The natural gas pipeline project of PennEast has been put on hold once again. From Luzerne County, PA to Mercer County, NJ, the project will cover a total of 118 miles and is pegged at a cost of 1.3 billion dollars. An anticipated service date of June 1, 2018 has been declared by the Delaware-based company.
The project has already met a slew of oppositions from different quarters, including but not limited to many environmental groups, key government agencies, and residents and landowners who will be directly affected by the project. Subsequently, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has decided to postpone review of the project from Dec 16 of this year to Feb 17, 2017. This will be the second major delay faced by PennEast since the proposal was tabled by them.
Route And Environmental Issues
The present route change proposed by PennEast is their 33rd one. And even so, the currently proposed route has triggered a wild number of protests and demonstrations from a variety of agencies and interest groups. Additionally, FERC has claimed that PennEast is using incorrect and outdated maps for the creation of the plan. FERC claims that:
FERC also sent the company a substantial request for 46 sets of new data and demanded 34 corrections to PennEast’s application to build a 118-mile gas pipeline through New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In several cases, FERC notes that PennEast’s maps are outdated, incorrect, and incomplete.
Click here to see the rest of this article.
The agency also claims that not enough research has been conducted into creating the plan for this new natural gas pipeline and the project would potentially cause huge damage to wildlife, wetlands and high-quality streams falling in and alongside the proposed route. This is the reason why so many agencies including the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, US . Fish & Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are rooting against the project.
It is claimed that the project would cause havoc to many protected land that would fall on the route. Some landowners whose estates are earmarked by the company for depositing of heavy construction equipment will affect directly from the negative consequences of the project. For example, owners of a 175 year old house in Wyoming whose estate PennEast plans to use as the staging area has already lodged a formal complaint against the company, citing the irrevocable damage this would cause to the house—which possesses many antiques inside the house and has significant architectural value.
In fact, the residents in the Northeast in general have been vocal right since the beginning about the environmental costs of the project. It has been claimed that many highly appreciated areas of the state would be devastated if the project is cleared and the environmental damages would be disastrous.According to Jeff Tittel, the director of the Sierra Club of New Jersey:
As Tittel said (and echoed by hundreds of comments from local environmental groups), the FERC review has fatal flaws. “Even with making this minimal changes, this project will still will be an environmental nightmare. They know that the FERC DEIS is fatally flawed and they cannot meet the regulatory requirements for water quality permits. That is the only reason they are changing the route so they can make it easier to get permits, not protect landowners,” he said.
Click here to see the rest of this article.
Self-Interest
What is more, there are market abuse concerns over the project as well. A number of utility companies have already signed contracts with PennEast. But the owner of these subsidiary utility companies also happen to belong to six energy companies that form PennEast. So, according to the claims made by the NJ Division of Rate Counsel–these are self-dealing contracts that are truly and utterly unfair to consumers.
Clearly, this project only serves the gas companies affiliated with PennEast, which has been flat-out misleading to the public throughout its review process.
Click here to see the rest of this article.
Option To File Comments
Apropos of the current route proposal (announced by PennEast on September 23rd), FERC has reopened the option to file comments by potentially would-be affected parties. They have been given a window of one month (Nov 4th to Dec 5th) to file their comments and objections. Based on these objections, the PennEast would have a chance to submit a final EIS (environmental impact statement) for the latest proposed route. The postponement referred to earlier in the article regards this EIS from the company. However, FERC has also stated that the request for additional environmental data relates only to the area of the recent route change and not to the overall environmental impact of the project.
However, this has caused displeasure to many who believe that PennEast is not at all addressing the issue of the environment and is just content shifting around the route of the project. They have also been accused of not disclosing the data for comprehensive environmental impact of the project. Accordingly, many claim that this search for an appropriate route for a pipeline that is not needed at the first place is in itself fruitless and redundant. Accordingly, environmental agencies are urging people who oppose the project to voice their opinion.
The public now has another chance to voice its opposition. All concerned citizens – not just affected landowners, as FERC tries to imply – should use this new comment period to continue to point out the issues with the route changes and the lingering fundamental flaws with the DEIS that still haven’t been addressed,” continued Waltman. “Unfortunately, 30 days is not nearly enough time for a substantive review of such a massive project, but the outpouring of comments we have seen is clearly working,” said Waltman.
Click here to see the rest of this article.
If you feel like commenting on PennEast’s new DEIS, visit:
https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx
or
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20161104-3006
Additionally, PennEast would not require to pay a property tax to PA. Which means that the costs of any emergencies and environmental issues that may occur due to the project would have to be borne by the PA taxpayers. The MORNING CALL discuss this in further detail in an article of theirs.
Pennsylvania’s property tax exemption, critics say, will leave municipalities here with a pipeline in their towns and no new revenue to help cover the cost of emergency preparedness or potential environmental issues such as erosion or storm water runoff problems.
“These pipeline companies make millions, they aren’t paying for the difficulties the townships are going to have,” said Democratic Sen. Andrew Dinniman, who co-sponsored the bill with Republican Sen. John Rafferty Jr.
Click here to see the rest of this article.
PennEast will have to pay a corporate income tax, but as it is based out of Delaware, this will significantly reduce its corporate tax exposure.
Conclusion
In all appearance, the project seems to be driven by the interests of the natural gas industry and not the people of the area themselves. Apart from the environmental costs, majority of the homes lying in the area do not have the infrastructure for the use of natural gas for domestic purposes. This means that the residents would require to convert their homes and install expensive equipment that would support natural gas use. The cost of the investment would be huge and the little resultant benefits, both in terms of personal finance as well as environment, just do not add up!