This is a rebuttal  to Eric Richard’s response to my post from October 15th.  His response is available here.

I am very happy to see Mr. Richard come out so strongly against the pipeline, and I hope that if he does become elected that we can work together to stop it from ever harming our community.  As he correctly points out, at the end of the day we and our families all live here, and it’s in our best interests to work together.

AFL-CIO Affiliation

On the issue of Mr. Richard’s employment, that of course would be impossible to hide (indeed, I was able to find this quite easily).  However, that is not the point.  There was no mention of his AFL-CIO affiliation and stance on any of the campaign material I was able to find over a search of a couple of days, and many voters rely predominantly on such material to make their decisions.  Many voters will not dig into candidates the way a slightly OCD person like myself will, and as such it’s important in the name of transparency that such affiliations be highlighted.

I found it disturbing that he failed to mention that his entire professional career has been with the AFL-CIO, and I still do.  When you couple this with the union donations to the campaign, the level of concern raises up a bit.  Everyone I have talked to has indicated that $30,000+ for a township committee race is unheard of and perhaps even unprecedented.  It deserves to be talked about, as does his views on unions.

In politics, perception is often everything.

Union Involvement with PennEast

Mr. Richard goes into some details about the unions he’s willing to accept contributions from, and what their technical ties to PennEast are or maybe.  He states that there are “five unions that are signatories to the pipeline that would receive all the work if it were to proceed“, “our campaign has not accepted a PENNY from any of those signatory unions“, that “that one such signatory union…sent me a contribution over the summer – and I returned it to them immediately“.

I’m not precisely sure where Mr. Richard got the number five from  or precisely what he means by signatory unions.  Here is the official PennEast “supporters” page:

http://penneastpipeline.com/supporters/

And here is a snapshot of that page as of Monday Oct 17, 2016 @ 12:29pm:

We see here 11, not 5, labor and construction trade unions coming out in favor of PennEast.  Including LiUNA Local 158 and Local 472.  LiUna is fact a part of the AFL-CIO:

http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/LIUNA-Rejoins-the-AFL-CIO

…whom Mr. Richard works for in the capacity of a lobbyist, and who he received a donation from.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry (aka UA) are not only on the supporters page, they are also mentioned in the PennEast Draft EIS as notable supporters.  That union is the parent of Plumbers Local 9 and Plumbers Local 24, who combined have given $8,800 to their campaign.

Mr. Richard writes off the Plumbers Local 9 contribution by saying:

Are you aware – that some of the union leadership that you site in your article – such as Plumbers Local 9 – I’ve had a personal friendship with for over a decade? The business manager for this local was at my wedding six years ago. He has ZERO interest in anything except to see me succeed in my campaign.

This is disturbing on two levels.  The obvious one is that Plumbers Local 9’s parent is UA, and UA is an official supporter of PennEast.  The other side is perhaps even simpler – what does Mr. Richard’s personal friendship with union leadership have to do with giving him $8,800 of the union’s money for a campaign?  It is not the union leader’s money, it’s the union’s.  There’s a big difference.

There are other unions that are also pro-pipeline listed in their donation list, such as Sheetmetal Workers Local 25 ($5,000) and United Steelworkers District 4 ($1,000).  They may not be technically a “PennEast signatory”, but in fact they are firmly pro-pipeline and there are numerous references to this fact available on-line.

On this issue I think Mr. Richard is splitting hairs here.  He’s clearly received significant funds from unions who are pro-PennEast.

On Mr. Richard returning money from a “signatory”, I’d be interested in knowing which one and for how much.  I didn’t see any refunds in the campaign contribution website other than a reduction in a donation  (by Plumbers Local 9 for $400 refund I believe, but I can’t check right now the NJ election donations site is down).

Statements on PennEast and the Environment

Mr. Richard made a number of statements about his opposition to PennEast and support of the environment.  I see those as a very positive sign, and if he is elected we will hold him to it.  If he’s willing to share any publicly verifiable information on his support against PennEast or in favor of the environment, I’ll be happy to post it here.

Conclusion

I thank Mr. Richard for his rebuttal, and there’s a lot of hopefully information in there about the environment and the pipeline.

But with that said, some of his claims about where the money for his campaign is coming from, and whether or not they support PennEast,  don’t seem to check out.  There are some heavy pro-PennEast unions who have contributed the lion’s share of money to the campaign – and who went to who’s wedding is irrelevant (or, perhaps, looks even worse).

At the FERC scoping meeting I attended in Frenchtown, there were sheetmetal workers and steelworkers and pipe fitters in the crowd ringing the room, trying to intimidate anti-PennEast folks who were there to testify.  Their unions contributed to Mr. Richard’s campaign.

At the Garden State Expansion, LiUNA shirts filled the room with union people paid to be there to try to force the NJDEP to allow the GSE to go through – despite all the wetlands impacts.  The same LiUNA that is part of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Richard’s employer, and who he also received a contribution from.

Money talks, and there still is the question on why $30,000 is being raised in a campaign for a sleepy little rural town in Western NJ, and why unions from as far away as NY State care about who is on the Township Committee in West Amwell, NJ.

I would like to hear more from Mr. Richard about how he intends to stop PennEast, but accepting thousands of dollars from PennEast supporters is far from a promising start.

Yesterday, Eric Richard, candidate for West Amwell Township Committee, responded to my post about the West Amwell Township Committee race and the issue of a large number of union donations to the Democratic side of the campaign.

Here is his response in its entirety.  I’ll have a follow on blog post to respond in full and will link to it here when it’s complete, but I wanted to get this out as soon as I could.  This is also posted on the West Amwell Proud Facebook page.

From: Eric Richard
To: thecostofthepipeline@gmail.com
Date: Sunday Oct 16, 12:20pm

Mike – After reading your blog article from yesterday, I wanted to bring to your attention, the attention of your readers and to the attention of all West Amwell residents, some important facts.

First and foremost, when I began my campaign several months ago, I sat down with my running mates and explained to them that I would not accept any contribution from any interest that would benefit from the pipeline. That promise has never been broken and still stands today. Since the day our campaign Facebook page was launched over the summer, it articulates our clear position in opposition to PennEast.

With that understanding, I need to ask you if you researched, bothered to interview anyone (including myself) or are aware of any of the following specifics:

• Are you aware that there are five unions that are signatories to the pipeline that would receive all the work if it were to proceed?
• Are you aware that our campaign has not accepted a PENNY from any of those signatory unions?
• Are you aware, that one such signatory union that you mention in your article sent me a contribution over the summer – and I returned it to them immediately? For precisely the reason you raise in article – to avoid the perceived conflict of interest.
• Are you aware, that not a single union that gave me a contribution EVER even asked me my position on the pipeline or discussed the issue with me. Are you aware that all of the local unions that did contribute represent workers completely unrelated to pipeline construction? For example fireman (FMBA), state and local public employees (196 PAC, CWA), nurses (HPAE) and transit employees (ATU).
• Are you aware – that some of the union leadership that you site in your article – such as Plumbers Local 9 – I’ve had a personal friendship with for over a decade? The business manager for this local was at my wedding six years ago. He has ZERO interest in anything except to see me succeed in my campaign.
• Also – I am in no way hiding who I work for. If you visit my facebook page – on the front page for the last 13 years it has displayed my employer as the AFL-CIO. I am a proud labor supporter. I stand with working people and I am proud to have their endorsement and support.

The voters of West Amwell should be aware of my life long support of conservation and environmental organizations. I’ve participated in events or gave personal donations to a multitude of environmental groups since I was a teenager, including the World Wildlife Federation, the NJ Sierra Club, the Galapagos Conservancy, the NJ Audubon Society, the Stonybrook – Millstone Watershed Association, among others. Also I’m glad you mentioned that our campaign made a donation to OPPOSE the pipeline through your very own organization!

On a personal note, I have a little girl – Ariella (4). The love of my life. Maybe you have seen her on our billboards. We have well water. The proposed pipeline route is a short distance from my back porch. My passion to protect her from every possible threat is on my mind constantly. The fact that you – as well as Mayor Rich and his running mates, all of whom are fathers just like me, that are confronting the same community issue, believes my family’s health and safety is for sale is personally disturbing. Its politics at its worst and the people of West Amwell deserve better.

It’s my hope you will post this on your blog and let your readers be informed of the truth. I will share it on our campaign facebook page and beyond. Furthermore, it is my hope that we can work together to stop PennEast, even though you endorsed my opposition. My campaign is about issues & problem solving – not politics. And together we can achieve much more when like-minded individuals, individuals that have the same exact position on this issue – work together rather than tear the other down for political purposes.

Eric Richard

Candidate for West Amwell Township Committee

Proud Member of the AFL-CIO

Proud Opponent of Penn East

There’s a famous Bible quote that says “But everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand”.  PennEast and their longtime friends at Concentric Energy Partners should look it up sometime.

This morning, PennEast delivered a “rebuttal” to the NJ Rate Counsel’s submission on the DEIS.  The bulk of this rebuttal is yet another report from Concentric Energy Partners.  Why they continue to use Concentric when FERC has rejected all of their reports is beyond me, but we should count ourselves lucky there 🙂

This latest Concentric report contains a huge number of citations as usual.  They cite California Energy Board, Pennsylvania PUC, NJ Board of Public Utilities, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, and many others.  Those citations are made to show that certain information is invaluable to determining whether pipelines are needed or not in a given region.  It goes on for pages and pages.

They’re all fine citations in their own right.

The problem is the foundation they are based on.

Specifically, Concentric’s entire argument about “need” for this pipeline is based on this section, page 6:

This is all lovely, and on its face it would seem very damaging to those who assert we don’t need this pipeline.

But here’s the problem: These are throw-away assertions from the shippers with NOTHING TO BACK THEM UP.

There are no studies.  There are no projections. There are no models cited.  There is no analysis of their existing systems.  There’s not a damn thing.  All there is a bunch of PR spun up by the PennEast owners marketing departments with no facts to back it up.

In fact, we know these assertions are empty because many people have researched this topic in detail (here’s my own):

Analysis of PennEast Purpose and Need in the FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and also especially:

https://thecostofthepipeline.com/2016/09/22/the-best-case-against-penneast-yet/

You might notice in particular that the PennEast owners, who are also shippers, state in no uncertain terms in their SEC filings that their existing operations are already resilient, redundant, and sufficiently varied, and that they are highly satisfied that their gas networks are in good shape.

We also note from many areas that rates in NJ have dropped like a stone over the past few years, and we are basically as close to zero as we’re ever likely to get.

And then of course there is also the NJCF study conducted by Skipping Stone:

http://rethinkenergynj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PennEast-Analysis-of-Alternatives_Skipping-Stone_Sept-12-2016.pdf

You remember, the study with actual data behind it.

So don’t be worried about the pages and pages of citations by Concentric.  While they’re beautiful in their own right, and I’m sure PennEast page Concentric a ton of money for it, in the end those citations mean nothing if Concentric (and PennEast’s) basic facts are empty, baseless assertions.

Keep building your castle in the sand, PennEast.  There’s a storm coming, and you’ll see how just how well that foundation holds up to the N’easter of opponents against you.

Running these sites is getting expensive!  Please help defer our costs and pop over to the donate page.  Thanks!

Note 1: This is a personal endorsement and does not represent the views of West Amwell Citizens Against the Pipeline or HALT PennEast.

Note 2: Anti-PennEast folks who aren’t West Amwell residents: stay with me, this isn’t just a West Amwell thing.

TL;DNR: Unions are trying to buy the West Amwell Township Committee election

2016 is going to be a big year for West Amwell politics.  Our Township Committee is expanding from 3 to 5 members, and there is a serious race going on between Republicans and Democrats to take (or keep!) control of the committee.  I don’t generally comment directly on politics here, but this year there’s an important issue that’s come up that’s relevant to the pipeline and should be very concerning to many people in the area.

The primary results for the race are as follows:

2-year term:

✓ Gary V. Hoyer (R) – 216 (100%)
✓ William J. Corboy (D) – 182 (100%)

Two 3-year terms:

✓ James Cally (R)  – 205 (49.28%)
✓ Zachary T. Rich (R) – 209 (50.24%)
✓ Eric Richard(D) – 165 (49.85%)
✓ Michael J. Heron(D) – 166 (50.15%)

So we have 1 two-year term up for grabs, and 2 three-year terms.  With 3 Republicans on one side, and 3 Democrats on the other.

As for me, I am undeclared.  I’m not a Republican, or a Democrat, or Independent.  Or Libertarian, or Tea Party, or Green Party or any other kind of party. I guess you could say I am “The Party of Me” – which may sound selfish, but at least it’s honest. I think I am typical of many Americans – I am socially liberal and financially conservative.  I want to see people treated equally, I want everyone to have a fair shot at a good life, and I want the government to spend my money responsibly.

And above all, I want  for there to be transparency into government.  Without transparency we’re flying blind, have no idea what’s really going on, and we end up in a situation ripe for manipulation.

So with that lens, let’s take a look at the two sides and their candidates.

Republican Campaign – “We Are West Amwell”.

The Republican’s campaign is entitled We Are West Amwell, a theme that is based on the idea that the candidates not only have lived here quite awhile, but they also represent typical West Amwell residents, and they intimately understand the issues that West Amwell residents care about.

The platform is pretty simple – the township is doing great under the Republicans, didn’t do so well under the prior Democratic government, and they will continue that trend.  They’re against the pipeline.  And they are not Trump-style Republicans, but are instead West-Jersey Republicans, which is something else altogether.

The Republicans have put up Gary Hoyer for the 2 year term, and Zach Rich and James Cally for the 3 year terms.   All in all I’d say they were a solid team.  Gary and Zach have been part of the Township government for awhile now, and we can easily judge them on their records to date.

Gary Hoyer

Gary I know personally, his youngest son and mine play baseball together for the local team.   He’s a banking and finance executive, has lived in the Townsihp for 25+ years, has served on the Finance Advisory Committee, and has some very interesting stories about his hobby of flying planes for fun.

I’ve always found Gary depth of knowledge on many issues to be quite impressive, and he’s likable at the same time, a rare combination.  He’s very knowledgable, well-spoken, and knows how to analyze and solve problems.  I pretty much knew he’d get my vote.  If you’re interested in his background I urge people to look at his Linkedin profile:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-v-hoyer-1800a46

…as well as the Finance Advisory Meeting minutes (available on the Township website, http://westamwelltwp.org).

In any case, the question for me would be whether I would split my vote between (R) and (D), or go a straight ticket.

Zach Rich

Zach is our current Mayor.  He seems a bit young for the job, which is mostly a sure sign that I’m getting old.  The campaign tells us he’s a 28 year resident and Director of Sales at Silvi Group Companies.  Given that Zach is an incumbent, people can judge him directly on his record – so once again, go look at the meeting minutes and what the town has done the past few years.  I think he’s done pretty well.  On pipeline issues the Mayor and the Committee have been responsive and put a great deal of useful information the FERC docket and been involved talking to various agencies.

James Cally

The campaign tells us James is a 15 year resident and a dentist in Skillman, NJ.  He’s on both the Planning Board and the Board of Health for the township.  As with Zach, his ideas and viewpoints are captured pretty well by meeting minutes, you can check out the planning board minutes on the township website as well.  He is still a bit of a question mark in mind despite some research.  Not anything positive or negative, more lack of information than anything else.

Democratic Campaign – “West Amwell Proud”

The Democrats are running their campaign under the slogan “West Amwell Proud”.  Their primary platform seems to be that taxes have gone up too much under the Republicans.  They are also against the pipeline.  And (oddly to me), want to make West Amwell more pedestrian and cyclist friendly.  Their candidates are Bill Corby, a former mayor of West Amwell, Michael Heron, a local attorney, and Eric Richard, who we’ll get to in a moment.

William “Bill” Corby

Bill Corby has lived here for over 50 years, and served the township extensively in the past, including 2 years as Mayor back in 2009, 9 years on the Board of Education, 6 years on the Planning Board, and 3 years on the Township Committee.  This is a bit of an issue and a red flag for me – there was a big change in who runs the Township made back in 2010, and those changes were made for a reason.  A few major problems crept into the Township during that timeframe.  Some of them are attributable to the 2007/2008 housing crash for sure, but some of it comes down to how the township was run as well.  From what i can tell ideals got in the way of keeping the township financially secure, and we are still paying for that in some ways.

This makes voting for Gary of course even easier.

Michael Heron

Michael Heron is a local attorney, with about 13 years experience practicing civil law.  He’s in good standing wth all the right government agencies and bar associations, and by all indications a good lawyer.  Like me, he moved here several years ago.

Prior to being an attorney he was a member of the Building Trades Union for 18 years.

I haven’t been able to get too much of a handle on Mr. Heron to be frank, so a bit like James Cally he’s got a question mark in my book for lack of information.  But I did look askance at the union connection being highlighted.

Eric Richard

The West Amwell Proud campaign notes that Eric Richard has a great deal of experience with government.  He was chairman of the Municipal Utilities Authority that serves Lambertville/New Hope/Stockton from 2011-2015, worked very hard to combat the “smell problem” that has plagued southern Lambertville for years, and “has been appointed to various State and Local Boards, Commissions and Authorities by three different Governors, both Democrat and Republican alike.

He also served as Commissioner to the Hunterdon County Board of Taxation from 2005 – 2011 where he oversaw the assessment of property evaluations”.

This is all green-flag territory for me.  He knows local issues, knows regulations, gets things done.  OK, great.  But when I started researching his background, my opinion starting reversing itself.

A quick search turns up his Linkedin profile here:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-richard-9b7a783

As you can see in his profile, Eric has been employed by the AFL-CIO for his entire professional career.  He serves as “Legislative Affairs Coordinator”, which is a fancy way of saying he’s a lobbyist for them.  The campaign never mentions this connection anywhere that I can find.

Googling further we see he is in fact endorsed by the AFL-CIO in this race:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/njaflcio/pages/783/attachments/original/1466598747/2016_Endorsements.pdf?1466598747

Eric Richard, AFT/AAUP 6324, West Amwell Committee

There are also numerous articles of his speaking for the AFL-CIO on labor issues.  For example, here he is speaking favor of a law that would enable striking union workers to get unemployment benefits (which I do not think is a very good idea at all):

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/new-jersey/93780-nj-may-allow-striking-workers-to-tap-into-unemployment-fund

The legislation would bring some financial relief to the thousands of Verizon workers in New Jersey who’ve been on strike since April 13, said Eric Richard with the state AFL-CIO.

“Go on that line and talk to these folks about how their families are moving forward without health care,” he said Tuesday during a committee hearing. “Find out how they’re moving forward being unable to pay their mortgages.”

The problem here is that Mr. Richard intimately tied to the AFL-CIO, and isn’t mentioning this at all in his campaign.  In fact seems to be hiding it.  This is a Big Red Flag.  I wouldn’t  discount a union worker or even union executive automatically based on their views and employment, but it would be a concern for me.  Hiding their affiliation is a whole other matter though.

And this is just the beginning.  Things get much worse from here though, and this is where pipeline opponents should get worried.

The Smoking Gun

My personal viewpoint on unions (which I know not everyone shares) is that they were invaluable when they were formed at the turn of the 20th Century.  But over the year they concentrated power in many ways, and are symbols of corruption (especially in NJ and the North East).  Certainly unions still do good as well, and I’m sure there are many people who are dying to point those things out to me.  But my own personal belief is that the many downsides of unions far outweigh their benefits.

In terms of PennEast, unions are funneling a lot of blue collar money (very hard won blue collar money, I’ll add) towards pushing an unwanted and unneeded pipeline.  We see it at the scoping meetings, with the unions ringing the halls.  We saw it at the Garden State Expansion meeting overflowing with LiUNA union members.  We hear it from Senator Booker, who tells us he is flooded with union support for pipelines (and oddly never hears from us).

So let me get back on point – I mentioned a smoking gun.  Today the Republican “We are West Amwell” campaign sent out a campaign flyer to all residents in the Township.  Among the usual stuff, was this panel:

What the Republican campaign is claiming here is that the Democratic team is almost entirely financed by unions from all over the State (and even out of state).  Frankly, when I first saw this I didn’t quite believe it, and I had to go look it up myself.  All campaign contributions in NJ above $299 have to be recorded, and campaigns also have to record the total amounts  they’ve received and spent.  You can find all this at:

http://www.elec.state.nj.us/ELECReport/SearchCandidate.aspx

I threw all of the data for RICHARD CORBOY & HERON FOR WEST AMWELL TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE into a spreadsheet, here it is below:

Here’s a summary: since May of 2016, the Richard/Corboy/Heron campaign has raised just over $30,000.  Of that amount, $6,000 came from individuals or groups underneath the disclosure threshold of $300.   $500 came from Lambertville Democratic Club (fair enough).

AND $24,150 CAME FROM UNIONS.  THAT’S 79% OF ALL MONEY RAISED.

They weren’t even all or even mostly local unions.  Look at the spreadsheet.  Rahway, Caldwell, Monmouth Junction, Hammonton.  Even Cheektowaga NY!

This is…not good.  We have a candidate who is a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO that’s not telling people about that.  We have another candidate who was a union member for 18 years.  And we have a gigantic war chest (for a town West Amwell’s size) that’s 79% financed from unions all over the state.

I know none of the candidates on either side  (except for Gary), so I’m unable to say what they’re like personally.  I have little doubt that they are all fine men, and I hope no one is offended by this post.

But looking at this information, the Democratic side looks…bad if you care about PennEast.  Very bad.  Plumbers Local 9 is giving $7,800 – that union includes natural gas pipe fitters as well.  Sheetmetal workers and Steelworkers unions are giving a combined $6,000.

In a township fighting for its life against the pipeline, this is simply not acceptable.  Think back to the Trenton scoping meetings, the ones on Frenchtown.  Think of the ring of union workers around the rooms.  Money from those same union workers sent to intimidate PennEast opponents is now going to Richard, Heron, and Corby’s campaign.

Think of the union people blocking hallways and doorways at the South Hunterdon High School informational forum about PennEast back in 2014.  Yep, they’re paying to get Richard, Heron, and Corby elected here in West Amwell.

Think of those union workers who were paid to drive for hours to get down to the Garden State Expansion meeting in South Jersey and intimidate the NJDEP.  Those same workers are sending their money clear across the state from New Brunswick and Englishtown and even New York State to buy West Amwell’s election.

Full Disclosure:

West Amwell Citizens Against the Pipeline received a $250 donation from Richard Corby & Heron for West Amwell Township Committee.  It is being used for more anti-pipeline signs and website fees.

West Amwell Township donated $300 to support thecostofthepipeline.com and pipeinfo.org.

Opponents of the PennEast pipeline cheered when EPA weighed in (among many other agencies) about the inadequacy of the FERC Draft Environmental Impact Statement.  It seems like finally other agencies are noticing how lax FERC is in following its own regulations.

Yesterday, the EPA continued this trend with a criticism of another pipeline project.  The EPA filed comments on a Final EIS for the Columbia Pipeline Leach  XPress and Rayne Xpress expansion projects.  The Mountaineer XPress project is a monster proposal with 160 miles of pipeline plus other assorted impacts.  All told it’ll move 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day..

It is clear from reading this filing, along with the past comments on PennEast, that the EPA is getting fed up with FERC.

The EPA commented on the Mountaineer Draft EIS several months ago, and found similar deficiencies to PennEast’s (they rated it “Environmental Concerns, Insufficient Information” just like on PE).  And while they thanked FERC for addressing a few things in the Final EIS for Leach XPress, they still found glaring holes you could drive a Mack truck through…

In particular, the EPA objected to the following:

• They found FERC made assertions about alternatives to the project without including any rationale, data, or facts to back up those assertions.  In particular, EPA asks they evaluate another pipeline called the Mountaineer XPress as an alternative.  FERC said Mountaineer was “not a viable alternative” – and nothing else.  This may sound familiar to PennEast opponents.
• EPA objected to information about above ground facilities including Compressor Stations to be incomplete and inadequate to access their impacts.
• EPA pointed out that the DEIS did not indicate how much compression would be used at one of the stations.  FERC says they won’t know until the “final design” is in (which would be well after any approvals).  EPA was not happy with this and says they will hold FERC responsible for any emissions overages because of this lack of information.
• FERC completely ignored indirect Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.  EPA and FERC are directly butting heads here.  The EPA says NEPA and the Counsel for Environmental Quality (CEQ) indicate that such impacts are easily foreseeable, and demand that they be included in an EIS.  FERC says “no”.  Expect a big battle here.
• EPA objects loudly and strongly that FERC uses improper methodology for characterizing emissions and that FERC is ignoring CEQ guidance.
• FERC is accused of ignoring an outsized adverse impact on low-income populations, and that further they are not properly engaging those stakeholders.  EPA repeatedly mentions that FERC is not engaging in “meaningful involvement” of the community.   This may sound a bit familiar as well.
•  The pipeline company said they would respond to noise issues from the compressor station “within one year”.  The EPA points out how ludicrous that is and demands that responses be immediate or as soon as possible.
• EPA feels that the XPress EIS does not document attempts to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources.  FERC just makes assertions here without any proof to back it up.
• Related to the above, this EIS completely lacks a wetlands compensation mitigating plan.
• The EIS has no Migratory Bird Conservation Plan.
• EPA objects that FERC “recommends” certain procedures to the pipeline company which in fact should be mandatory.
• EPA accuses FERC of allowing the pipeline company to submit plans that allege that they will not contribute to climate change or its impacts – without proof of those statements.
• The EPA is concerned that the pipeline company is asking for a waiver to avoid fish spawning seasons for no good reason.
• The EPA asserts that no meaningful analysis was given to surface water impacts during hydrostatic testing of the pipeline and related activities.

The message from the EPA to FERC is pretty clear here.  FERC routinely either lacks vital information to make an informed decision on their EIS’.  Or, worse, they often go against the clear meaning of NEPA and the guidelines of the CEQ.  And while the EPA can’t directly go after FERC for these things in this particular forum, they certainly can fire shots across FERC’s bow.  And that’s exactly what these are.  All of the “recommendations” from the EPA to FERC in this document is code for “FERC, you are vulnerable to law suits on this huge laundry list of issues.  Get your act together!”.

Unless FERC has a massive turn around, I expect the same sorts of problems with the PennEast FEIS (and possibly worse), and hopefully EPA will call them out on that as well.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has five commissioners which are responsible for all major decisions the agency makes.  FERC, which oversees permitting and regulations of interstate natural gas pipelines like PennEast (among other energy infrastructure and market areas), is run as a “quasi-judicial” agency of the Federal Government.  They’re not run at all like an agency like the EPA or National Park Service, they have a budget funded by the industries they regulate, and they tend to make decisions within that tight group of 5 people.

As luck would have it, the numbers at FERC have been dwindling.  While it is supposed to have 5 members, it’s actually been operating with only 4 for awhile now:

• Norman Bay, Chairman
• Cheryl LaFleur, Commissioner (previously Chairwoman)
• Colette Honorable, Commissioner
• Tony Clark, Commissioner

Tony Clark’s term expired this summer, but he stayed on until the end of September, with September 30th, 2016 being his last day.  Clark was perhaps THE most pro-natural gas person on the commission, and it’s unknown what the commission decisions will look like without him.  They are down to only three commissioners now, and the extra seats are unlikely to be filled until well after the Presidential Election.  Which puts FERC in a bind, given that FERC Commissioners often to have to recuse themselves from various matters where they have had prior interests or have regulated before (this is particularly true of Commissioner Honorable).  If a Commissioner does recuse themselves it’s not clear if FERC can act on that matter – can 2 Commissioners be considered a quorum?  If anyone knows please let me know….

In any case, this dearth of Commissioners may have a chilling effect on FERC’s ability to get anything done for the next several months. This puts some questions on the table about the timing of FERC’s Final EIS, which the project will come out in December 2016 (only 2 months away).

We can get some insight into how FERC is run, and how it sees its role in the Federal Government from ex-Commissioner Clark himself.  As luck would have it, Mr. Clark gifted the world with a podcast on his last day with the agency.  The full transcript of that podcast is available here:

Link to Tony Clark’s Farewall Podcast Transcript

If you wonder why FERC acts the way it does, and perhaps seems so tone-deaf to the world around you, this podcast may give you some answers.

When asked if he found anything surprising after serving a full term at the agency, Mr. Clark said:

Notice here that Mr. Clark very carefully talks about how FERC builds up a record and drives to be non-political.  It is not so much about what decisions are made – that is clearly besides the point to Mr. Clark – the entire point of the game is that you fill out the forms in exactly the right way, and you demonstrate to a judge that your arbitrary decision was “reasonable”.

He goes onto praise the model on which FERC is built:

What Mr. Clark is saying here is that the old dirty, messy “adversarial” way that most courts and agencies are run get in the way of getting things done.  By “adversarial”, I mean a system where voices can be heard equally on both sides of an issue.  It’s a very fundamental aspect of any true democracy.

FERC doesn’t work that way, and Mr. Clark likes that.  Rather than have politics and the public intrude and mess everything else, we have an “expert” agency of “professional staff” who are shielded from all that nonsense, and a group of 5 God-like beings who make all of the decisions in a vacuum chamber.  The concept of an adversarial system where parties can question each other, look directly at evidence, and challenge assumptions just gums up the works in an agency like this, so it’s thrown away.  Instead, we should all just trust these Experts and Professionals to look at the data themselves, and trust these benevolent parental figures make the right decisions for us kids.

When you’re “you’re talking about something as important as energy”, it’s important to not get distracted by trivial things like landowners rights and the environment.

Mr. Clark goes on to say that he doesn’t have any job lined up just yet.  He’s going to take off a “couple of weeks” and he “[doesn’t] have any particular job lined up or anything like that”.  On the savings from a government salary he’s just going to coast into the Holiday season with no job prospects on the horizon.  Once he’s done sipping his Tequila Sunrises off on some beach, anyone want to bet what industry’s doors he might go knocking on for a high paying job?

So if you’re wondering why FERC seems to never listen to any real stake holders, why they seem insulated from their world, and the judgements often come across as tone-deaf, now you no why.  It’s not accident – this is how the agency is modeled, and they really, really like it that way.

Running these sites is getting expensive!  Please help defer our costs and pop over to the donate page.  Thanks!