Intervenors' Motion for Summary Disposition filed by Cristobal Bonifaz, ESQ under CP16-21.

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION __________________________________________ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) | Subsidiary of Kinder Morgan (KM) | Docket No. CP16-21-000 Northeast Energy Direct Project (NED) | PF14-22-000 __________________________________________| OEP/DG2E/Gas Branch 3 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC Northeast Energy Direct Project Docket Nos. CP16-21-000, PF14-22-000 In re: Carolyn and Eric Ness, Mega Worcester, Michael and Kelly Paulsen, Holly and Gordon Lovelace, and Woolman Hill Inc., Intervenors Refer to their Motion for Intervention Filed With the Commission and placed on the Docket of this case by FERC on January 12, 2016. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION UNDER 18 CFR 385.217 Dated: Conway, Massachusetts February 24, 2016 Respectfully Submitted By Attorney for Intervenors S/ Cristbal Bonifaz Cristbal Bonifaz. Esq. (BBA #548405) LAW OFFICE OF CRISTBAL BONIFAZ 180 Maple Street P.O. Box 180 Conway, Massachusetts 01341 Telephone: 413-369-4263 Cell Telephone: 413-522-7604 Fax: 413-369-0076 cbonifaz@comcast.net ccrbonifaz@icloud.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE I. THE CLAIM IN THIS LITIGATION.1 II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD....1 III. INTERVENORS STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS.2 IV. ARGUMENT...7 A. Intervenors Have Article III Standing to File this Action........7 B. The Natural Gas to Be Transported by the KM Pipeline is Mostly for Export to Foreign Countries....15 V. THE NATURAL GAS ACT AND THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.15 VI. KINDER MORGAN AND THE FRACKING GAS INDUSTRY....21 VII. THE ALLEGATION BY FERC THAT THE PIPELINE PROJECT IS IN THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS COMPLAINT AND IT IS ALSO NOT TRUE..24 VIII. CONCLUSION.....26 i TABLE OF CASES CASE PAGES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505 91 L. Ed. 2d (1986)1, 2 Arthur D. Little v. Commissioner of Health of Cambridge 395 Mass. 535; 481 N.E.2d 441; 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1720 (1985).8 Bear v. Banks 548 U.S. 521, 529, 126 S. Ct. 2572, 2578 165 L. Ed. 2d 697, 705. (2006).1 Blais-Porter, Inc. v. Simboli, 402 Mass. 269, 272, 521 N.E.2d 1013 (1988).13, 14 Border Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 142 171 F.2d 149 (1948)....16 CBI Partners Limited Partnership v. Town of Chatman, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 923, 925; 671 N.E.2d 523 at 525-526; 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 834, (1996)...14 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548; 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)....1, 2 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 41 L. Ed. 979; 17 S. Ct. 581 (1897)...18, 24 Citizens United v, Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 at 343; 130 S. Ct. 876 at 900; 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 at 784 (2010).8 Compaia de Gas de Nuevo Laredo v. ...