Author: Mike Spille

I'm a thinker, an analyzer, a synthesizer. Maybe not in that order. I live in West Amwell NJ with my wife Kristina, our two kids Day and Z, our two dogs Fern and Cinna, and three cats Ponce de Leon, Oliver, and Doolittle.

Landowner training sessions

From the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Berks Gas truth. If you’re a landowner impacted by the PennEast pipeline, sign up for this training. It’s very easy and low-hassle, strictly a phone in training session being run by a lawyer volunteering her time to tell you your legal rights in regards to PennEast. Go here to register!

http://bit.ly/LandownerTraining

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Landowners Have Rights Despite What PennEast Would Have You Believe

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Berks Gas Truth are hosting two sessions of a special training focused on landowner issues. The first will be on Monday, April 27th at 6:30 and the second will be on Thursday, April 30th at 7:00.

Anne Marie Garti, a founder of “Stop the Pipeline” and a volunteer lawyer representing “Stop the Pipeline” through the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, will lead the training.

We’re asking that you register for the training. On the form, you’ll be able to select which session you plan to attend. The same material will be covered in both. We’ll send call-in information to all who register.

Register here! bit.ly/LandownerTraining

If you have any questions, let us know! Anyone with questions can contact Maya van Rossum at 215 369 1188 ext 102 or keepermaya@delawareriverkeeper.org or Karen Feridun at 610-678-7726 or karen.feridun@gmail.com.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Shadfest

The Shadfest is on today and tomorrow from 12:30pm to 5pm in Lambertville, NJ. Come on down, Delaware Township Citizens Against the Pipeline are running a table in front of Zinc on Bridge Street near Main. They have lots of material from a variety of sources to educate people about the pipeline and what they can do to fight back. I’ve donated business cards to the cause, come on down before they’re all gone!

Come for the shad, stay for valuable information to help you protect your home and community!

eia.gov continues to be a thorn in the side of PennEast

The U.S. Energy Information Administration is a government agency who’s charter is to act as an organization that “collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment”. Unlike the FERC they really are fairly neutral parties and they seem to the “independent and impartial” aspects of their functions seriously.

A lot of my research has centered around eia.gov because they give so much raw data – and then they couple it with hundreds of different ways to correlate it, visualize it, and analyze it. Since day one they’ve been a thorn in the side of PennEast because eia.gov data regularly repudiates a number of PennEast’s key justification claims.

One of their handy tools to help make sense of all the information out there is their “Natural Gas Weekly Update“. It’s kind of like a newsletter that snapshots what happened in the week prior in the natural gas markets. They give pricing, capacity, supply, and demand numbers for the week but also provide some light analysis to explain larger forces driving the market and what might be coming up in future weeks or months.

Their most recent on is here:

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archive/2015/04_23/index.cfm

There are a number of useful nuggets of information in here that taken together land a heavy blow against PennEast’s so-called justification for their pipeline, including:

  • The levels of natural gas going to electrical power generation is more dependent on pricing and the weather than any other factor.  The record for consumption by electrical plants was hit in 2012 when we had fewer natural gas fired plants than we do today.
  • Retirement of coal-fired plants is a red-herring.  EIA notes “It’s important to note that retiring coal-fired capacity does not necessarily result in a significant change in generation; many of the retiring plants are old and not used much.”.

The two above points taken together mean that you shouldn’t put too much credence on people pointing to the retirement of coal-fired plants as a big driver of natural gas consumption.  Yes there will be some uptake but it is fairly moderate in size.  When PennEast talks about natural gas replacing coal or speaks of supplying the Gilbert electrical plant in Holland Township they are not talking about substantial amounts.  Mostly they’re talking about backup generation facilities (e.g. what Gilbert is) that go mostly unused.  Which reinforces the question again – when all of these assets are sitting around not using the gas, where’s it going to go?

There is further data on the overall system’s capacity and the production numbers:

  • There’s already an enormous amount of elasticity in the system.  The generation numbers show that we can already accomodate up to 5 billion cubic feet of day of changes in consumption without significantly impacting the system as a whole.
  • Gross production is up 8% year over year, while LNG imports into the country are down 64%.

In other words we are drowning in natural gas and seem to have adequate pipes to move it around.  This is further underlined by the next piece of data:

  • Price volatility compared to a year prior is down 1100%.  Last year during the polar vortex prices spiked on a couple of days to around $110.  This year prices spiked to….$8.00.

And there you have the gun pointing at PennEast’s head.  Their whole house of cards is really based on that $110 number from a year ago.  It’s what they use to scare the crap out of people and indicate that they are our saviors.

In reality the problems that lead to that $110 have been fixed.  As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, we’ve had new pipelines come on line in 2014 which helped with capacity issues.  And FERC has mandated coordination between major consumers and producers to make the existing infrastructure far more efficient.  The net result: $8 vs. $110.

While most of us hate Mondays, I imagine PennEast dreads Thursdays.  Thursday, the day of the eia.gov Natural Gas Weekly Update that puts yet another nail in PennEast’s coffin.

PA starts to hit their stride

The state of Pennsylvania has a long and difficult history with energy projects. They’ve endured disastrous coal mining incidents such as the infamous Knox Mine Disaster in 1959, where the Susquehanna River broke through and inundated a network of mines, killing a dozen workers. The Centralia mine fire that started in 1962 involves 3,700 acres of land, where coal seams up to 300 feet down keep burning. Today, 53 years later that coal is still burning, and could burn for centuries to come.

And today fracking operations dot their landscape and poison their wells. Pipelines stretch out in all directions to spread the pain away from the immediate fracking wells to engulf people all over the state. Sometimes when I talk to Pennsylvanians on this subject I get a strong vibe akin to talking to a terminal patient in the hospital, there’s a sense of someone who has fought a series of long hard battles and who knows the end isn’t going to go well.

But I see new hope blooming in Pennsylvania, springing up in our midst right alongside the Spring daffodils. In an unprecedented some townships in the state have enacted formal resolutions against the pipeline. The Cooks Creek Watershed Association worked in concert with Concerned Citizens of Durham Townsphip against the Pipeline, Concerned Citizens Against the PennEast Pipeline of Williams Township, and stoppenneast.org to get a billboard against the pipeline installed on route 12.

Most recently, William G. Dohe, the Chairman of the Environmental Advisory Council of Easton, Pennsylvania, has filed a comment with the FERC declaring their organization is formally opposed to the pipeline. Mr. Dohe writes:

After careful review of information available to date, the Environmental Advisory Council of Easton, Pennsylvania wishes to record our opposition to the proposed PennEast Pipeline. We are concerned that the proposed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be incomplete and not adequately weigh the direct economic benefit of PennEast Pipeline Company LLC to the risks and costs to the communities that will be forced to play its host.

The council then enumerates a list of specific areas of concern they want the FERC to force PennEast to address:

  • Carbon absorption.  “What is the total amount of carbon absorption lost due to the cutting of trees in the pipeline’s path? What is the net increase in GHGs attributable to this loss of vegetation?”.
  • Blast zone.  “What is the radius of likely property damage and loss of life, should the pipeline explode? This should be based on the total amount of gas under pressure proposed for the pipeline. A map should be prepared indicating what properties adjoining or in proximity to the pipeline will be subject to increased risk of property damage and bodily harm”.
  • Local usage.  “What percentage of the proposed pipeline gas will be delivered to the host communities versus the total amount of gas transported? How much gas will be delivered domestically versus shipped to overseas markets?“
  • Global warming.  “How much does the gas transported by the pipeline contribute to GHGs (in metric tonnes per annum) and global warming?”
  • Leaks and other emissions.  “How much gas (and what kinds thereof) will be emitted (leaked or
    vented) from the pipeline, or its facilities along the route?“
  • Construction runoff.  “During construction, what types of construction-related run-off is expected – including solids, silts, and chemicals – and what streams/rivers and aquifers will be affected?“
  • Sinkholes.  “What impacts will the pipeline have on our karst soils, and specifically, what will be the increase in potential sinkholes from its construction?”
  • Historic site impact.  ” What historic resources will be affected by the pipeline? A map indicating all colonial era as well as pre-colonial era resources (such as tribal lands and burial areas) should be included.”
  • Audits.  “An independent audit of PennEast Pipeline Company’s “Economic Benefits Study” by Drexel should be conducted and actual long-term economic impacts be considered.”
  • Clean Air and Water Act regulations.  “A list of all Clean Air and Clean Water Act regulations from which the gas industry supplying the pipeline, as well as from which the pipeline itself are exempt, should also be provided so that the public can fully understand their short- and long-term- risks“

Let’s hope that the FERC takes heed of this and similar submissions and forces PennEast to submit detailed studies and analysis of all of these topics.  On the issue of economic benefits in particular I would go even further than Mr. Dohe’s request for an audit of PennEast’s Drexel University study.  I would demand that an independent study be conducted, paid for by PennEast but selected by a neutral third party, which considers the true economic impact to our communities including all of the negative impacts the construction will entail in our region, including but not limited to loss of business due to construction near businesses, loss of tourism dollars in affected tourist destinations, funds spent by local, county, and state governments to study and respond to PennEast and FERC’s scoping process which could have been spent on more constructive projects, economic impact of traffic issues during construction, and permanent economic losses incurred by properties and landowners along the permanently cleared 50′ right of way.

The EAC’s submission is available below:

EAC FERC Submission
EAC FERC Submission Alternate Site

 

 

PennEast gives us some numbers – and they’re not good

PennEast has been doing a number of filings recently to the FERC eLibrary site. Lots of detail that people have complained is missing is finally out there.

Unfortunately, little of it seems to contain good news. Here’s one example here:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13847929

The document is too big to analyze in a single post, but it has some depressing numbers we can highlight for a start.

Table 8.3-1 shows “Existing residences and buildings within 50 feet of the Construction Workplace”. It goes onto list 160 buildings that are within 50 feet of the construction area.

160 BUILDINGS!

Many of these are residences. 70 houses are listed, which makes up 43% of the list. My house and many others aren’t listed because we’re “only” 200′ or so from the construction zone. Try to to imagine how much bigger that 200′ proximity list would be….

Some are businesses. “Casinos stables”, “Auto dealership”, The “All About Fun” part equipment store. I somehow imagine that All About Fun won’t be as fun with heavy earth movers trundling around 50′ from them.

Not surprisingly the lost of income to these businesses was not included in the Drexel University study PennEast commissioned that showed so much money flowing into the region thanks to them.

Table 8.4-1 lists federal, state, county, municipal, and private conservation lands crossed by the pipeline. There are 44 of them.

Table 8.4-2 shows private conservation easements violated by the pipeline. 61 lands that were believed to have been permanently preserved forever will have a 100 foot to 125 foot wide swath cut through them, and an 8′ deep ditch dug into them, and a 3′ wide high pressure pipeline welded and placed there.

Table 8.2-6 lists the “additional temporary work space” areas required by the project. These are on top of the existing pipeline right of way and 100′ to 125′ construction easement.

There are 49 pages of temporary work spaces listed. Not 49 sites – 49 pages of sites. Call it roughly 585 individual temporary sites.

Table 3.5-1 lists species along the route that one or more organizations have indicated require special treatment, are of concern, or which are outright endangered. There are 52 individual species listed.

Delaware Township takes PennEast to task

Delaware Township NJ filed a pair of FERC filings this week reprimanding PennEast for their ridiculously sub-par job in responding to scoping comments. They specifically held their toes over the fire for a number of scoping comments PennEast either ignored, completely misunderstood, or mangled behind comprehension. In one letter the Township committee laments:

Delaware Township reviewed PennEast’s March 13, 2015 submission and found that the majority ofresponses by PenneEast were boilerplate/canned responses. In additions, several of the issues raised by Delaware Township were not even addressed by PennEast. Delaware Township spent considerable time and resources preparing these scoping comments so having PennEast ignore and not acknowledge Delaware Township’s concerns is extremely disingenuous and disheartening.

They then enumerated comments that were not addressed, including:

  • Cultural and historic items.  “PennEast failed to address/acknowledge that comments had been submitted regarding the presence ofhistoric structures or sites.”
  • Conserved land.  “[We] made detailed senarate submissions on February 24, 2015 regarding the lands in the township that were conserved with public finds. Yet, PennEast failed to document that Delaware Township had made any comments.”
  • Abandoned Mines.  “PennEast apparently did not read the Delaware Township’s Quarry Compliance’s submission dated February 23, 2015. In this submission, the Delaware Township Quarry Compliance Committee provided information about an active quarry located in close proximity to both proposed routes of the pipeline. “Active” means that the operations, which include blasting of the diabase rock, are ongoing and not “historic” or “abandoned”. The Delaware Township Quany Compliance Committee had requested that PennEast be required to conduct an engineering/safety study on the effect on the blasting at this active quarry would have on the proposed pipelines. PennEast’s response failed to acknowledge this active quarry nor did PennEast propose to conduct an engineering/safety study on the effects of the blasting on the proposed pipeline.”
  • Eminent Domain.  PennEast failed to address/acknowledge that comments had been submitted by Delaware Township regarding eminent domain.
  • No Appendix A!  “And finally, on March 26, 2015 PennEast made a submission to FERC responding to scoping comments that were submitted between March 7, 2015 and March 20, 2015, including those raised at the five scoping meetings. In this submission, PennEast indicated that their responses are in Appendix A. However, there is no Appendix A that was posted on the FERC website. How can interested stakeholders review PennEeast’s submission when FERC has not posted the submission in its entirety?'”

In the second letter Delaware Township blasts PennEast for not only ignoring the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District but regularly getting its name wrong when it mentions it in passing. They begin:

 

On December 9, 2014 the Delaware Township Committee sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding the township’s specific concerns about the proposed project’s intention to carve a footprint though the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District (ID¹4591).PennEast Pipeline LLC was copied on this letter.

In the December 9, 2014 letter, the township detailed how the Rosemont Rural Aericultural District (ID¹4591) was listed on both the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and entered into the National Park’s Service’s National Register of Historic Places.

The Delaware Township Committee sent additional detailed comments to FERC regarding the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District (ID¹4591)in a February 24, 2015 submission. Again, PennEast Pipeline LLC was copied on this submission.

Then the double barreled shotgun comes out:

But despite being provided with this information, PennEast continues to refer to this4
historic district as the “Rosemont Ridge Agricultural Development District” as referenced in PennEast’s March 13,2015 submission.

In addition, PennEast indicated in their February 9, 2015 and the March 6, 2015 Monthly Progress Reports that “Other concerns are being addressed through route alternatives or ongoing studies. For example the New Preferred Alternative route avoids areas of concern raised by the Historic District of Mt. Airy…..” And the Preferred Alternate route now avoids the Mt. Airy Historic District.

Delaware Township has raised concerns about the proposed pipeline carving a footprint through the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District (ID¹4591)yet it appears these concerns were/have not addressed by PennEast. Not only does the 10/7/14 original route carve a footprint through the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District (ID¹4591) but the 1/16/15 Preferred Alternate route continues to cut a footprint through the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District (ID¹4591).

Has PennEast not been reading the letters submitted by the Delaware Township Committee? Why has PennEast not addressed our concerns?

Delaware Township rightly points out that PennEast is messing up this process on multiple levels. They can’t even get simple things like official names and designations correct. Even worse, their responses are piecemeal. PennEast trumpets them “saving” the Mt. Airy Historic District in West Amwell, but at the same time they completely ignore the Rosemont Agricultural District in next door Delaware Township. It is infuriating to everyone involved that a company that commits so many gross errors is potentially being entrusted by the federal government to safely build a 3′ wide 100+ mile long high pressure natural gas pipeline through our communities.

The township closes by saying:

The Delaware Township Committee considers any siting of a pipeline through the Rosemont Rural Agricultural District (ID¹4591)to be an unacceptable and permanently intrusive, discordant, and disruptive influence on an area that has been recognized by state and federal historic authorities as an unique setting that serves as a window into our nations’ rural agricultural past.

The Delaware Township submissions are available below:

Delaware Township Submission 1
Delaware Township Submission 1 Alternate Site

Delaware Township Submission 2
Delaware Township Submission 2 Alternate Site