Winifred tells it like it is

Winifred from Holland Township, NJ has a whole lot to say about to the FERC about this pipeline, the scoping process, and a whole lot more. It’s so well-written I’m going to include the entire text here, but I want to highlight one piece in particular because it strikes so close to how myself and many others feel:

“I object to the construction of the Penn East Pipeline for many reasons. The biggest reason is that I love my land and the birds, plants and animals I share it with. Removing the trees and tainting the water that runs through it and below it will damage it forever. It will never be the same.” (emphasis mine).

The complete text of her submission:

My name is Winifred Waldron. I am a landowner in Holland Township New jersey and would be directly impacted by the Penn East Project. My property lies between mile posts 82 and 83 and is within 2 tenths of a mile from mile post 83- and I was denied the opportunity to speak at last evening’s FERC scoping meeting. After the meeting I was told that there were 20 people still on the list waiting to speak including me. Later, I learned that there were about the same number of people denied the opportunity to speak at the Trenton meeting as well- totaling at a minimum 40 people. If we were all given the mere 3 minutes allotted to speak, it would amount to another 120 minutes – essentially the length of a scoping meeting. It goes to show that the number of FERC scoping meetings held in New Jersey were insufficient. There were 3 meetings in Pennsylvania and only 2 in New Jersey. Another meeting should be held in New Jersey, about halfway between the two ends of the pipeline that might traverse the region, so that the people who wanted to talk will be provided that opportunity. Furthermore, the recently announced route changes, there should be additional meetings for these people affected. As a landowner denied the opportunity to speak my piece, I know how those landowners must feel at not having the opportunity to prepare and speak out- on the record.

I was anxious to speak and having the public hear my concerns – on the record. I have been waiting more than 2 months to speak. I wrote and revised my concerns until I was able to put them into a succinct speech that would fit into the 3 minute time slot. I have lost all of that time and energy spent preparing, similar to the land that I could lose if this pipeline is approved. I have been monitoring the FERC submissions since the fall, I see how many come in and how thorough and lengthy some of the submissions are. I know that only a few people see those submissions. Given a chance to speak, I might have been heard by more. My husband and I attended Penn East informational meetings in good faith and expecting that our concerns would be heard and questions answered. It did not happen. Instead the Penn East Representatives would send us from table to table and eventually explain that the person that I needed to speak to was not at that meeting but should be at the next.

My husband and I both took time off from work to attend 3 of those meetings. We never had our concerns addressed. Finally, at the last meeting we attended, I explained to Medha Kochlar from FERC that I felt that my concerns were not being addressed and my questions were not being answered. She kindly introduced me to, Alisa Harris from Penn East. Ms Kochlar also recommended that I submit my concerns to FERC. She cautioned that I would not hear back from them as they gather the information for review, but do not answer questions. She also told me that there would be the scoping meetings sponsored by FERC where I would be able to express my concerns publicly. She pointed at the flow sheet and said that they would most likely be held after the holidays. She was right about being after the holidays, but she misspoke bout having the opportunity to express my concerns.

Well, I submitted my concerns on paper, but now I have more to say. I am a landowner directly impacted by the proposed Penn East pipeline. The 400 foot survey area bisects my property. It starts approximately 30 feet from my house and runs through the middle of my backyard. It could take out my fence on 3 sides, many trees as the fence line and one end of the yard are wooded, some fruit trees, my gardens – I grow my own vegetables, my strawberry patch, my onions, garlic and shallots, my blackberry patch, my raspberries, my coneflowers, the garden for my sunflowers, my fire pit and my barn! It could be within 50 feet of my well. I already have some arsenic in my well water. The level bumped up a bit after the earthquakes. The excavation and construction for the pipeline could easily raise the arsenic level up to the toxic range. Death by arsenic- not my first choice. But then, given the proximity to my house, if there were an accident, such as an explosion, BOOM! I would be incinerated. Hmm… I don’t think I like option two any better. I could lose a lot to this pipeline.
I work from home and one of my favorite things about working from home is watching the wildlife. In the morning a young hawk comes to visit about the same time as I sit down to my desk. It perches in the trees – trees that will be displaced by the pipeline – with its keen eyes scanning the yard. I might make a noise or get up to take a closer look through the window and it will turn and look right at me with those keen eyes that appear to miss nothing.

Later in the day, the older hawks start soaring in the sky above my house. The black birds who normally sit at the tops of the pine trees guarding the yard from intruders will become frantic and start calling out in alarm. A group of them will gather and try to chase the predators away. Unfettered, the hawks just fly higher up into sky.

When I cast my eyes towards the ground, I see Wild Turkeys jogging through the yard or the deer sleeping lazily under the trees. A fawn was born and lived in my flower garden for a summer. Now grown, it is not bothered by our presence in the yard and will keep munching away –helping itself to the plants and fruit we grow here.

I love to sit at my desk and listen to the birds chirping during the day and hear the sound of the stream, babbling down the hill to the Harihokake Creek. When my day has ended, I love to relax on the deck at night and listen to the frogs chirping and watching the bats flitter about diving and catching bugs or looking out into the back yard to see the fireflies light up the woods and sky. I object to the construction of the Penn East Pipeline for many reasons. The biggest reason is that I love my land and the birds, plants and animals I share it with. Removing the trees and tainting the water that runs through it and below it will damage it forever. It will never be the same.

I know that Penn East promises to return my land to the way it was before the pipeline construction took place. I am told that after construction, it will be hard to tell that the line is even exists. There is no way they can keep that promise. It is an empty promise. A lie. I do not trust Penn East. All of my interactions with them have been negative. From the land agent Mr. Gilbert and his threats of eminent domain to the Penn East representatives at the company sponsored meetings who took our information and questions and promised that we would hear from someone from the company who would supply the answers. The last of whom was Ms. Harris who at the request of Ms. Kochlar from FERC took my name, phone number and Email address and promised that I would get a call back in 48 hours. I did not get an Email until February, it was not from her and it was to ask me if I still had questions!? Of course I do, no one took the time to answer them yet! At this point, I am not sure that I would believe what they have to say anyway. Their stories have changed so much. From the size of the pipe, to the width of the corridor and the location of the pipe on my property- which was moved closer to my house and now bisects the land! They made no effort to follow boundaries or edges. Not to mention the lack of documentation of the wetland, category 1 stream and the extent of the slope of the hill to the stream. They have been evasive and dishonest. I do not trust Penn East.

Nor do I trust Tetra Tech. I know it is a member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and represents Marcellus shale to the government. It is also involved in the natural gas and pipeline industry. I question the ability of the consultants to be unbiased. With the recent news of Tetra Tech’s biased decisions and questionable business practices- destroying evidence? I am thinking that this concern is valid. Even without the illegal activities recently brought to light, just its membership to the Marcellus Shale Coalition should prevent them from being environmental consultants for a natural gas line transporting product from the Marcellus shale region. It is a conflict of interest. Although I am not surprised that FERC would allow it – it has a reputation of being pro-pipeline and pro-infrastructure. I am even less surprised after I read that FERC regards landowners as “problems” for pipeline infrastructure in the power point presentation by FERC “A View from the Beltway”. I am NOT sorry to be such a problem. I have told my children and patients that it is important to self-advocate. I, as do many of the other landowners affected, have a multitude of concerns about this pipeline and not only about its effect on Me but on Our World and the futures of Our Children. I will speak out and I will be heard.

Take the “No Action” alternative and do not approve the Penn East Pipeline Project.

Thank You for Listening

Winifred’s submission is available below. Please visit it to see the lovely pictures she’s included:

Winifred’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

Winifred’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

PennEast says: Well, no, this pipeline isn’t really for PA and NJ….

Recently PennEast revamped their “Proposed Route” link to involve multiple pages showing all of the various alternate routes and the reasoning behind each of them. This was done to help minimize confusion over the routes – which makes sense, as there were tons of alternatives and residents and organizations were predictably confused as to exactly where the pipeline’s supposed to go.

So kudos to PennEast on trying to do something right.

However, whoever wrote the copy for the pages probably didn’t pass it by the right PennEast censors public relations people for release. Specifically the page for “Prior Alternative 4” pretty much says the only reason PennEast exists is to get gas out of PA and out to much, much wider markets. PA and NJ are just the states they have to pass through to achieve that goal. The page says:

PennEast considered a loop of Transco’s Leidy Line pipeline system as an alternative to the proposed Project. A loop of Transco’s Leidy Line could access the same production region that the PennEast Project accesses; however, the Transco Leidy Line does not offer the same access to specific delivery point locations provided by the PennEast Project.

PennEast will offer direct delivery to both UGI Utilities in Pennsylvania and Elizabethtown Gas in New Jersey that cannot be made by utilizing the Transco system. PennEast’s proposed route is also uniquely capable of providing an interconnection with Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) at one location, which will provide supply for growing markets served by each transmission system in the capacity constrained northeast and New England. Because the Transco Leidy Line cannot make these direct deliveries to UGI Utilities and Elizabethtown, and Transco does not access Algonquin and Texas Eastern at one location, any Transco system alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need of the PennEast Project. In addition, if Transco were to loop its Leidy Line pipeline system as an alternative to the Project, there would not be an additional new pipeline system to deliver production from this region to the markets to be served by the Project, providing a further reason why this system alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need of the Project. PennEast is also considering requests for interconnections with existing power generation located within a short distance of PennEast’s proposed route that cannot be served from Transco’s ROW.

Let’s look at the key point: “PennEast’s proposed route is also uniquely capable of providing an interconnection with Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (Algonquin) and Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) at one location, which will provide supply for growing markets served by each transmission system in the capacity constrained northeast and New England. Because the Transco Leidy Line cannot make these direct deliveries to UGI Utilities and Elizabethtown, and Transco does not access Algonquin and Texas Eastern at one location, any Transco system alternative does not satisfy the purpose and need of the PennEast Project“.

It’s funny that none of this is mentioned in PennEast’s submission to the FERC in justifying the project. They are required by law to prove why this project is required and in the best interests of the United States (and to allow them to use emminent domain). They said this pipeline was required to serve the commercial and residential consumers in PA and NJ. Well, guess what? They lied. It’s PennEast blatantly comes out and tells us that their pipeline is uniquely setup to get gas into Algonquin and Texas Eastern, and their by make the gas available to the entire eastern seaboard.

Of course, this coincidentally includes the Cove Point LNG export terminal which will be delivering LNG to customers exclusively in Asia and India.

It also (coincidentally, I’m sure) includes the proposed Downeast LNG export terminal in Maine.

You may say “well, wait, UGI and Elizabethtown gas are mentioned too! And they’ll deliver gas to PA and NJ!”. This is true – as far as it goes. But deliveries to those points are going to be relatively small and used mostly to smooth out volatility during peak usage times. They certainly aren’t going to be using a billion cubic feet of natural gas per day! This pipeline is not sized to serve those companies.

No, as PennEast admits, they sized their pipeline to service the entire North East. And Asia. And India. And Europe.

This pipeline is not for us.

For more background into how this is playing out, read this article from Reuters. As the article states, the cover story of energy companies is that they’re here to provide natural gas to cover the winter months where usage spikes and shortages occur.

The reality is that the energy companies are looking at the 9 months of the year where there is no shortage to pump it all to the LNG export facilities and make a killing with it in Europe.

Does FERC follow regulations?

Jeffrey from Bethlehem, PA has been asking a lot of questions about the regulations the FERC is supposed to follow in the pipeline approval process, and if they’re being followed properly.

I am a citizen with no training in interstate natural gas transmission line rules and regulations. My knowledge has come through self-education after PennEast made its announcement to build a pipeline that would go through my town in Pennsylvania. I have done my best to understand the PennEast pipeline proposal and to participate in the process. I have asked many questions to PennEast officials, attended the Open House in my county, attended the Scoping Meeting in the neighboring town, and have read as much as I can from PennEast’s filings, its plans, and about the proliferation of natural gas transmission line proposals in PA. Despite this, I do make errors in trying to understand details and procedures that are unfamiliar to me.

I sent two e-comment yesterdays about third-party contractor for the NEPA review for the PennEast proposal. In reviewing FERC’s _Handbook for Using Third-Party Contracts to Prepare Environmental Documents_ (Rev. Dec. 2014), I did find today that it is possible for applicants in certain circumstances to submit fewer than three contractors (this is stated in Section 1-4). I did not realize this was allowable yesterday in my first e-comment.

My one question on this issue is whether such a justification was presented with the PennEast proposal and if more details could be made available to the public about this issue, in general. I think that _The Handbook_ suggests that fewer than three proposals is not usual because the paragraph where this is mentioned starts with a sentence that begins with the phrase, “In the rare instance…”

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I know that the NEPA report is very important. For me, if it was at all possible, I would want FERC to have had, at least, three third-party proposals to look at for the selection of the contractor.

This is a great question and it dovetails with other questions I’ve seen people asking about the FERC not doing its job properly. This one in particular really gets to the heart of how and why Tetra Tech was chosen to do the Environmental Impact Statement.

This info might be available somewhere on the FERC site, I’ll do some digging to see if I can find it anywhere.

If not, there’s always the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA Website) as a last resort.

Jeffrey’s submission is available below:

Jeffrey’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

Jeffrey’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

Put yourself in someone else’s shoes

Opposition to the PennEast pipeline is not universal. Approximately 1% of the submissions I see on ferc.gov support the pipeline. They are nearly all identical – they pretty much parrot back PennEast’s justification in their filings with FERC and that’s about it. The story is about jobs and cheaper natural gas for people in NJ and PA. John from Hatfield PA writes:

I am a hardworking member ofthe National Electrical Contractors Association, who’s local Penn-Del-Jersey contractors alone employ over 10,000 workers performing over $ 1 billion of work in the area each year. I support the PennEast Pipeline Project and I urge you to join me. The PennEast Project is an approximately 110-mile, 36-inch pipeline that will bring affordable natural gas to customers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. With an investment of nearly $1 billion, this new pipeline is designed to deliver approximately 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day- that is enough gas to serve more than 4.7 million homes.

New pipeline infrastructure is being driven by an increased demand for gas-fred electric generation, as well as from the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. This new infrastructure will aid consumers in seeing lower utility rates and lesser price volatility during times of high demand —such as frigid temperatures —and better reliability as it pertains to gas and electric power generation.
The PennEast Pipeline will not only benefit energy consumers, but will also have a positive effect on local communities. The Project will create local jobs -specifically during its seven months of construction, contribute to state and local tax revenues and increase business for local stores and other retailers.

Lastly, the Project supports America’s push toward energy independence and a cleaner energy future by maximizing locally produced clean-burning natural gas. The PennEast Pipeline will help decrease our energy reliance on other countries while also reducing carbon emissions.
A cleaner and more independent energy future will be possible because of new infrastructure like the PennEast Pipeline Project, I urge you to support the development of this pipeline.

I understand where John’s coming from. Wouldn’t it be great if this pipeline were bringing “affordable natural gas to customers in New Jersey and Pennsylavania?

He says “New pipeline infrastructure is being driven by an increased demand for gas-fired electric generation, as well as from the residential, commercial and industrial sectors”. Hey, that sounds awesome. There’s increased demand so we’d better find a supply to match, right?

He continues: “This new infrastructure will aid consumers in seeing lower utility rates and lesser price volatility during times of high demand —such as frigid temperatures —and better reliability as it pertains to gas and electric power generation.” Well, yeah. Price volatility is bad, so we should do something about it.

He concludes: “Lastly, the Project supports America’s push toward energy independence and a cleaner energy future by maximizing locally produced clean-burning natural gas. The PennEast Pipeline will help decrease our energy reliance on other countries while also reducing carbon emissions”.

Hell yeah. Right?

Wrong. If PennEast’s justifications were in fact truthful, I would agree with John 100%. The problem is, they aren’t. I don’t blame John for this. I blame PennEast, and the FERC. Let’s look at these items one by one.

Bringing affordable natural gas to customers in NJ and PA? Uh, no. Data from EIA.gov shows that this is a bald face lie. PA is a net exporter of natural gas already, and it’s only getting started. It’s going to be a massive net-exporter once pipelines like PennEast and the half-dozen others in the queue are approved. PA doesn’t need this gas.

NJ doesn’t either. The eia.gov data is clear. Demand for natural gas is flat in NJ, and is expected to continue to be so out to 2014 with the exception of electrical generation. You could argue we need more gas for that generation, but we don’t need 1 billion cubic feet a day. In fact this pipeline is not sized for NJ and PA. It’s sized for the world.

He talks about “increased demand” for gas-fired generation, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. As I mentioned above – gas-fired generation demand increases are going to be modest. And the rest are absolutely flat.

He goes on to talk about price volatility. Yeah, I agree that’s bad. However, again it pays to look at the data. In FERC’s submission they show the data – there were 10 days of extreme price volatility in the 5 year period from 2009 to 2014. Two of them – the polar vortex days shortly after Super storm Sandy – were really bad.

But you don’t need a billion cubic feet of gas running through our state per day because of volatility experienced on one half of one percent of the year. It’s absurd. Again – this pipeline is way too big for that justification.

He concludes talking about energy independence and reducing carbon emissions. I’m sorry, but this is my “WTF?” moment. I’m sorry, John, but this gas is not destined for use by you and me. The U.S. already has a glut of natural gas and production is far out pacing use. No. This gas is for exporting to foreign countries, to India and countries in Asia. PennEast knows this. Heck, the FERC not only knows it but it’s created presentations showing the U.S. becoming a net-exporter of Nat Gas to the tune of over 4 trillion cubic feet per year. This is not about energy-indepence, John. It’s about profit for a select few companies.

The “reducing carbon emissions” part? I’m curious where John gets this idea. Yes, natural gas is better than coal. But that’s about it. Compared to just about everything else natural gas is a carbon nightmare. It’s made up predominantly of methane, one of the worst green house gases in existence. Compressor stations vent natural gas naturally as part of their function to the tune of tons of emissions per year.

If you know some union people who are pro-pipelines, don’t yell at them. Don’t get mad. Take them aside and point out the facts to them. Don’t let them be blind sided by a few thousand jobs for a year’s time of construction. Show them the bigger issues – the lies and deceit and blind profit-motive behind PennEast and their cheerleader the FERC.

John’s submission is available below:

John’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

John’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

The EPA says they’re not going to rubber-stamp this pipeline

The EPA submitted comments recently about the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required by this pipeline. It says in part:

On December 18, 2014 CEQ released revised draft guidance describing how Federal agencies should consider the effects ofgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in NEPA reviews. In light ofthat guidance, agencies should consider both the potential effects ofa proposed action on climate change as indicated by its GHG emission; and the implications of climate change for the environmental effects of a proposed action. The Draft EIS should analyze GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation ofthe project, and from the production, transport and combustion ofthe natural gas. Provided is a link to the revised draft guidance:

http: //www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance

According to the PennEast Pipeline website, portions of the project may be co-located in the same easement as existing utilities. Co-location may reduce losses ofnatural resources and is encouraged. The Draft EISshould describe the sections and acreages ofthe project that will be co-located, how the pipeline project will be integrated, and how construction and operation ofthe project will affect existing utilities.

Land requirements and environmental information for proposed pipeyards, wareyards and any secondary features of the project should be included in the Draft EIS to ensure the public has a complete picture of the environmental impacts of the project. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. EPA recommends a thorough consideration of secondary and cumulative impact in the EIS. Additional suggestions and more detailed comments related to scoping ofthe study are enclosed with this letter.

The letter is in bureacratese, but it saying in no uncertain terms that The EPA knows what’s going on and they’re not going to let these pipelines get rubber-stamped by the FERC without a fight. The reference to the revised guidance to NEPA on green houses gases is pointed and a reminder to FERC that they are not above the law of the land.

It’s even more pointed where the EPA mentions cumulative impacts. I believe when they mention this – “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. EPA recommends athorough consideration ofsecondary and cumulative impact in the EI” – they aren’t just talking about PennEast. It’s a shot across FERCs bow that their plan of criss crossing the country with a network of pipelines and sneaking it past the EPA and other conservation organizations by studying them individually in isolation has failed.

The EPA continues in the technical section:

The NEPA document should include a clear and robust justification ofthe underlying purpose and need for the proposed project. In order for the project to move forward, FERC would need to issue a certificate of “public convenience and necessity”. We recommend discussing the proposal in the context of the broader energy market, describing the factors involved in determining whether there is or is not a truly “public” convenience and necessity for this facility.

If you decode that, it’s basically saying: “PennEast’s justification is a load of crap, and we both know it”. And there’s more!

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals as well as the designation ofcritical habitat for listed species. The ESA prohibits the taking of any listed species without (for federal agencies) an “Incidental Take Statement.” The EIS should provide a description of terrestrial, wildlife and aquatic species in the study area. Any threatened or endangered species must be listed. Critical habitat for threatened or endangered species should be property identified. The EIS should describe the potential project impacts to these species. The most recent state and federal threatened and endangered species coordination letters should be included in the EIS. In addition, we recommend that the appropriate state and federal agencies be contacted annually at a minimum regarding these issues.

The EPA is telling the FERC that they better listen to environmental agencies and include their data in the EIS. Having the FERC send a surveyor out for a couple of days isn’t going to cut it.

We move on to farm lands:

Farmland
In New Jersey, the proposed route for the PennEast pipeline appears to cross many farms preserved under the State of New Jersey Department of Agriculture Department preservation program. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement should discuss this program, how the pipeline construction and operation will impact the preserved farms in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and any necessary mitigation.

They have to detail in their EIS how they’re threatening preserved farms. They have to say how they’re mitigating impact. Which I’m not sure how they can – how do you mitigate loss of usable farm land? It’s not like we can manufacture some more to compensate.

The EPA also knows that pipeline accidents can and do happen. And PennEast has to include that in their EIS as well.

Hazardous sites/Spill concern

The pipeline has the potential to cross several areas that may have RCRA corrective action sites CERCLIS sites or on-going leaking underground storage tank cleanups. The Draft EIS should describe any potential hazardous waste cleanup sites in the vicinity ofthe project and how the project would affect active remediation sites.

A pipeline failure during the construction or operation can cause potential toxic environmental damage to water quality, various habitats, communities, flora, and fauna. EPA recommends that the draft EIS address the potential for such a failure, appropriate state- identified and FERC-identified Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for spill prevention. The Draft EIS should describe the capabilities of emergency operators along with necessary emergency plan and mitigation of spills in emergencies for all sections of the pipeline and all construction and use phases ofthe pipeline’s life.

Note that the EPA explicitly mentions the “capabilities of emergency operators along with necessary emergency plan and mitigation of spills in emergencies for all sections”. From my point of view, how are volunteer fire departments along the route that are already stretched thin for resources going to deal with a pipeline accident?

Traffic impacts are also mentioned – I’m glad to see that, not many people have talked about how construction is going to impact roads. Especially in rural communities when there aren’t a lot of options to get from Point A and Point B.

Tragic and Transportation: The EIS should address traffic and transportation as it
relates to the Proposed Action, especially during construction. It may be necessary to provide an evaluation of existing roads specifying existing levels of service at major intersections near the project area as well as accident data.

And then the EPA pulls out it’s heavy guns – and points them at FERC’s head:

Secondarv and Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality in 40 CFR 1508.7 implementing NEPA defines cumulative impacts as “impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” The cumulative impacts analysis should consider the environmental impacts of the project as a whole and as one of a number of the other proposed and/or approved actions in the area that would have the potential to impact the same resources, including natural and community resources such as wetlands, air quality and EJ communities. This should include information on proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects in the study area ofLuzerne, Carbon, Northampton and Bucks Counties in Pennsylvania, and Hunterdon and Mercer Counties in New Jersey, documenting location, distance from the proposed project and description ofpotential cumulative impacts. These should include, but not be limited to: FERC jurisdictional projects, intrastate pipelines and compression, gathering pipelines, gas processing facilities, gas wells, and projects such as industrial or commercial facilities and other developments regardless ofwhether these actions are energy related or not, or whether or not FERC has jurisdiction over them.

We recommend focusing on resources or communities of concern, or resources “at risk”
which could be cumulatively impacted by all of the above actions. Please refer to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act”, and EPA’s “Consideration ofCumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents” for further assistance in identifying appropriate spatial and temporal
boundaries for this analysis.

The EPA comes out and shoves the reality right back at the FERC: the EPA knows there are many pipelines and other energy projects being planned. Everybody knows it. So the EPA is demanding those projects be considered as part of the EIS and show their cumulative impact.

I have no idea if this will make a difference but if FERC does not follow the EPA’s recommendations it is, at the very least, an excellent basis for a law suit.

The FERC thinks that since they have sole approval authority they can ignore every other law in their quest for approving energy projects as fast as possible. This is in fact wrong. Laws often conflict with each other, and when that happens it’s the courts that decide.

Let’s hope if the FERC does continue to ignore other agencies that either our law makers fix the situation by taking sole approval authority away from the FERC. Or that towns and organizations impacted by their decisions successfully take them to court and prove their numerous violations of federal laws and Presidential directives.

The EPA’s complete submission is available below:

US EPA’s submission – FERC Generated PDF

US EPA’s submission – FERC Generated PDF Alternate Site

The FERC is not here for the people, it’s here for the gas companies

A couple of contributors to the Stop Penneast pipeline Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/stopthepenneastpipeline) pointed out a presentation given by the FERC Office of Energy Projects last fall at the Maine Natural Gas Conference.

This presentation (available here) shows that FERC is indeed a cheerleader of the natural gas industry, and the purpose of this presentation seemed to be to help companies maximally exploit natural gas reserves all over the country.

There are a few smoking guns in this presentation.

Smoking Gun Number 1 – FERC knows that demand for natural gas in the US is very low. And will remain so for the foreseeable future.

This graphs shows projected consumption by type of consumer out to 2040:

  • Residential use of nat gas – flat.
  • Commercial use – flat.
  • Industrial use – flat.
  • Lease and plant fuel – flat.
  • Transportion – very moderate growth.
  • Electric power – moderate growth.
  • Exporting gas to foreign countries – massive growth.

Basically FERC is acknowledging that there is only one growth opportunity in the US for natural gas – electrical power generation.  This will grow modestly as power plants convert from coal to natural gas.  But this is only a modest gain, and cannot account for the billions of cubic feet coming out of regions like Marcellus every day.

FERC knows the only place for the majority of this excess gas to go is to exports.  This will be massively profitable as natural gas is extremely expensive in places like Asia.

If you live in NJ and PA – this gas will not materially benefit you.  FERC knows this. And I have bad news for all the people cheering the pipeline companies because you think your gas prices are going to plummet: they’re not. In fact, research and common sense says that your gas prices are likely going to climb modestly.

This is basic economics. Consumption is flagging in the U.S. Demand is surging in natural-gas poor areas like India and Asia. Natural gas is very expensive there. So the natural gas companies will maximize their profits by getting as much gas to expensive areas as possible.

A side effect of this is that your residential rates will go up slightly, because no one will want to ship gas to cheap residential customers when the LNG export stations are begging for suppliers.
Smoking gun number 2 – FERC knows there are a ton of pipelines in pre-filing stage

They know it and they trumpet it loudly. They purposefully evaluate them in isolation but they know these pipelines are all connected and are part of a master plan of the FERC and energy industry to maximize profits, but if they evaluated them together the ecological impact would be obvious and overwhelming.  Only by evaluating them individually can they hope to slip this past residents and state DEP officials.

Smoking gun number 3 – FERC knows about all the proposed pipelines

Look at that slide – it’s absolutely outrageous. Pipelines are criss crossing the country in this picture, and FERC is extremely satisfied with this result. Firms like Spectra Energy, a Penn East partner, crows about running pipelines all over the country to get gas “where the lights are”. What they mean is “where they can make the most money” – over seas.

Smoking gun number 4 – FERC knows and champions the proposed LNG export facilities

FERC knows there’s nowhere for all this gas to go in the U.S. They know the purpose of all this pipelines is to get the gas to facilities to turn the product into liquid natural gas (LNG) and ship it overseas. LNG is 600 times denser than nat gas in its natural state, so it’s highly efficient to ship it by LNG cargo ships this way. The ones in this slide are on top of the 4 LNG export stations already approved by the FERC.

And there’s another slide showing 13 more!

Those are bad enough. But the real smoking gun is yet to come. FERC says you – the residents, the home owners, the environmentally conscious, the teachers, the emergency responders, the individuals worried their drinking water will be contaminated forever, the non-profit organizations dedicated preserving our land and our heritage – YOU ARE IN THEIR WAY

If you are worried about this pipeline, FERC sees you as the enemy. You are a negative issue they must work around. You are an impediment to them helping gas companies reap billions of dollars from Marcellus shale. You an annoyance that irritates them and they really wish you would just go away so they get on with their jobs.

The final insult – there is not a word in this document about the ecology, conservation, or safety.

It is abundantly clear that FERC is a cheerleading organization who sees its mandate to facilitate big energy companies in any way they can. This isn’t about infrastructure for America. This is about money and profits for large industries.

Things you can do

There are things we can do collectively to help stop this pipeline and the many others like it.

Talk to your government representatives.

I think it’s clear that the laws have to change. The FERC should not be the sole agency in charge of approving pipeline and LNG projects. They are clearly not willing or capable to do the environmental surveys that they are required to. Write your Congressmen and Senators and demand that other agencies such as the EPA have the right to shut pipeline approvals down if they do not meet their standards. Demand that the Clean Water Act be upheld. Hold the government and the pipeline companies accountable.

Demand funding for government oversight.

Demand a tax on pipeline companies to fund more government regulation in the approval phases and oversight phases. Make them pay for the cost of these pipelines in full so we can ensure they are safe and ecologically sound. This will not bankrupt them. The whole FERC budget is a mere $175 million. This is a trillion dollar industry we’re talking about – a mere 1% tax would barely dent their budgets but would fund oversight quite easily.

Sue them.

If the FERC approves this pipeline, urge your town, county, and state to sue the FERC for violating their mandates. It’s been done before and people have won.

Force eminent domain.

Don’t give into the FERC and PennEast. Fight for your rights. Deny them access to your property, do not let them buy an easement. Force them to sue you. If enough people force PennEast to court it is likely they will just walk away, or at the very least choose a more sensible route that does not impact so many farmsteads, preserved areas, and ecologically delicate locations.

Write your state’s DEP.

Talk to your DEP representatives. They are our last line of defense. Even if FERC approves this pipeline Penn East must get approval from them before they can begin construction. Urge the DEP to hold PennEast to the letter of the law and protect our category 1 streams, our watersheds, our grand rivers like the Delaware.

Keep up the pressure.

Keep submitting to the FERC. Keep demanding to be heard. Keep up the protests. The FERC has noticed – and it’s worried. It’s worried congress will act and strip them of their regulatory approval capabilities. And they are right to be worried.  Help make their fears a reality.