of pipelines, FERCs Certificate Program

and its application to the eminent-domain provisions of the Natural Gas

gate to allow private gascompaniestoexercisecondemnationpowersfarin

excess of what Congress ever intended or what the Fifth Amendment

allows.. This statutory and constitutional challenge is long overdue.

2. This lawsuit challenges the process by which FERC confers

eminent-domain powers on private, for-profit natural-gas pipeline

seq.), any company that obtains a certificateofconvenienceandnecessity

arrangement can satisfy statutory requirements and the Constitution is if

FERC provides procedural due process to condemnees and grants

certificates only those projects that serve a public use.

3. FERCs certificate program and its gatekeeping role in

numerous ways. By way of example:

FERC does not require pipeline companies to demonstrate

their projects serve a public use.

FERC does not inform potentially impacted landowners whose

property will be taken by a pipeline through eminent domain

that they must intervene to avoid waiving the right to

challenge FERCs grant of a certificate.

and blanket certificates, which are not statutorilyauthorized

and which give pipeline companies eminent-domainpowersfar

beyond statutory and constitutional limits.

FERC withholds information from landowners that they could

use to refute project need.

FERC does not require companies to post bonds or otherwise

demonstrate sufficient assets beforecommencingprojects,thus

creating a risk that those private, for-profit companieswillnot

actually and ultimately pay constitutionally mandated just

compensation for the property they take.

4. Collectively, these shortcomingsand othersentail that

FERCs certificate program violates the NGA itself aswellasconstitutional

Amendment (among others), resulting in a delegation of extraordinary

eminent-domain powers to private companies far beyond what Congress

ever intended and an assault on landowners property rights.

5. These shortcomings impact the landowner Plaintiffs in this

of Plaintiff BOLD Alliance face actual or imminent condemnation

filed condemnation complaints in federal district court for the Western

District of Virginia (Docket No. 2:17-cv-04214) and the Southern District of

West Virginia (Docket No. 7:17cv-492) against approximately hundreds of

landowners in West Virginia and Virginia.

6. This lawsuit seeks a declaration that FERCs certificate

until the Commission corrects the statutory and constitutional deficiencies