It has been widely reported that the judge has offered a ruling on the HALT PennEast trespass suit.  In the ruling, the judge sided with the defendants (PennEast) and dismissed most of the claims.  Here is one of the stories on this:

http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2016/07/judge_dismisses_nj_residents_lawsuit_against_penne.html

And here is PennEast’s press release on the matter:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160707006462/en/Jersey-State-Superior-Court-Sides-PennEast-Dismisses

I’ve read the court’s findings, and while it is true that the judge has dismissed most of the claims, PennEast’s crowing is entirely incorrect.

Here’s the facts: the judge found that several of the claims were valid claims of trespass, and in one case PennEast flat out admitted to trespass in open court, but tried to wiggle out of it by claiming it was not “intentional” trespass.  The court completely slapped down PennEast’s attempt to redefine the laws for their own purposes.

But despite this, the judge dismissed the claims because her court could not offer the relief that the plaintiffs were asking for.

In incident after incident, the court found there was a sufficient pleading for trespass, but dismissed the claim because they could not give the plaintiffs what they wanted.

What the plaintiffs wanted was the illegally obtained survey data returned, to ensure that it wasn’t given to FERC or other agencies to further the project (e.g. no fruit from the poisoned tree), and to stop PennEast from doing this in the future.

What the court found was that there was no precedent for giving the plaintiffs that.  The court found that only monetary damages could be offered.

And in fact, the finding notes in several cases that the plaintiffs can still seek monetary damages against PennEast.

This is clearly a setback for those of us against PennEast.  But this isn’t the whole story.

The other side is PennEast’s reaction.  Any reasonable corporation would put out a simple press release saying “we thank the court for it’s decision”.  Instead, PennEast’s Patricia Kornick once again puts her foot in it.

In her press release, she says:

“Unfortunately, some outside interests are willing to say or do anything to mislead the public. We’re pleased the Court agreed with PennEast and dismissed the claims. It’s unfortunate that HALT has wasted the Court’s time and taxpayer resources with this filing”

I’m curious what outside interests Kornick is referring to.  The suit was brought by landowners who claim their land was trespassed on by PennEast and their agents.  The court found the complaints withstood the test of law in several instances.  In what way is this an “outside interest”?  These are landowners directly impacted by the pipeline.  About as far away from “outside’ as you can get.

She goes on to say, “The actions and false claims by HALT leading to the July 7 dismissal…”.

I’m not sure if Ms. Kornick is speaking out of ignorance and didn’t read the ruling, or if she just likes to make things up as she goes along, but the judge did not find these claims to be false.  In fact, she found them to be credible.  She just couldn’t do anything about it.

Kornick goes on to call HALT an “extreme group“.  Homeowners, farmers, and property owners protecting their property using entirely legal means is “extreme”?

Kornick then calls the Delaware Riverkeeper’s suit “frivolous”, despite the seriousness of its claims, and does the same for Eastern Environmental Law Center,  New Jersey Conservation Foundation and the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association’s filing to FERC asking for an evidentiary hearing.

These are not the words of a responsible company trying to work with the community. This is an arrogant, out of control company that regularly twists the truth and goes out of its way to antagonize landowners, businesses, and towns that are going to shoulder the full impact of their project with no demonstrated benefit.

The case isn’t over, and I expect there will be more information on this coming soon.

On Friday, June 24th at 9:00am, the second hearing of the trespass case between HALT and PennEast was held in the Somerset County Courthouse. The purpose of this meeting was two-fold:

1. Hear arguments on PennEast’s Motion to Dismiss
2. Hear argument’s on HALT’s request for an injunction against PennEast

First up was discussions on PennEast’s motion to dismiss.  The judge indicated she had limited time that morning and had another case scheduled at 10:00am.  PennEast’s lawyer was up first, and his strategy seemed to be pretty clear: take advantage of the time constraints, and keep talking as long as he could to run out the clock!   I don’t know why they would pursue a strategy like that, but it was quite evident and blatant.  Maybe he thought HALT would have no time to present their argument.  Or maybe he just likes to talk.  In any case, he took over 20 minutes to say very little at all.  The gist seemed to be this:

• The people involved in the trespassing allegations didn’t really mean to trespass.  They were lost, or confused, or very friendly, but they really didn’t mean to do anything wrong.
• They weren’t really PennEast’s agents!  It’s not our fault!  Blame someone else!
• Endless repetition on what “intentional” trespass is, and why it’s important (hint: he got the law utterly wrong here).

On the first and last points, it was clear the lawyer was stretching and didn’t have much to stand on.  Trespass law isn’t all that complex.  If you’re on someone’s land and they don’t want you there, you’re trespassing.  It does’t matter if you’re lost, or confused, and it doesn’t matter what you intend to do.  What matters is what you did.

If I just start walking “North” from where I am right now for 10 miles, and had no idea who’s property I was on or where I was really going, I would still be guilty of trespass on any properties with no trespass signs on them.  Which in West Amwell would be a lot 🙂

The “intentional” part that PennEast is harping on in the statutes is just wrong.  When the statutes talk about intentionally being on a property, what they mean is that you came to the spot you’re at of your own free will and volition.  You didn’t fall down a long hill and end up there.  You weren’t kidnapped and dropped there by your assailants.  You put your body there on purpose.

We don’t know these guys…

PennEast also tried very hard to distance themselves from the actors involved.   On the trespassing on Copper Hill Preserve, PennEast freely admitted that the alleged trespass happens.  But they claim it wasn’t there problem.  The people there were doing bat surveys for a company, that company is responsible for where they went, and that’s that.

The judge didn’t buy this argument at all.  The bat surveyors were there at PennEast’s behest, are paid for by PennEast, and are clearly their agents.

Another case involved what PennEast alleges was actually an “811 call before you dig” worker doing work on behalf of power and gas companies.  According to PennEast, the guy was there marking out properties as part of “call before you dig”, the work order came from the power and gas company, not PennEast, and thus he’s not PennEast’s agent.

This case is a little trickier and the judge hesitated to go either way.  It is not 100% clear that the call before you dig guy is PennEast’s agent.  Maybe they are, maybe they’re not.  It’s a bit complicated because of how 811 works.  However – the judge did ask who made the 811 call to begin with. Which PennEast responded was them.  The judge then asked if they had a right to call 811 on those particular properties, and that’s where things got a little dicey for PennEast.  The judge wanted to know just how 811 works, and the lawyer didn’t know and tried to pull in NJR’s legal counsel to explain it.  The judge didn’t want any testimony and stopped that, and basically told the lawyer “so you don’t know, so you can’t make the argument”.

The 811 worker portion in general is a bit convoluted and it will be interesting to see how that plays out and the judge rules.  It brings me back to an incident on Alexauken Creek Road, where someone called 811 on the entire block along the route – even though survey permission had been denied.  What’s going on here?  Is PennEast calling 811 even for areas they can’t survey?  Are they doing something funny in general with the companies actually doing the 811 work?  I don’t know, and the law here seems to be unclear.

Would you like to buy some cookies?

PennEast also made a big deal about driveways being exempt from no-trespassing signs. The caselaw they cited seemed to talk about having a door knocker or bell being an invitation to knock, and that therefore UPS people, girl scouts, etc had a right to walk up driveways and make inquiries.

The girl scout angle was mentioned many, many times by PennEast’s lawyer.  He had quite an obsession with the idea.  But I think two factors are not taken into account here:

1. In many cases our “driveways” are more like country roads.  My driveway is 300′ long and far from the biggest in the area.  Many farms have exceptionally long roads.  I don’t think this girl scout doctrine applies when you can’t even see the front door from the public road.
2. Patty Cronheim rightfully pointed out after the hearing that these people had refused survey access in writing, and PennEast knew it.  If someone has told you in writing to not come on their property, I don’t think this girl scout doctrine would apply either.  PennEast had been told to keep away, and that should be that.

Yet Another Trespass

Since the 1st hearing, HALT is alleging that another trespassing incident occurred on the property of Sonya Zuccarrelli.  Sonya is a neighbor of mine, and is an ex-DEP employee and knows her stuff.  Sonya has video of the incident, and as a former NJDEP person she knows her land well, especially since there are special features of it that she has to pay attention to.  She shows PennEast trespassing on their land in the end of May.

PennEast denies it, says they were on a utility easement at the time, and they have their own video from the same incident that they claim shows they’re not trespassing.

I helped out with research into Sonya’s deed to look at any potential utility easements, and based on what she describes, on the video, and looking at the utility easements, it sure looks to me like PennEast doesn’t have a leg to stand on.  This wasn’t discussed in too much detail in court, but I think this may be HALT’s strongest trespass incident yet.  And the fact that it  also happened after the case has began will be important.  This is going to be something to watch closely.

Injunction

The other matter before the judge was a possible injunction against PennEast if HALT prevails, and what the “remedy” for that would be.  The remedy is basically what HALT would get if they win.  HALT has been arguing that they are entitled to all of the data PennEast illegally obtained about the property, so we can get it back, and so we can also tell FERC they can’t use any of it.  And this may go beyond just surveying.  PennEast has admitted in multiple venues in writing that they have “notes” on people’s individual properties.  The judge seemed to perk up on hearing that. HALT believes we should have access to those notes since they pertain to our private land.

It’s unclear where this point will go.  Traditionally, trespass suits are solved with damages to the plaintiff.  Someone pays some kind of money or restitution for the act.  In the case, HALT isn’t asking for money.  We’re asking for something closer to a repayment in kind – we want our data back.  The judge indicated that she’s not sure if the law allows this, and wanted citations to try to get her there.  We’ll have to watch this closely.

Sizing up the two sides

I am obviously quite biased here, but I think the two sides are pretty easy to characterize.  Steve Richardson, the attorney for HALT, came across as clear, concise, and forceful in the day’s hearing.  He made an excellent case and ensured he was sticking to facts.  There are a few rough edges to the case and it’s not 100% a slam dunk, so we’ll have to see how it plays out with the judge.  Such is the nature of law.

The choice of PennEast’s lawyer, and his approach, are somewhat perplexing.  Their attorney normally does white collar criminal law and doesn’t cover something like a trespass suit.  It’s not clear why he picked him.  He seems to not really know civil law very well, and seems to be pandering to a jury which isn’t there – this is a judge only hearing.  He goes on long, rambling journeys through anecdotes and theories that seem to have little do with the case at hand.  Like PennEast themselves, he works a lot by making assertions, but not backing them up with any relevant data.  The judge gave him a lot of leeway, but even so at one point she had to sharply tell him to sit down when he was about to go off on a yet another long journey into who knows where.

Next steps

The judge should rule on the motion to dismiss within 1-2 weeks.  It could be in writing or involve a phone conference, but probably won’t be another hearing.  In my inexpert opinion HALT will win this portion easily.  PennEast made a poor case to dismiss.

The injunction is another matter, and we’ll have to see where the judge goes with it.  I think HALT’s case is strong, but it lays with the judge’s interpretation of the papers that are filed, the arguments made, and the law.  I think we’ll particularly have to see how the Zuccarelli trespass incident comes to light.

PennEast has been sending new sets of letters out to homeowners along the route.  You may have heard about these on Facebook or elsewhere (or just might be one of the lucky ones along the proposed route!).  The letters are a plea from landsman par excellence John Barenz.  Mr. Barenz is a sort of super-hero at his job according to PennEast, and he’s here to help us all.

The letters themselves aren’t any different from what we’ve seen before – Mr. Barenz apparently speaks PennEastese fluently.  But people noticed something very odd about the letters right away.

You see, they appear to be hand-written.

On first blush, you might consider this either a cheesy ploy to project fake warmth and personality to threatened landowners.  Or you might think it is actually a nice touch.  Maybe PennEast is trying to be at least a tiny bit human.

But if you compare multiple letters, then something really odd happens.

It turns out, they are  hand written.  But the handwriting on every letter is different.  At least for the three I’ve seen.  In fact, here are two of them:

What may have looked warm and personable at first now is downright creepy.  We have nearly identical letters (there are a few differences in wording), but in vastly different handwriting, both signed “John Barenz”.

And I mean, the handwriting isn’t a little different.  They are are utterly different in every way.

But wait, it gets even weirder!  Take a look at the front of the mailings!

In the first one you’ll see that it’s addressed to a landowner on Riegelsville Road in Milford.  And the return address is – Riegelsville Road in Milford!  Since the writer actually attached a stamp, it means they possibly don’t want the reader to know where the message originated from.

However, the second one does have a valid return address.  It’s to a flex office space in Bethlehem, PA.  It used to be a wholesaler named Rade Technologies that was into sporting goods, but appears to be defunct now.  In any case, both letters are postmarked from the same post office, albeit one was sent on June 1st and the other on June 6th.

It’s been speculated that both of these letters may be computer generated.  I’ve seen the originals and it’s possible, there didn’t seem to be any pressure marks except for a couple of possibilities.  But that’s hardly the point – whether it was two or more people using different sets of fonts, or a more sophisticated type-to-handwriting computer system, or just a pool of interns writing these out at minimum wage, it hardly matters in the end.

What matters is sending out apparently hand-written notes from some sort of super landsman which are guaranteed not to be actually hand written personal letters is just par for the course for PennEast.  It’s a bit weird, a bit creepy, and it’s exactly the sort of whacky thing you’d expect from them.

Let FERC know what you think of PennEast’s on-going “community outreach” efforts like this!

A lot has been going on with the PennEast pipeline and other pipelines in the country, and it boils down to a bunch of good news for us – plus some bad.

Let’s take the good news first.

Delays and Denials

Pipelines and natural gas infrastructure in general are facing increasing headwinds from all sides.  These are pretty well known but worth repeating here:

• The Constitution Pipeline, which was proposed to go through PA and upstate New York, was denied a 401 Water Quality Certificate by the New York DEC in April 2016.  The pipeline company is planning on appealing this decision, but it looks pretty bleak for them at this point.  This is a huge win for those opposed to overbuilding of pipeline infrastructure that we are witnessing.
• Also in April 2016, the NED pipeline was shelved by its owners due to lack of demand and fierce opposition from the public.  This one was proposed to go through New England in Massachusetts and  New Hampshire.  This is particularly notable because New England has had energy issues for awhile now.  This signals that while there may be problems in supply energy to their region, multi billion dollar pipelines aren’t the answer.  There are better ways.
• The Jordan Cove LNG export terminal and associated pipeline were rejected by the FERC in early March 2016.  Yes, FERC rejected a pipeline.  As with NED, it was found that there was insufficient demand for the project.  But this one went even further – they actually had no customers at all, but filed with FERC anyway.  The Jordan Cove people appealed, and FERC has gone into “tolling-order” mode.  Which means FERC is delaying the appeal.  Hopefully indefinitely.
• Multiple pipeline projects in the FERC queue have been officially delayed.  The Atlantic Sunrise proposal from Williams-Transco has been delayed by 10 months by FERC.  And PennEast – yes, our PennEast – was originally hoping for a FERC final decision by August of this year.  Yep, three months from now!  FERC has now completely trashed that timeline, and indicated that a final EIS will not hit until December 2016, and their decision won’t happen until January-March 2017.
• FERC continues to hit PennEast with information requests, many of them repeats of past requests.  These are not small requests, they are asking for massive amounts of information.  The last drop from PennEast in answer to these requests contained gigabytes of information in hundreds or thousands of pages (I’ve been too exhausted to count exactly how many).  Without this information, FERC can’t complete the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is a critical document in the FERC & NEPA processes.

Taken together that’s a lot of headwinds for PennEast and other infrastructure to push against.  Delays are good.

The PSE&G Angle

PSE&G has been weighing in on PennEast in their latest earnings call:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3969728-public-service-enterprises-peg-ceo-ralph-izzo-q1-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

First, like the other companies they’ve indicated that the timeline has been pushed back.  From the call transcript, they’ve said “we are now forecasting late 2018” for an in-service date.  That 7 month delay from FERC is translating into at least a year on a final in-service date thanks to the interlocking set of regulations PennEast has to adhere to if they get to the construction phase.  New Jersey Resources indicated the same, being more specific and saying that the expected in-service was pushed back to “the last quarter of 2018”.

More interestingly, PSE&G was asked about their investment in PennEast, and indicated that not only are they pretty unhappy with it, but they were luke warm with it from the start and aren’t likely to do it again.  Here’s part of the conversation between Michael Weinstein of UBS and PSE&G President & CEO Ralph Izzo on that topic:

Michael Weinstein

Hey, recently we saw ConEd enter agreement to purchase gas storage and pipeline assets in Pennsylvania and New York and we’ve also seen other large utilities making large acquisitions of gas assets and utilities. And given the PennEast interest that you have already what is your view on the current market for gas related acquisitions and what’s your own interest in expanding further?

Ralph Izzo

Yes, I would say that our interest in expanding further is low to zero. In terms of our position in PennEast, high candidly every gas LDC in New Jersey has a position in that and we just thought that it was important to help participate…It’s a really different business, Michael.  But typically the corporate structure is different there, mostly MLPs, they have a fairly different financial proposition and they are not without their challenges nowadays as well…There is a graph of those citing challenges associated with this, we are experiencing that in PennEast. That was a major pipeline. And I am sure you are aware of in New York state obviously had an unpleasant surprise. 

In the full transcript Mr. Izzo also makes some noises about maybe the pipeline business is great, it’s just not their cup of tea.  But the point is that PSE&G is hardly a big champion of PennEast.  Instead, they literally are saying that all the other LDCs were doing it and they didn’t want to feel left out.  And now they are not happy campers.  Wow.

The HALT Suit

Recently Homeowners Against Land Taking: PennEast (HALT PennEast) filed a suit in NJ alleging PennEast had been perpetuating a pattern of trespass against many landowners in the state, and asking for relief from said trespass and return of any ill-gotten survey data.  Some links:

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2016/05/residents_claim_trespassing_by_penneast_in_new_law.html

NJ Environmentalists Slap Pipeline Company With Trespassing Lawsuit

The reporting on this has been somewhat mixed. The above two links were reporting on the filing of the suit.  A subsequent article came out after the first hearing on the matter:
http://www.nj.com/somerset/index.ssf/2016/05/residents_denied_survey_injunction_against_penneas.html

Many people I know have seen this article, and after reading it have stated that HALT has lost the suit already, or was filing a frivolous suit, or that PennEast somehow “won” something.

Let me give you my opinion.  I was at the hearing and I saw something very different from what was reported.

The article claims that “over two dozen” HALT PennEast and NJCF members and supporters were present.  That’s accurate but doesn’t paint the full picture.  The actual number was about 40 people in support of HALT packed the right side of the court room, all of whom were  attentive and respectful of the court environment.

On the PennEast side were PennEast’s lawyers, and three potential witnesses: A manager from Hatch Mott McDermott, Jeff England, the UGI project manager, and a third unidentified woman.  And that’s it.  40 opponents vs about 6 PennEast people, and no third parties in support of PennEast at all.

The witnesses weren’t called but were referred to in the arguments.  I can tell you that Mr. England looked very, very unhappy to be there.  I almost wish he had been called to testify, but he wasn’t.  Instead his affidavit and that of the Hatch Mott McDermot manager were all we had.

Contrary to what the article claims, what actually happened is that this was a routine and required hearing for a temporary injunction, with emphasis on “temporary”.  There was no expectation that HALT would get the temporary injunction, but they did have to go through the motions and sure enough they were denied a temporary injunction as expected.

Here’s why – to achieve a temporary injunction for a case like this there needs to be an immediate danger to the property owner that will cause irreparable harm.  When we say immediate and irreparable think extreme – think about a bulldozer pushing your house over the side of a cliff, and your house is about 3″ from going over the edge, and you’re running to the judge to get them to stop.  If you fail, your house will be smashed into 12 million bits and you’ll have no place to live.  That’s how immediate and irreparable it has to be.

Clearly the alleged surveys don’t meet that standard.  While the surveys are a long term threat to property owners, common sense says a temporary injunction wouldn’t make a difference.  But this doesn’t matter, the subsequent hearings down the road will be the meat of the case.

The article claims that the judge “ruled she found no evidence that PennEast conducted illegally surveys on homeowners’ property”.  This is incorrect, and the judge did not state this.  The point being made here was whether or not the facts were in dispute.  If the facts were not in dispute, than PennEast would simply be guilty.  What the judge said was that PennEast disputed HALT’s claims in their affidavits, and that therefore they’d need a hearing on that.

At the end of the day, what I saw there was PennEast’s lawyer going over the top in his presentation, making some outlandish claims, and along the way disclosing a great deal of information that did nothing to further PennEast’s cause, but did give opposition more ammunition.

Among other things, PennEast’s lawyer confirmed that they still lack survey permission for at least 70% of properties in NJ. So we are holding strong despite everything PennEast is throwing at us.

Also, their lawyer indicated that 30% survey access was just fine, and that they were confident that FERC would accept desktop surveys for everything else.  And went as far as t o say that PennEast felt they were under no pressure at all to get more surveys.

I wonder what FERC will make of that?

Another hearing is scheduled for June, and in that hearing we’ll likely see the evidence discussed at much greater length.  This law suit is just warming up.

— Full Disclosure: I am a member of the Board of Trustees of HALT.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement

In the “bad news” category we have the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that FERC is working on.  The DEIS is a NEPA document that FERC are required by to create by law.  What this document is supposed to do is to show all of the potential damage the the project could cause, and all of the things that are proposed to mitigate those damages, and then indicate whether this is creating an unacceptable amount of damage to the human environment, or not.

This is the “draft” version, so this is FERC’s first cut.  After FERC puts this out, we have 45 days to comment on it.  Here’s how the timeline works:

• Sept 2015: Company files their application
• ??? 2016: FERC publishes their DEIS (could be anytime in the next 0-3 months)
• ??? 2016 + 45 days: End of DEIS comment period
• Dec 2016: FERC publishes their Final EIS (FEIS).
• Jan-Mar 2017: FERC publishes their final order approving or rejecting the schedule

Here’s the bad news part.  We don’t know exactly when the DEIS is going to hit.  Once it does, we only have 45 days to comment.  And the DEIS forms the legal record for objections to the project.

So here’s what everyone has to do: start considering what you want to say in objection to PennEast.  Get your list together.  Start talking to your friends and neighbors and family.  Get ready.  Think about your property, your neighborhood, your job, and all the potential impacts.  Think about the small country roads we travel.  School bus schedules.  Where your well and septic system are.  Tourism impacts, historical districts.  Runoff, endangered species.  Any potential impact needs to get documented, and we need as many people as possible doing it.

And meanwhile…you can’t file them yet.

It’s like the army – hurry up and wait.

But this is really important people.  FERC is required to answer every single objection to the DEIS that is filed on the docket.  And any law suits against PennEast or FERC have to be based on information in those docket comments.  So this is our one shot – these 45 days will be critical.

Keep an eye on social media for upcoming meetings about this, and when the DEIS drops for real be prepared to hit the ground running and getting those comments in.

WACAP Meeting

WACAP will be having a meeting at the West Amwell Muni building  on Wednesday May 25th at 7:30pm.  All are welcome to attend!  We’ll be discussing the DEIS and its importance and timing, HALT, and some other related topics regarding PennEast.

In December 2015, PennEast started sending “easement acquisition offer letters” to impacted landowners along their proposed route. Given the seriousness of the endeavor, and tremendous burden it’s going to place on property owners, you might think that they’d send out a detailed, complex proposal. I got a chance to look at a few of them for properties here in NJ, and I can tell you this is not the case.

Instead, the document is surprisingly short and relatively easy to read. The message is clear: for a very small one time payment, PennEast is asking you to more or less sign your rights away to them and give them carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want on your land.

Some of the details are probably what you’ve heard or suspected. Others might shock even the most jaded among you.

Here’s some notable features of these letters.  Please note that I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. This is simply my opinion of what the PennEast materials are offering, and the issues I see with the wording.  If you’ve been offered a contract by PennEast I urge you in the strongest possible terms to contact a lawyer immediately, and if you cannot contact one of the citizens groups (or me) and we’ll get you in touch with someone who can help you.

1. PennEast reserves the right to enter any part of your property at any time for “survey” purposes.  Not just the ROW – any part at all.  They have to give reasonable notice – but you can’t refuse, or even offer a time more acceptable for you. They simply tell you they’ll be showing up on date X and there’s nothing you can do about it. And I repeat – this is anywhere on your land.  If you’ve got a 200 acre farm, PennEast is reserving the right to survey the whole thing for future projects any time the whim strikes them.
2. No mention of consulting a lawyer.  They include an offer letter that summarizes what PennEast wants and is offering, a contract, and a memorandum. They urge you to read it, call them if you have any questions, and then sign and notarize it and send it back, and PennEast will cut you a check. No where in the letter do they indicate what you’re truly giving away, and no where do they suggest you should consult a lawyer. Just give it a read and then sign away your rights!
3. The letter is contradicted by the contract.  They are offering a purchase price for the easement, and a “damage” price for damage they’re going to cause to your property. In the non-binding, not-a-contract offer letter, they indicate that their offer is a premium based on your land value. In the actual contract they state bluntly that the offer is based on what they think they can get away with, and specifically is not a statement about the value of the land they want to take.  So people who can’t read legal documents and just go by the letter may think they’re getting a deal – when they are not.
4. The values are far below market value for the size of the easement.  Prepare to be massively underwhelmed by the offer.
5. The contract is irrevocable and perpetual e.g. it’s forever.  You’ll pay taxes on the land as long as you own it, but the easement is owned by PennEast for ever (unless they sell it to someone else).
6. They reserve the right to add more pipelines into the easement. Or dig up the PennEast pipeline and make it bigger or smaller. And add or remove any kind of equipment or machinery  they feel is “necessary or convenient”.  There is also mention of other types of pipeline, opening the possibility of more than just natural gas running through your land.
7. Use the ROW anyway they feel like it, whenever they want, without notice.  So long as PennEast says it’s “reasonable” for their business, they can do construction, repairs, inspections, use vehicles, etc etc in the ROW.  Any time they want.  Without notice.  Nothing you can do about it.  So you are more or less losing your total right to the easement ROW.
8. Unlimited land/road/driveway access.  Go across your land, including all roads on your land, when ever they feel they need to if they feel the use of the pipeline is (in PennEast’s sole opinion) interfered with or endangered.
9. Do whatever they want in the ROW.  More than just do all of the pipeline things mentioned in other sections, one section notes that PennEast expressly has the right to do whatever is necessary or convenient to them within the ROW.  Yes, that’s right – if PennEast thinks it’s “convenient” for their purposes, they can do it.  If they want to put a pressure relief valve next to your house?  They an do it. How about a monitoring shack with a 24 hour guard?  Yes they could do that too.
10. There is no guaranteed route on your land.  The contract only stipulates the dimensions of the ROW.  It includes a diagram of the potential route across your land – but that route is only an example and is not binding.  PennEast explicitly says they can change the route on your land for whatever is necessary for “efficient” construction of the pipeline.  If you sign this contract as is, you’re allowing PennEast to put the pipeline anywhere on your land they’d like, and you can’t say boo about it if they put it somewhere you don’t like.
11. You can’t make any changes along the ROW without PennEast’s approval.  Pretty much anything more ambitious than mowing the grass will require PennEast’s approval.  And they can say no, and you are probably stuck if they do.
12. You have to give PennEast additional temporary work space if they want it during construction.  If PennEast thinks they need more space for construction beyond what’s in the contract, you have to give it to them.
13. Yes, there’s a save harmless clause.
14. They can sell the easement to another company or individual.  You have no say in this at all.
15. They don’t have to build the pipeline.  If the pipeline is  defeated – PennEast still owns the ROW and can do what they like with it.
16. Confidentiality clause.  If you sign the contract, you can’t tell anybody any of the terms of the contract.

A letter was sent out signed by all Hunterdon County NJ CAP leaders asking our local representatives for help in the issue of aerial surveys from PennEast. It talks about possible surveying that has occurred in the past and future surveying being planned by PennEast with helicopters. Hunterdon County landowners and residents view this as harassment by PennEast and want to know what can be done to stop it.

The letter is available below:

CAP Letter requesting help in aerial survey issues