One step forward, one step back.
The proposed PennEast pipeline continued its application dance this week, advancing with one regulatory commission but hitting a hurdle with another.
On Monday, the PennEast Pipeline Company, headquartered in the office of UGI Energy Services in Wyomissing, Berks County, submitted an official application to the Delaware River Basin Commission, according to DRBC communications manager Clarke Rupert. The application was a long time coming: Protesters have been attending DRBC meetings and speaking out against the proposed 114-mile pipeline since the summer, in anticipation of the application’s arrival.
But Wednesday, another application submitted in September with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a federal agency with oversight on interstate pipeline projects, was put on hold as the agency requested more information about the application.
PennEast needs approval from both agencies to make the proposal a reality.
In a seven-page letter addressed to PennEast, FERC requested information on potential impacts to water resources, vegetation, wildlife, towns, soil, air and more.
Specific to Bucks County, the northeast corner of which the natural gas pipeline would traverse on its way from Luzerne County to Mercer County, New Jersey, the letter requested information about impacts to the Riegelsville wellhead protection area.
The letter also asked that PennEast detail how it would reduce impacts in a number of preserves managed by the New Jersey Natural Lands Trust, including the Thomas F. Breden Preserve, Gravel Hill Preserve, Alexauken Preserve and Wickecheoke Creek Greenway, all in Hunterdon County, as well as the Ted F. Stiles Preserve in Warren County.
In a press release, New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel chastised PennEast for what he characterized as a “failure” to file required information.
“PennEast has not complied with FERC’s order and they have not given enough information to the agency. Their application is still incomplete and they should not be allowed to go forward,” Tittel wrote.
Maya van Rossum, of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, said she isn’t reading too much into the letter, stating that she believes FERC rubberstamps pipeline proposals and that its review process is “theater.”
“The fact is that (PennEast) is jumping through the hoops that they’re obligated to jump through under the law,” van Rossum said. “The problem is that FERC does not engage in independent, thoughtful review … with a possibility that they’ll ever say no.”
Pat Kornick, spokeswoman for PennEast, defended the application and review process, and downplayed the importance of the request for additional information from FERC.
“These are routine parts of the process,” Kornick said, adding that PennEast also responded to an initial data request in November. “The FERC process is a comprehensive review…. FERC has its charter and (it) is designed to make sure it’s environmentally sound.”
Kornick also said that PennEast entered into a voluntary, year-long prefiling process to gather input before submitting its initial application, and also provided responses to more than 2,000 comments submitted on the application from private residents, municipalities and interest groups.
Kornick anticipated PennEast would provide a “timely” response to FERC’s request, which has an initial deadline of Feb. 20. Barring unforeseen extensions, Kornick said PennEast anticipates beginning construction of the pipeline in spring of 2017.
Delaware Township Citizens Against the Pipeline 