This letter is sent in response to your article, “A major investor in PennEast says project on track” by Freda R. Savana (Dec. 28, 2015). In sharp contrast to the New Jersey Natural Gas unfounded view that the proposed PennEast pipeline is on schedule, the pipeline project is actually plagued by considerable delays and uncertainty.
It is extremely misleading to suggest the pipeline is on schedule when:
· The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) clearly stated in a recent letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that PennEast’s “proposed construction schedule does not, at this time, appear to be attainable…”
· Even PennEast acknowledged in a December 2015 letter to FERC that the proposed construction schedule for its pipeline is not achievable.
· New Jersey landowners have refused survey access to PennEast on 70 percent of the proposed route.
· Securities analysts who follow the energy sector are reporting that the pipeline is delayed and some have even removed the pipeline project from their financial estimates.
Additionally, New Jersey Resources (NJR) — a major stakeholder in the pipeline — has changed its signals to the investment community on PennEast. In July of this year, NJR reported steady progression of its work to FERC and an in-service date of 2018. Now four months later, NJR has removed all milestones and will only go so far as to say, “continued progress” through 2018 when referring to the PennEast pipeline project.
Threatening further delays is an overarching and growing protest by concerned citizens, affected landowners, elected officials and a myriad of conservation groups. Fueling the public outcry against the pipeline is the fact that it would traverse 4,400 acres of preserved land, and cross over 30 high quality waterways in New Jersey alone. Over 1,400 people and organizations filed motions to intervene on the PennEast docket before FERC, with the vast majority in opposition.
Clearly, the facts all point to the proposed PennEast pipeline as a project that is considerably behind schedule and fraught with uncertainty. We would argue that instead of portraying the project as being “on track” that it would perhaps be more accurate to say the proposed PennEast pipeline in New Jersey is on the brink of being “derailed”.
Tom Gilbert, campaign director
ReThink Energy NJ
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
NJDEP
NJ Assembly votes out NJDEP rule changess
TRENTON — The state Legislature sent the Department of Environmental Protection back to the drawing board on Monday, after the Assembly approved a “legislative veto” of proposed changes to flood hazard rules.
The bill (ACR249) was among the biggest priorities of environmental advocates and Democratic legislators who said the DEP’s rule change would compromise the state’s highest quality streams by allowing some development within the buffer zones of Class I streams.
The rule change was criticized by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and with the passage of a concurrent resolution Monday, the DEP will now have to take steps to change the rule. If it chooses not to change the rule to legislators’ satisfaction, both houses will vote again to reject the rule change outright.
“The ball’s now in the DEP’s court,” said Assemblyman John McKeon, who sponsored the resolution in the Assembly, after the vote. “They understand now the Senate and Assembly have spoken … It puts us in a position to exercise our constitutional authority.”
Environmental advocates made the resolution their top priority of the day as the legislative session came to a close.
“The Legislature stood up to the Governor and stood up for clean water by passing ACR249 that will block the dangerous Flood Hazard Rules,” New Jersey Sierra Club director Jeff Tittel said in a statement. “This resolution will block DEP’s rollbacks of protections for our drinking water and flood-prone areas. The DEP, with these rules, sold out the environment and would put more people in harm’s way.”
The DEP rejects the notion the rules change will compromise the health of streams, saying it keeps protections while eliminating duplicative regulations and so-called “red tape” for developers.
“We remain extremely confident that the proposed revisions of the rule reduce the complexities of duplicative regulations, while maintaining and, in some cases, raising our high standards for protection of our waterways and mitigation of flooding,” DEP spokesman Bob Considine said in a statement. “Specifically, it is not true that the 300-foot riparian zone has been eliminated from the proposed rule. It, in fact, retains the 300-foot stream buffer, which is far above and beyond any requirement of the federal Clean Water Act, which has no buffer requirements.”
The rules change has received vocal support from business and development groups as well as the NEw Jersey Farm Bureau.
The full text of the resolution can be read here: http://bit.ly/1l5tbkm
THE TOP STORIES OF 2015: Gas pipeline runs into problems
MONTGOMERY — Having run into a snag in its efforts to complete the last section of a new natural gas pipeline in the township, Williams-Transco is asking the state Department of Environmental Protection for permission to switch from underground drilling to an open trench.
Williams-Transco is installing a 42-inch natural gas pipeline, replacing the existing 36-inch pipeline that company officials said is inadequate to meet demand. The section of new pipeline that is being installed in Montgomery is part of a 30-mile pipeline loop that passes through Mercer, Somerset and Hunterdon counties.
Meanwhile, the request to switch techniques comes after Williams-Transco’s repeated attempts to tunnel through an area off Cherry Hill and Cherry Valley roads. The company had been successful in drilling underground to install the pipeline, but hit some dense rock in that area and could not get through.
Last month, the company tried to drill through the rock by using a hydraulic ram. Without township officials’ permission, the work continued around the clock on Dec. 12. Several residents called the police and township officials to complain. The work stopped after township officials contacted Williams-Transco corporate headquarters in Texas.
The company agreed to work during normal business hours — from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Although work is not permitted on Sunday, an exception was made for the company to drill from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
But now, faced with the inability to drill through rock and having damaged several expensive drill bits, Williams-Transco wants permission from the state Department of Environmental Protection to open a trench to install the last section of pipeline.
The area in question contains “exceptional wetlands,” and that is why permission is needed from the Department of Environmental Protection, according to Township Administrator Donato Nieman. Digging a trench to install the pipeline would damage the environment, and permission to dig a trench depends on the company’s ability to mitigate it to the satisfaction of Montgomery Township and the state agency, Mr. Nieman said.
The Department of Environmental Protection has not acted on the request to open a trench, Mr. Nieman said. In the meantime, Municipal Attorney Kristina Hadinger has been in contact with Williams-Transco’s attorneys regarding the permit application and its failure to observe work hours.
Firm behind Albany-to-Linden oil pipeline yet to file N.J. application
This proposed oil pipeline comes fairly close to our area – last I knew, it was slated to but through the eastern side of Somerset County. It would definitely impact the Highlands.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/environment/concerns-over-oil-pipeline-1.1483979
In New Jersey, the state Department of Environmental Protection would seem to be the lead agency, although a spokesman said Thursday the federal government may get involved even though it doesn’t play a large role in regulating new oil pipelines.
Regardless of what agencies review the project, opponents on both sides of the state border believe Pilgrim Pipeline’s fate will eventually be decided by Governor Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Pilgrim, a Connecticut-based start-up company, wants to build dual underground pipelines that would deliver crude oil 178 miles from Albany possibly to the Bayway Refinery in Linden. It would send refined fuel, like gasoline and heating oil, back to New York, a total of 16.8 million gallons daily.
The pipeline’s route in New Jersey has not been finalized. But an application filed to New York regulators in November shows the project veering through Orange and Rockland counties before entering Mahwah in a protected area that provides drinking water for millions. Preliminary maps show it going through the heart of the Highlands in Bergen, Passaic and Morris counties before eventually heading east to Union County.
Related: Proposed path would put oil pipeline near watershed in Mahwah
While Christie will not comment on the pipeline, dozens of municipalities in New Jersey along with several counties and the Legislature have passed resolutions against Pilgrim.
Christie has a history of support for issues important to the fossil fuel industry, citing such projected benefits as more jobs, increased tax revenue and lower energy costs that would come from allowing oil, gas and other companies to build more infrastructure.
Two of Pilgrim’s four principals — President Errol Boyle and Vice President for Operations Roger Williams — have held top executive positions at energy giant Koch Industries whose owners, David and Charles Koch, once had been big supporters of Christie.
Koch Industries topped the Republican Governors Association’s contributors’ list with almost $5.3 million in 2014, when Christie was chairman and used the post to build his national reputation before his presidential bid. Pilgrim’s public relations is handled by Bracewell & Giuliani, where former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a partner.
Since the pipeline needs the approval of both states, it is unclear whether New York and New Jersey would eventually work together in reviewing the proposal.
Leslie Sauer is on fire!
Sergeantsville resident Leslie Sauer has written many detailed & excellent comments which have been submitted to FERC. This week she added a two part assault on the lack of integrity, professionalism, decency, honesty, ethics & morals of both PennEast & FERC. It’s well worth the time you will spend reading it – thanks, Leslie, for all your hard work defending us against this unwanted intrusion.
Part 1: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20151229-5274
leslie sauer, sergeantsville, NJ.
Part 1 The Federal Energy Review Commission (FERC) recently announced
that it is beginning its environmental review of the PennEast pipeline,
intending apparently to rely on the grossly erroneous Resource and
Scoping Reports submitted by PennEast in its still incomplete
application. PennEast has become the poster child for FERC abuse. This
pipeline company thinks it can submit inaccurate and deliberately
misleading information, ignore the law and trample on local property
rights at will. And so far PennEast and FERC appear to be playing the
game quite cozily, as if accountable for nothing and to no one.
PennEast’s recent submission of its corrections/additions to the Resource
Reports as requested by FERC is the most recent example of this travesty
of a review process. FERC asked very little and got back even less. The
questions posed by FERC were already very limited, confined only to a
few contradictions in the initial submission and referenced upcoming
submissions that were needed. Comments made repeatedly in scoping and on
line to FERC were consistently ignored. PennEast chose to respond even
more narrowly. Like so many of their other submissions, almost everything
was reduced to a spread sheet and references to regulations that have
been consistently violated by recent pipeline construction in the region.
In addition, PennEast is still changing the ROW route with three reroutes
recently with no input from the community. Many required submissions are
still to come but the review is underway now. This is possible because
the EIS will be all boilerplate, is probably already written and will
dismiss every issue with “ (fill in the blank) impacts have been
minimized by design”.
Is this all that will be asked of PennEast? Does FERC really think that
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can be done from this inadequate
material? The errors range from the almost funny, such as the repeated
references to the Lower Hudson River Valley to the unconscionable
omissions of the many residential wells within 150 feet of the pipeline.
PennEast and FERC have been informed repeatedly about the fact that there
are dozens, maybe even hundreds of wells close to the line dependent on a
sole source aquifer yet these reports dicker over whether there are one
or two vulnerable wells.
Apparently no one at FERC or PennEast has read the 49 pages of comments
from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) about
missing, erroneous or incomplete information in the Resource Reports. Nor
has anyone read the comments from the New Jersey Conservation Foundation
either. The review process so far is a private conversation between
PennEast and FERC, ignoring all other input.
Many major sections requested by FERC were not in the revisions and are
promised by PennEast sometime in 2016. The application should not be
deemed complete and the EIS should not proceed until the sections on
transportation, geology and blasting, mitigation and monitoring are
submitted. If FERC accepts this submission for an EIS it is a clear
statement that this process is rigged and that FERC has failed to to meet
its mandate to review projects to see “if they comply with the law and
agency regulations and stipulations once they file.”
FERC, in its silence, has also condoned the rampant trespassing,
intimidation, bribing and lying by its representatives in order to gain
survey access that have been the hallmarks of PennEast’s local outreach.
PennEast claims that the blasting report, for example, will be available
in the first quarter of 2016 “when they have full survey access”. In
fact PennEast has already demonstrated that it cannot do a competent job
even when they have full access to a property. What kind of data should
we expect from hasty trespass, drones and aerial surveillance? Or do they
expect that they will have completed condemnation of most of the route in
New Jersey by then, before we’ve even reviewed the EIS?
If the corporation PennEast was a person it would be diagnosed as
severely sociopathic, narcissistic and Machiavellian, the triad of evil.
This is especially evident in their attitude toward safety. PennEast’s
proposal to use the lowest grade pipe almost throughout in the most
densely populated state where the state standard is the highest quality
speaks volumes. This is very painful for residents to hear, especially
after the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s
Pipeline Safety Chief, Jeffrey Wiese, testifying before Congress
recently, said his agency “has very few tools to work with” and that the
“regulatory process is kind of dying”.
Our experience with PennEast suggests that Wiese’s request for voluntary
improvements in safety are meaningless. FERC and PennEast certainly don’t
care about our water supply and are doing everything possible to avoid
addressing the problem. If PennEast only acknowledges one or two wells
close to the pipeline will they also deny poisoning the wells they don’t
even acknowledge if their embarrassingly incomplete approach to the
arsenic hazard in parts of NJ fails? Shouldn’t they be monitoring all
these wells before, during and after pipeline construction? Shouldn’t New
Jersey’s Surface Water Quality Standards be met?
PennEast also ignores telling failures such as the Spectra pipeline
blowout of the Arkansas River that occurred when erosion exposed the
shallow pipe set in a dry crossing. PennEast proposes the same method for
the Susquehanna. Spectra is a 20% owner of PennEast. Ironically all the
methane release, climate change and watershed degradation due to fracking
and pipeline construction will further jeopardize the integrity of the
PennEast pipeline as the intensity of storms and flooding become more
severe, aggravating the likelihood of such a blowout.
Part 2: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20151229-5284
leslie sauer, Sergeantsville, NJ.
Part 2 Comments on FERCs announcement that it is starting the EIS for the
PennEast pipeline.
FERC and PennEast also ignore the concerns raised in the suit brought by
the National Wildlife Federation against the Department of Transportation
for failing to protect people and natural resources from oil pipeline
spills. Every pipeline intersecting navigable waters is operating
illegally under the Oil Protection Act that prohibits transport without
government approval that safety plans are worst-case adequate. This
should be a requirement of the PennEast pipeline. Of course no worst-case
plans are available and they certainly don’t want the locals to see them.
FERC seems deaf to any serious concerns about the need for this gas in
our region but eager to hear PennEast claim that this not for export nor
about trying to raise prices. There has been no demonstration of domestic
need; that argument has collapsed. This pipeline will not reduce prices.
Transmission costs determine rates more than gas prices and excess
infrastructure costs are passed on to the ratepayer. This project does
not warrant $900 million in ratepayer investment when gas can be obtained
via existing connectors. PennEast does not merit using eminent domain to
take peoples land and materially damage their environment solely for
increased corporate profits at taxpayer expense.
FERC’s recent time chart includes “the approval or denial of a permit”.
Isn’t this very ingenuous when FERC has never denied a certificate? This
is perhaps the most enraging aspect of this lip-service only process.
Rachel Soper’s fully referenced letter to Stephen Tomasik, NY DEC,
details the long history of violations during recent pipeline
construction projects in NY, NJ and PA. FERC routinely issues
certificates with conditions that FERC habitually fails to follow up on.
FERC has never issued a violation based upon failure to meet the
stipulations of the approval and continues to rubber stamp as if
violations are not rampant. So what is the result? In the case of the
Iroquois line, a $22 million dollar criminal fine for damages to over 200
streams and wetlands. In the case of the Millennium line, hundreds upon
hundreds of violations and almost complete failure to implement promised
Erosion and Sedimentation plans. The New York Department of Environmental
Conservation finally had to issue a Stop Work Order. But never a word
from FERC.
FERC’s approvals routinely state that ‘environmental monitoring will
assure compliance with all the mitigation measures that become conditions
of any FERC authorization.” FERC further states that “that all wetlands
will be protected by implementing protective measures according to the
submittal and its conditional approval”. The truth is there is no thirdparty
environmental monitoring and FERC knows this. In the case of the
Millennium line FERC stated that all laws would be complied with knowing
full well the regional history of flagrant violations. As Joseph A.
Pallone, Acting United States Attorney for the Northern District of New
York said, “the widespread nature of the criminal violations is almost
impossible to overstate.” The Transco Line in PA and NJ is faring no
better with hundreds of violations. It still has not yet received wetland
permits from NJDEP yet they have announced they will shortly turn on the
gas.
No matter how many times they repeat the boilerplate, FERC does not
“avoid or minimize impacts by design” nor do the pipeline companies
“comply with all applicable laws and regulations”. They work hard to be
exempt from regulation and routinely fail miserably to follow through
with compliance or mitigation where required or promised. As Rachel
Soper stated, “FERC is fully aware of the extensive environmental
violations and yet they continue to green light these projects”. Pat
Kornick of PennEast said “The timeline has not shifted, and the PennEast
Pipeline project is progressing through the FERC application phase.” The
current PennEast proposal is the inevitable consequence of upholding no
regulations and giving the pipeline corporations whatever they want
regardless of the impacts to the environment, the people, and the
community. This has to stop somewhere. PennEast would be a very good
start. FERC should reject this permit.
Leslie Sauer, Brook Hollow Farms, on the preferred but not current
alternate ROW, PennEast, Delaware Township.
From the NJ Sierra Club
The last chance to comment on NJDEP’s proposal that threatens our drinking water ends December 28th. The proposed Water Quality Management Planning Rule will extend sewers into environmentally sensitive areas leading to sprawl, flooding and pollution. The Christie Administration’s proposed rule will undo all the protections put in place to save the Highlands and Pinelands from over-development. It will impact nearby reservoirs and streams and decrease water quality. As your final action for the environment in 2015, we hope you can comment this terrible rule proposal and urge the DEP withdraw to these rules.
The proposed Water Quality Management Planning rules could increase development in the Highlands Preservation Area by 400%, threatening our reservoirs where 5.5 million people get their drinking water. By allowing the extension of sewer service into rural villages and towns, it could also threaten open space in the Pinelands. These areas are not only environmentally sensitive forested lands and wetlands, but they are some of the most pristine lands found anywhere in the country.
These rules are a huge Holiday Gift to developers and land speculators instead of protecting our open space and drinking water. Our water quality, forests, and places to fish and recreate are too important to risk. We must stop these dirty water rules from going forward.
If you were unable to comment during the public hearings, you can still send your comments to the NJDEP now.
Urge our legislators to support this bill
We need to send out some emails, folks.
Urge Assembly Speaker Prieto to Post ACR249 to Overturn NJDEP’s Flood Hazard Rules
Here’s an easy link to the Sierra Club’s petition to Speaker Prieto: https://secure3.convio.net/scnj/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1429
Reed Gusciora is primary sponsor of this bill, so please also send him an email urging him to bring this bill to a vote. It doesn’t have to be anything lengthy, just a couple of sentences along these lines:
I am urging you to put ACR249 up for vote tomorrow to help reject the NJDEP’s proposed Flood Hazard Rules. These new rules represent a threat to the people and the environment of New Jersey.
REED GUSCIORA
DEPUTY MAJORITY LEADER
144 WEST STATE STREET
TRENTON, NJ 08608
(609)-292-0500
FAX: (609) 571-9647
EMAIL: AsmGusciora@njleg.org
Another great FERC submission by Mike Spille
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20151215-5208
Michael Spille, West Amwell, NJ.
In their recent response to FERC on a request for additional
environmental information, PennEast stated the following regarding
conserving CO2 sequestration capacity:
“PennEast is also in the process of implementing a series of other
mitigative measures in conjunction with agency review and approval
process. These include the purchase and permanent conservation of tracts
of forested lands in key watersheds and reforestation if required. The
combination of these measures will provide for no net loss in vegetative
sequestration capacity”.
This statement by PennEast is deeply troubling and sets a very bad
precedent in consideration of energy projects.
1) PennEast is proposing to cross very unique areas such as the Gravel
Hill Preserve, Goat Hill Preserve, Baldpate Mountain, and other vital
conservation resources in our state. Planting within, or conserving,
other areas does nothing to help these unique areas.
Planting a bunch of trees in Seacaucus will not bring us back the
Baldpate Mountain we’ve known and loved.
2) PennEast is proposing to cross dozens of “permanent” conservation
tracts, including some of the most beautiful in all of New Jersey, with
their “permanency” shattered by federal eminent domain. The agencies
PennEast are all referring to are likely at the state level, such as
NJDEP, SADC, Highlands Council, etc.
As such – PennEast’s proposal of “permanent” protection is no more
permanent than the parcels that the company is threatening today.
3) Allowing this would allow an endless cycle of pipeline development to
criss-cross the state with impunity. Pipeline companies could target the
most pristine environments we currently enjoy and “mitigate” them away
with marginal development in other areas of the state. The end result
would be the destruction of many of the unique cultural, environmental,
and historical features of New Jersey.
4) Pipeline companies have issues in trading like-to-like. PennEast
likely realizes that they can promise whatever they want here, because if
FERC approves these conditions _no one will actually check their
implementation_. If agencies (including FERC) approve this, who’s going
to go around to every mitigation cite and certify that a like-for-like
program was in fact achieved?
To small extent that agencies such as the NJDEP have tried to do this
(such as Leidy Southeast Expansion), they’ve found violations in many
areas and promises dropped or distorted beyond recognition.
PennEast pipeline partner tempers forecast for construction
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/12/penneast_pipeline_partner_tempers_forecast_for_con.html
Tom Gilbert, of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, said NJR’s recent forecast perhaps reflects difficulties with the state Department of Environmental Protection and the federal energy commission.
“It’s clearly significantly delayed and it’s going to be a long, difficult road for PennEast,” Gilbert said. “And I think there’s some question of whether they’ll be able to make it at all.”
The state DEP on Nov. 4 sent a 19-page letter to the federal energy commission outlining numerous concerns the agency has about the PennEast application, ranging from potential negative impacts on rare wildlife along the proposed pathway to the company’s construction schedule.
PennEast proposes a 7-month construction timeline, beginning in February, 2017.
“This proposed construction schedule does not, at this time, appear to be attainable,” the letter said.
The energy commission followed on Nov. 24 with letter to PennEast, giving the company 20 working days to provide a 22-page list of changes to the application and provide additional information before the commission could further evaluate the application.
NJDEP not satisfied with PennEast’s lack of response to their questions
This FERC submission is 46 pages so I uploaded it to the site & you can read it here. I haven’t had time to get more than several pages into it, but so far it looks like the NJDEP is standing firmly on our side of protecting the lands we treasure.
Delaware Township Citizens Against the Pipeline 