PennEast Pipeline Still Moving Forward Despite Pandemic

Several government agencies, including the NJDEP, DRBC, and EPA have commented on PennEast Pipeline Company LLC, Docket No. CP20-47-000. PennEast proposes to construct and operate the Project in two phases, with the facilities proposed to be located in Pennsylvania through approximate milepost 68 of the Certificated Route, including new interconnection facilities in Pennsylvania, to be built first as Phase 1 of the Project. New Jersey Sierra Club is an intervenor in PennEast’s new docket to split their project in two phases.

 “PennEast is still pushing ahead even though we are in the middle of a public health emergency. Most people aren’t paying attention because of the coronavirus, but FERC is moving forward with this application for how to environmentally review the pipeline. PennEast has split the pipeline into two segments for this application to try to side-step strong environmental reviews. They want to start construction in Pennsylvania and then try to use that to pressure NJ for permits. We oppose this new docket because it is a game to get around public scrutiny and proper environmental reviews. Several agencies have raised valid concerns, including NJDEP, DRBC, Trump’s EPA, and even FERC themselves,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Even though these agencies are standing up, FERC is still moving forward in the middle of the public health emergency. This application is not essential business and should be put on hold during the coronavirus crisis.”

In their comments, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection raised several issues to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the PennEast Pipeline. DEP recommended FERC conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for both phases of the project, which should include consideration of historical resources for both project phases, and require PennEast to demonstrate that both Phase I and Phase II are needed.

“We believe that NJDEP is doing the right thing by calling for FERC to look at PennEast’s pipeline as one project and conduct an EIS on both phases. In their comments they emphasized that PennEast must demonstrate that their segmented project is needed. PennEast along with NJNG, SJ Gas and others are selling the gas to themselves and not selling to the area. These companies are selling gas to themselves at a 14% market instead of getting it from current sources. The Ratepayer Advocate already said that the PennEast pipeline is unneeded and will raise rates, costing consumers money. The recent filing proves our point, there is no need for this pipeline,” said Tittel.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection raised the point that PennEast’s proposed Phase 1 of the amended project will provide 650,000 dekatherms per day of capacity and stated “However, as of this writing, only four shippers have executed precedent agreements for Phase 1 and the combined total of that contracted capacity is only 340,000 dekatherms per day – or approximately 52% of Phase 1’s capacity.

“PennEast is playing a treacherous and dangerous trick by splitting the project into two phases. Once the Pennsylvania part is built, they may use it to force New Jersey and federal regulators to get the second half of the pipeline built. This pipeline would threaten the entire Valley including 91 acres of wetlands and over 44 miles of forest, 88 waterways; over 1,600 acres’ total. Some of the major state-owned properties that are part of the PennEast Pipeline route include the Delaware River and Raritan Canal, Bulls Island State Park, Goat Hill, Baldpate Mountain,” said Jeff Tittel. “Near its southern terminus, the pipeline would cut through the Sourland Mountain, which contains the last contiguous forested areas in central New Jersey and has been recognized as a unique and fragile ecosystem.”

The Delaware River Basin Commission also submitted comments to FERC regarding the PennEast Pipeline Project. They state that Phase 1 of the project is subject to review under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact and implementing regulations to ensure compatibility with the Commission’s Comprehensive Plan. They also stated that PennEast’s recent submissions have not identified its sources of horizontal directional drilling (“HDD”) water or the points of discharge of its used HDD water.

“DRBC have also stood up to FERC, writing to FERC that they have jurisdiction and their review and approval is required before any construction. PennEast has not identified sources of HDD water or the points of discharge of used HDD water. In their comments, they note that their review and approval is required for projects with water withdrawals over a certain amount per month. They note that the first phase of the project is completely within the drainage area of the DRBC’s Special Protection Waters and state that their review is required for discharges of used HDD directly to basin waters,”  said Tittel. “The DRBC has also raised concerns about impacts to streams, wetlands, floodplains, and other water resources.”

The Environmental Protection Agency even weighed in on the PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC Docket No. CP20-47-000. The EPA requested for the opportunity to provide the Environmental Assessment recommendations. They recommended the EA include a clear justification of the underlying “purpose and needs for the proposed action, discuss the independent utility of the proposed Phase 1, provide information on the end uses, and the regional or local need”. EPA recommended the EA to provide a description of alternatives, potential impacts to the natural and human environment, evaluation of air quality, and noise pollution, describe any potential for fugitive emissions from the proposed facilities, outline measures to protect surface waters, and to include public participation.

“Even Trump’s EPA weighed in PennEast, making valid recommendations to FERC’s Environmental Assessment. In their comments, EPA suggested that the EA should include public participation, provide a clear justification of need, environmental impacts, and more,” said Jeff Tittel. “PennEast said they needed the pipeline in 2015 because of the shortage of gas in the region. Now we have waited 5 years and there is no gas shortage. Instead, we have more gas than we need. PennEast has not identified where the gas will be going, they have only allocated where half of the gas is going and will sell some of the other half back to themselves.”

In a letter dated April 1, 2020, FERC requested additional environmental information for PennEast’s application. The requested 24 pieces of information regarding the general project description, impacts to vegetation and wildlife, cultural resources, geologic resources, soil resources, land use, air quality and noise, and alternatives. They stated that the requested information is necessary for them to continue preparation of the supplemental NEPA document for the proposed amendment.

“This week, FERC requested more information from PennEast regarding their application. Based on comments that they have already received, they have requested that PennEast describe the purpose and need of the project based on each phase separately as well as together. It is important that they noted the need to assess the cumulative impacts related to several other projects, including the SRL pipeline and the Gibbstown LNG facility. They also requested additional information on the market for the gas being served, which is important because they haven’t demonstrated need,” said Tittel.

In a filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, PennEast disclosed the gas shippers with whom it has contracted for Phase I of the project. These gas shippers include New Jersey Natural Gas Company, South Jersey Gas Company, Elizabethtown Gas Company, and UGI Energy Services. PSEG is also one of the shippers. This raises concerns because these companies building the pipeline will sell a majority of the gas back to themselves. The amount of gas contracted by companies however is a major factor in FERC determining the need for the pipeline.

“This pipeline is unnecessary, unneeded and dangerous. Comments from three major government agencies should raise red flags to FERC. They haven’t looked at the secondary impacts from connecting pipelines, like Elizabethtown Gas Company into Lambertville East or SJ Gas and NJNG to the Warren Glen Power Plant, and they haven’t considered the cumulative impacts of all of the pipelines together. This is a serious project that will affect many people on both sides of the river. We have been fighting the PennEast pipeline for the past 5 years, and we will keep on fighting to make sure this unnecessary project will never be put in the ground,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “This pipeline will create an ugly scar through the region, increasing our greenhouse gases and endangering public health and the environment. PennEast needs to get the FERC out of our valley.”