As part of the FERC pre-filing process PennEast is forced to read through all of the scoping comments entered into FERC’s eLibrary system, and come up with a response to all of them.

Along the way PennEast has acknowledged the mountain of comments that have been received against the pipeline, and has indicated they’re a bit overwhelmed.  However, at the same time they must have noticed that there were damn few pro-pipeline comments beyond the rather ridiculous post cards mailed in by union members.  So they decided to do something about it.

Today a number of comments popped into eLibrary site which are very pro-pipeline.

Christine Kramlich writes:

As a long time resident of Pennsylvania, I have seen this state be great and I have seen her falter, much like America. The number one reason for this is lack of well paying jobs. PA needs this desperately. I am a type of person who will tell you what I really think; you need to get this done and done now!!! We need the jobs to make PA great again instead of leaving a legacy of debt and unemployment for future residents.

Jeremy Horning writes:

I’m writing to express my support for the proposed PennEast Pipeline, transporting natural gas from northeastern Pennsylvania to Pennington, New Jersey. In addition to bringing clean, abundant, locally produced natural gas to meet growing demand in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the PennEast pipeline also would deliver numerous other benefits, including a $1.6 billion positive economic impact to both states and 2,500 jobs during the construction phase of the project. As a resident of PA and a supporter of clean energy, I’m convinced the project would be positive for our region.

Shane Clark writes:

I think it would definitely benefit no only the company (UGIES) as a whole but also the economic positives for an area that has seen staggering rates of welfare and homelessness. It will also bring a lot of jobs to those who can not find work. This should be approved for the positives of the points I have made as well as the benefits of having cheap and reliable gas service to those in need!

Hmm, well that seems a little odd “benefit no(t) [sic] only the company (UGIES)”, but his grammar is a bit off so we can just chalk it up to that.

Joan Neustadter keeps it simple:

I strongly support the PennEast Pipeline project. Please approve.

Barbara Nawa also keeps it short and sweet:

I support the PennEast Pipeline Project. Thank you.

Joseph W. Jarrow writes:

I support the PennEast Pipeline Project. It is of great value to many communities and businesses alike. I am an employee of UGI Energy services. Thank you for your time.

Whoa, wait, what? An employee of UGI Energy Services? UGI is a PennEast partner and the primary project manager of the pipeline.

If you go through the rest of the comments a few people do self-identify as UGI employees. A bunch do not however, such as the people I highlighted above. Here’s what a simple google search shows about them. In particular their linked in profiles are very enlightening:

Christine Kramlich:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/christine-kramlich/33/736/b9a

Her job is “Production Services Specialist at UGI Utilities, Inc”.

Jeremy Horning:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeremyhorning

His job is “Engineer at UGI Utilities, Inc”.

Shane Clark:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/shane-clark/65/4bb/b40
His job is “Help Desk Specialist at UGI Energy Services”.

Joan Neustadter:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joan-neustadter/38/2a2/76

Her job: “Sr. Contract Analyst – UGI Energy Services, Inc”.

Barbara Nawa:

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/barbara-nawa/64/114/12

She’s a “Executive Assistant at UGI Energy Services, Inc”.

So what we have here is a bunch of UGI employees telling the FERC how great the PennEast pipeline is and they support it. But sadly the majority of them do not identify themselves as employees. Given the number of entries this is clearly an organized effort by UGI to try to make some positive spin on the pipeline. But in reality all it does is make them look even more crooked and deceitful. Do you trust UGI to build this pipeline when this is how it behaves in the pre-filing process?