PennEast Pipeline Update

Lower Creek Road, Stockton

27 September 2015

On Thursday, September 24, PennEast formally filed their application to FERC.  What comes next is an Environmental Impact Statement.  Done correctly, these documents can run over a thousand pages and take several years to put together.  It is clear from PennEast's comments that they plan to do a quick and dirty version with a release date of mid-2016. The worse they do, the harder we fight.

While the application was still in its final days of the pre-filing process, people bombarded FERC with their last comments.  I'd been reading most of them, and after last Saturday's ride through the proposed pipeline route, I finally found the words I needed.

As an officer for the NJ Chapter of the Sierra Club, I wrote on the Club's behalf:

*****

                                                                                   

20 September 2015

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street NE, Room IA

Washington, DC 20426

Ms Bose:

As the pre-filing comment period for the proposed PennEast natural gas pipeline comes to a close, the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter appreciates the opportunity to set some matters straight about the role of New Jersey’s residents in the battle against an ill-conceived and unnecessary pipeline.

First, it appears that PennEast has confused opposition with obstruction.  Every New Jersey municipality along the ever-wobbling proposed right-of-way has passed a resolution against the pipeline.  These municipalities are well within their rights to do so. They are also well within their rights to ban PennEast from their properties, as more than one governing body has done.  Residents along and around the proposed route are also entitled to ban surveyors from their land. If PennEast was unaware of this inconvenient fact, it is not the fault of any landowner in New Jersey.  That PennEast is unable to obtain sufficient survey information to satisfy NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) permit application requirements is not NJDEP’s problem, and no strong-arming from FERC can change this fact.  It is FERC’s job to regulate, not facilitate, a pipeline application.

Second, PennEast has yet to demonstrate a need beyond profit for a natural gas pipeline that would not serve the area through which it passes, ties in to LNG export terminals, and is clearly the result of a gold-rush-like need to frack Marcellus Shale natural gas while the fracking is good.  PennEast is not entitled to Marcellus Shale natural gas simply because it is there.  This lack of need will follow through the entire Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, and will be subject to far more scrutiny than it is now.  Furthermore, any attempts to re-route the pipeline will not change the fact that the pipeline is not needed.

Third, PennEast must be held responsible for its apparent disrespect of residents’ concerns. From unopened certified letters to apparent acts of trespassing, vandalism, and unpermitted digging, PennEast has treated those in its way as irrelevant.  Responses to Resource Report comments, both by residents and governing bodies, have been vague and dismissive.  If and when PennEast submits an EIS, unanswered questions will no longer be tolerated.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that every question be answered; evasion will result in required supplemental submissions.

Fourth, FERC must address the apparent segmentation of the PennEast project: the proposed Marc II pipeline is planned to tie into and come online in conjunction with the PennEast pipeline.  This is a clear violation of NEPA.

Finally, and most importantly, FERC and PennEast must understand this:  There is nothing more powerful than a group of educated citizens who are not willing to back down.  This is the food we eat.  This is the water we drink.  This is the land we worked and paid to preserve. This is a battle we will see to the end.  PennEast would be wise to cease its plans for this ill-conceived and unnecessary pipeline now.

Laura Lynch

Land Use Issues Coordinator

New Jersey Chapter

Sierra Club

*****

  
After I submitted that, a flurry of scanned pro-pipeline postcards appeared in the FERC record.  This happens now and again.  Each postcard is identical, with the PennEast logo in one corner, and a checkbox next to the word "Yes!"  Early on, when these postcards first started appearing, one enterprising commenter connected the names of each signer with employment at one of the several gas utilities that make up PennEast. The number of postcards is barely a blip compared to the number of individual submissions by the hoards of people against the pipeline.  Still, given the dismissive attitude of FERC and PennEast, I thought it couldn't hurt to demand a count.  I was in a snarky mood, it was late in the day, and I figured I'd do one more thing before heading home:

*****

When evaluating the commentary documents submitted to FERC, PennEast and FERC should be aware that the vast majority of negative comments are detailed, individually written, and individually sent.  Positive comments, on the other hand, are predominantly postcards produced by PennEast.

To this end, when weighting comments, FERC should count the number of positive comments and negative comments, then determine what percentage of positive comments were simply PennEast's postcards.  FERC should then evaluate how many of these postcards came from PennEast employees, affiliates, or household members thereof.

It doesn't take much math to figure out how many comments are genuine.

*****

PennEast filed their application the next day.  The Sierra Club filed for intervenor status and was accepted.  That means we have standing to comment and litigate.

Bring it on.

For more on the pipeline, go here and here.