CONWAY — A spokesman for the company which wants to build a natural gas pipeline through western Massachusetts said it is requesting survey access — not the power of eminent domain — to private land for the potential project.
Richard N. Wheatley said Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a Kinder Morgan subsidiary, has filed a petition with the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities under a state statute allowing natural gas and electric companies to request authorization to conduct such surveys on private property. Wheatley said the request results from Tennessee Gas Pipeline wanting to work in a timely manner.
The spokesman said the petitions Tennessee Gas Pipeline filed with the DPU in late January list roughly 500 private landowners in Massachusetts.
Meg Burch, the chairwoman of the town’s ad hoc pipeline task force, this week told members of the Conway Select Board that Tennessee Gas Pipeline has filed for eminent domain in an effort to steamroll the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s review of the proposed pipeline. However, Wheatley said this is not true.
Some at this week’s Select Board meeting expressed discomfort about the news relayed by Burch.
Select Board member Jim Moore said the money corporations are spending to lobby for the pipeline project concerns him.
“It really bothers me, in terms of who we are as a nation,” he said. “It’s sort of like the king of England and his guys who were bullying the colonies. And, now, we’ve got big international corporations who are bullying all the people who are in the way.”
There are six public comment hearings on the pipeline request scheduled in Massachusetts, including in the Greenfield Middle School auditorium at 7 p.m. March 30.
Wheatley told The Recorder eminent domain cannot be acted upon without a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which is what the company seeks from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for construction.
“Eminent domain is our last resort,” he said, adding that Kinder Morgan never pursues it unless all other options for land easements have been unsuccessful. “All we’re seeking is survey access to see if land is suitable for the right of way.”
survey
Joan Kager rips into PennEast in FERC filing
Awesome job Joan!!
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160217-5004
February 16, 2016
To:
Jeffrey D. England
PennEast Project Manager
55 West Street
Tunkhannock, PA 18657
cc: FERC
Re: Denial of permission to Enter Land to Survey
Kingwood Twp, NJ
Block 26, Lots 14.02, (108 Featherbed Road), 14.03 (110 Featherbed Road),
14.05 (our private driveway)
Dear Sir,
We are in receipts of your letters requesting permission to conduct
surveys on the above named properties. Please take notice that we hereby
DENY the PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC, (PennEast) and its affiliates,
agents, employees, and contractors, as well as its surveyors, biologists,
archaeologists, and environmental scientists, permission to enter upon
our property for any purposes. This includes, but is not limited to,
conducting civil surveys, environmental surveys, cultural resource
surveys, and all other surveys and tests necessary for a pipeline route
study, including placement of stakes, limited non-mechanical (by hand)
line-of –sight clearing, and geotechnical soil borings. We also deny
PennEast any permission to use existing roads, driveways and trails in
which we have a property interest. We also note that federal and state
law prohibits drone or other aircraft surveys in addition to ground
surveys.
What is more, we take issue with misleading statements in our letter. In
particular, we disagree with your assertion that “the opportunity to
adjust the route on (our) property will be very limited” if FERC approves
the proposed route. This statement falsely implies that we will face
consequences down the road if we choose to exercise our property rights
today. But FERC nowhere requires us to give up our rights today or face
maximum disruption tomorrow. If your pipeline is ever approved, which we
believe never will and never should happen, we intend to hold you
accountable to your duty to avoid or minimize displacement of homeowners,
their enterprises and their property.
Furthermore, we hereby reserve all rights under New Jersey law to respond
as necessary to any noncompliance by PennEast with this denial of
permission to conduct surveys on our land or to enter it for any other
purposes.
In conclusion, we want to go on record as advising you that one of your
surveyors has been seen on our property (Lot 14.05 which is our private
driveway) operating a drone for the purpose of an illegal survey after
you had been advised by us that we would not permit surveys. Our lands
are clearly mark “No Trespassing”. We’d also like an explanation as to
why you plan to open cut our properties (14:03, & 14.04) which are total
wetlands and contains a C1 stream instead of using the required HDD.
If you have a good explanation for all of this, we’d like to hear it
sooner rather than later.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Kager Sr.
Joan Kager
Thomas Kager
627 of 836 NH property owners deny Kinder Morgan surveyors access to their land
More than a year after subcontracted land surveyors started showing up in southern New Hampshire to assess a route that would be part of a proposed natural gas pipeline through the region, the majority of property owners — 627 of 836 — have denied surveyors access to their land.
“It’s one of the only powers I hold right now to deny them access to my property and they still come on it,” said Tyler Seppala of Rindge.Seppala filed a police report in October saying that members of a survey crew hired by Kinder Morgan/Tennessee Gas Pipeline trespassed onto his 5-acre property and placed pink ribbons on it, as well as onto two neighbor’s properties, which also are posted.
Seppala said he knows of three separates times surveyors have trespassed on his property, but pressing charges has been difficult. “Our local police department’s philosophy is, you have to catch them in the act,” he said. “If you don’t catch them in the act, there is nothing they can do.”
Seppala said he is not opposed to fossil fuels, but after learning more about the project, he decided that the region would be disrupted by the pipeline and would not benefit from it.“We don’t get any of this gas and we have to give up our land or have it stolen if we don’t agree to an easement,” Seppala said.
Seppala said he will not agree to an easement; his land will have to be taken by eminent domain.“I think they feel like we don’t know what we’re dodging and we’re sparsely populated and they can scoot through with nobody bothering them. I think they were proven wrong by all the towns coming together and fighting them,” said Nancy Nye of Fitzwilliam.
Nye also has denied access to her 2-acre property, but she has had several encounters with the land surveyors hired by Kinder Morgan, she said.“I have refused and I have my land posted,” Nye said.
It’s a scenario Nye is familiar with, she said. Shortly after she bought her house and moved into it about 50 years ago the Vernon powerline came through and took one of her three acres, she said.
“They took the woods. They took a small pond. They took a third of our property at the time, now this one is the rest of the property,” Nye said.At the time, Nye was pressed to sell an easement to the power company after being told if they took it by eminent domain she would get less money.
The proposed underground pipeline would cut through her well and septic system on her property, so she would be losing her home, she said.“It would leave me with nothing except the house and my driveway,” she said. “They are talking eminent domain. … I’ve been here over 50 years. I brought all my kids up here. It’s home.”
Nye said she recently spent $100,000 on a roof and home addition project, before that her home was assessed at $179,000.After the pipeline project was proposed through her property, Nye said, “I’ve had a realtor come and he said I couldn’t sell my house if I wanted to.”
When asked Thursday about the high numbers of property owners refusing access to their land, Kinder Morgan Director of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Richard Wheatley said in an email, “We’re continuing to work with landowners to obtain needed survey permissions and also access available data. The process continues.”
On Friday, in response to questions about surveyors trespassing, Kinder Morgan said in a statement. “Tennessee Gas Pipeline is continuing the survey process, seeking permission from landowners to do so, and we are respectful of public and private property and must obtain advance permission from landowners to go onto properties to conduct surveys.”
The company said it seeks ot work amicably with landowners, and eminent domain “is always a last resort.Celeste Miller of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in an email Friday, “The Commission can and has approved projects in situations where the surveys haven’t been completed.
“The authorizing order would include conditions that certain surveys would need to be completed before construction begins.“Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act provides that a certificate holder, if it is unable to agree with the landowner on access, may acquire it by eminent domain.”
Miller said eminent domain is handled by federal and district or state courts. – See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/627-of-836-NH-property-owners-deny-Kinder-Morgan-surveyors-access-to-their-land#sthash.V1K4h59w.dpuf
MOTION OF HALT-PENNEAST FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20160203-5052
Pursuant to Rules 212 and 214 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.212 and 385.214, the Homeowners Against
Land Taking-PennEast, d/b/a HALT-PennEast, files this motion to intervene out-of-time in
response to PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC’s (PennEast) Application for Certificates of
Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations.
I. Communications and Service
All communications, pleadings, and orders associated with this proceeding should be sent
to:
Steven Richardson
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7489
rsrichardson@wileyrein.com
II. Description of Movant and Its Interests
HALT-PennEast is a non-profit organization currently comprised of over seventy
homeowners from Hunterdon and Mercer Counties. Together, its members own over 200 parcels
comprising thousands of acres of property located along PennEast’s proposed pipeline route.
Within the next month, HALT-PennEast anticipates it will represent well over 100 homeowners
2
impacted by the proposed PennEast pipeline. HALT-PennEast was established in January 2016
to protect homeowner interests in New Jersey from the injuries that PennEast’s proposed
pipeline would cause them. HALT-PennEast is a community group concerned about the
infringement on property rights, direct harm to commercial, cultural, historic, and open space
interests, and the health, economic, and environmental costs if FERC approves the PennEast
pipeline. Because HALT-PennEast and its members would be directly harmed by PennEast’s
proposed route and their land could be taken by eminent domain if FERC approves the proposed
route, HALT-PennEast is uniquely qualified to comment on these threats. Therefore, HALTPennEast
makes this motion on its own behalf and on behalf of its members.
On September 24, 2015, PennEast filed an application under Section 7 of the Natural Gas
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717f, for a 114-mile natural gas pipeline. The pipeline’s proposed route would
run through Hunterdon and Mercer Counties in New Jersey and would cross the properties of
current and prospective HALT-PennEast members. FERC has previously recognized that
landowners have a strong and unique interest in Section 7 proceedings.1 In fact, landowners and
their surrounding communities represent one of the “three major interests that may be adversely
affected by” a proposed route.2 Before granting a certificate, FERC must complete a full
weighing of the public benefits against the adverse impacts on landowner interests.3 It is vital for
HALT-PennEast to intervene to ensure that FERC has the information regarding landowner
interests necessary to conduct a thorough balancing test.
The proposed pipeline threatens many interests unique to HALT-PennEast’s members, as
discussed in further detail below.
1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities (Policy
Statement), 88 FERC ¶ 61,227, at 24, 1999.
2 Id.
3 Id.
3
1. Preliminary Surveys by PennEast Have Resulted in Unauthorized Entry on
Property Owned by Members of HALT-PennEast.
Adverse impacts on the land, homes, and livelihoods of HALT-PennEast’s members have
already begun. PennEast sent HALT-PennEast members requests for access to conduct surveys,
to which the members either did not respond or responded with express denials of permission to
enter. Despite failing to obtain permission, PennEast sent surveyors who have repeatedly entered
onto members’ land to conduct surveys along the proposed right-of-way for the pipeline. Lowflying
drones also have been operated over members’ land by PennEast surveyors located on or
near these lands.
PennEast made these surveys without landowners’ consent, despite clear federal and state
law barring such entry, and in spite of several members’ explicit denials of permission to enter.
The surveys disrupt members’ enjoyment of their land and may threaten businesses, livestock,
and planted crops on farm fields. It is important for HALT-PennEast to participate in FERC’s
proceedings to fully explain the costs of these harmful entries.
2. HALT-PennEast—Representing New Jersey Landowners and Energy
Consumers—Has Unique Interests in Limiting the Use of Condemnation for
Private Gain.
If FERC issues a certificate of public convenience and necessity to PennEast, PennEast
will be vested with eminent domain authority over land owned by members of HALT-PennEast.
All contemporary evidence demonstrates that the pipeline will provide no public benefit, but
instead only private gain to PennEast. The proposed pipeline would not meet unserved demand,
increase electric reliability, or result in lower costs to consumers.4
4 FERC previously recognized that a recent increase in pipeline capacity resulted in the Northeast becoming a net
exporter in 2015, which demonstrates that existing pipelines already exceed local demand. 2015-2016 Winter
Energy Market Assessment: Item No. A-3, FERC, at 7-8 (Oct. 15, 2015), available at https://www.ferc.gov/marketoversight/
reports-analyses/mkt-views/2015/10-15-15-A-3.pdf.
4
In fact, the New Jersey market already has a glut in natural gas.5 Other less disruptive and
less expensive alternatives—including taking advantage of existing stored reserves—exist to
address New Jersey’s energy needs. Indeed, based on the stagnated demand for natural gas in the
New Jersey market, it is most likely that the effect of the pipeline will be to increase exports for
private gain rather than provide any natural gas to New Jersey residents.
HALT-PennEast is uniquely situated both to show the harmful impacts of eminent
domain on property in Hunterdon and Mercer Counties and also to show that those harms will
not result in any energy benefits for natural-gas consumers in New Jersey. Intervention in these
circumstances will ensure that FERC does not grant eminent domain authority for a pipeline that
offers no offsetting public benefit.
3. HALT-PennEast’s Participation is Necessary to Develop a Full Record on the
Economic, Environmental, and Community Costs of the Pipeline.
HALT-PennEast’s participation also is essential to ensure the negative impacts on the
environment, local business, historical and cultural interests, and public health are clearly
understood, considered, and evaluated.
As an initial matter, many of the HALT-PennEast members earn a living off of the land
by farming and raising livestock. The pipeline will jeopardize their ability to continue these
trades and maintain the environmental certifications necessary to doing so. For example, the
current proposed route would destroy members’ orchards, block access to hayfields and farming
operations, and threaten existing, costly organic farming certifications, among other damages. As
a result, the common interests of these homeowners can only be fully addressed by HALTPennEast
intervention.
5 See, e.g., Michael Spille, Analyzing the PennEast Purpose and Need (Oct. 27, 2015).
5
The pipeline will also interfere with members’ health and safety, if it is built on or near
their properties. The proposed pipeline would run close to many private ground water wells,
which increases the risk of arsenic contamination in the drinking water caused by PennEast
construction, including blasting the area’s rock formation for construction.6 Arsenic could also
be released into the soil, significantly harming farms and contaminating homeowners’ food
sources. Potential methane leaks into the air from the pipeline, as have been seen in California7,
also threaten surrounding landowners’ health and safety. Additionally, PennEast would draw
significant amounts of water from local aquifers for pipeline construction, which threatens the
long-term viability of residents’ wells. Any dumping by PennEast into local waterways also
could impact wells, protected wetlands, and C-1 designated waters, all of which are vital to the
community. Members thus have a significant interest in preventing the threat to these waterways
and ensuring that PennEast and FERC strictly follow the permitting provisions of the Clean
Water Act. HALT-PennEast requests intervention so it can bring to FERC’s attention these types
of health and environmental contamination risks.
HALT-PennEast is also in a unique position to help FERC understand the environmental
impacts that would result from the proposed pipeline. Increased reliance on natural gas in New
Jersey, rather than a focus on renewables such as wind and solar, will exacerbate the effects of
climate change and is inconsistent with President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. In addition, the
pipeline’s current route threatens important wildlife in the area, including several endangered
and threatened species and critical habitat for those species, such as abandoned mines for
threatened and endangered bat species. These species are vital to the recreational, ecosystem, and
6 See, Letter from Tullis C. Onstott, Professor, Princeton University, to Cheryl A. LaFleur, Chairman, FERC (Feb.
24, 2014) (on file with FERC).
7 Nsikan Akpan, 3-Month-Old Methane Leak in Southern California Declared State of Emergency, PBS (Jan. 6,
2016), available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/3-month-old-methane-leak-in-southern-california-now-astate-
of-emergency/.
6
commercial well-being of the members’ communities. HALT-PennEast’s intervention is
necessary to ensure that FERC fully considers these environmental concerns and less harmful
alternatives in its draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
These environmental concerns are multiplied by related projects: HALT-PennEast is
concerned that PennEast’s application improperly segmented its analysis of these related pipeline
projects—and that FERC may do the same in drafting its EIS—thereby undervaluing the true
environmental harms. A recent D.C. Circuit case held that FERC cannot segment review of
related pipeline projects when conducting its EIS and that FERC must consider the cumulative
impacts of all connected actions together in the EIS.8 Several other proposed pipeline projects
are directly connected to the PennEast pipeline proposal and must be considered in the upcoming
EIS. These include the proposed MARC II pipeline9 and proposed upgrades to the Transco Leidy
Line that rely on a connection to the PennEast pipeline.10 FERC must consider the cumulative
impacts from the MARC II proposal, the Transco proposed upgrades, and any other related
pipeline projects in the EIS for the PennEast pipeline. HALT-PennEast’s intervention ensures
that FERC considers all cumulative impacts from connected actions and does not unlawfully
segment the pipeline projects.
8 Delaware Riverkeeper Network et al. v. FERC, 753 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
9 The MARC II pipeline is specifically designed to connect the PennEast pipeline with the current MARC I pipeline.
Crestwood Midstream Partners Announces Successful Non-Binding Open Season for MARC II Pipeline in the
Marcellus Shale, BUSINESS WIRE (Oct. 20, 2014), available at
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20141020006631/en/Crestwood-Midstream-Partners-Announces-
Successful-Non-Binding-Open; see also, Tracy Hallck, Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, at 20, available at
http://www.millenniumpipeline.com/pdf/2014_annualmeeting/2014MillenniumPipelineAnnualCustomerMeeting-
CrestwoodPresentation.pdf.
10 Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity: Garden State Expansion Project,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, at 3-5 (Feb. 18, 2015); see also Application of PennEast Pipeline
Company, LLC for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations, PennEast Pipeline
Company, LLC, at 7 (Sept. 24, 2015) (noting that the PennEast pipeline would terminate at a delivery point for the
Transco Leidy line).
7
4. HALT-PennEast has Unique Knowledge about State and Local Land Uses and
Conservation Efforts, and Intervention is in the Public Interest.
Many acres along the proposed routes are also subject to preservation or conservation
easements under arrangements that include public investment by HALT-PennEast’s members.
For instance, the Green Acres Program in New Jersey has expended significant state and
municipal resources to preserve open spaces in the state. N.J.S.A. 13:8A-1 et seq. These open
spaces range from recreational areas and waterways to timber reserves and local farms. The
proposed pipeline route is being sited to cross through thousands of acres of these preserved
spaces. HALT-PennEast members have concluded that the pipeline would undermine and
undervalue these preserved spaces and, in turn, directly harm its members’ recreational and
commercial interests in these lands. Based on the FERC Docket to date, it is apparent that
PennEast has refused to adequately evaluate the history and restrictive land-use covenants of
these preserved spaces. As a result, significant taxpayer expenditures would be wasted if these
protections are lost, and the value of these spaces to the surrounding community and residents
would be lost. HALT-PennEast’s membership has extensive interest, knowledge, and reliance
on the current land-use restrictions on this property, and its participation is necessary to develop
a complete factual record on these issues and concerns.
Finally, the public interest will be served by intervention. HALT-PennEast’s interests are
shared by those in the public who are not members of HALT-PennEast but are still homeowners
in New Jersey. In addition, the community at large currently benefits from the many preserved
open spaces that would be damaged. It is in the public’s interest to insure that homeowner and
landowner views are heard alongside the environmental and business interests of other
intervenors. More diverse voices in the FERC proceedings will make it more likely that the
overall public will be served by the final decision.
8
III. Good Cause for Intervention Out-Of-Time
HALT-PennEast has good cause to intervene out-of-time. First, HALT-PennEast was
only created as of January 21, 2016, and therefore could not have intervened as an entity until
very recently. HALT-PennEast now moves to intervene promptly after its formation so it will not
delay the FERC proceedings. Many impacted homeowners do not have the individual resources
to fully and adequately present their interests and concerns to FERC. Therefore, a unified entity
representing the views of landowners in Hunterdon and Mercer Counties is essential for FERC to
understand the direct and indirect impacts of the pipeline and to develop a full factual record. In
addition, intervention by HALT will lessen the administrative burden on FERC by limiting the
number of intervenors and individual comments. In short, HALT-PennEast has been diligent in
forming a non-profit entity and intervening in this matter as soon as the homeowners determined
that a community group was necessary and essential to fully represent the community’s interests.
Second, many of the concerns of HALT-PennEast arose recently. PennEast has made
unconsented entry onto HALT-PennEast’s members’ properties for the purpose of conducting
surveys. Many of these entries occurred after the October 29, 2015 intervention deadline. These
continued entries—without the permission of the landowners—sparked an increase in concern
among landowners, contributing to the formation of HALT-PennEast. Moreover, new concerns
from members arose due to PennEast’s recent actions and its inadequate responses to FERC
staff’s requests for additional information filed on November 24, 2015.11 As a result, HALTPennEast
has good cause for intervening at this time. The intervention of HALT-PennEast is
necessary to develop a full factual record of these recent events and prevent further unlawful
entry until FERC makes a decision on PennEast’s application.
11 Letter from Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, FERC, to Anthony C. Cox, PennEast Pipeline Company, RE
Environmental Information Request (Nov. 25, 2015).
9
Third, HALT-PennEast’s intervention will not delay the proceedings. This motion is filed
prior to any decision by FERC on PennEast’s application and prior to FERC’s release of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, intervention at this stage is sufficiently early in
FERC’s proceedings. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.214; Venice Gathering Sys., LLC, 152 FERC ¶ 61245,
62161 n.6 (Sept. 29, 2015).
IV. Conclusion
Wherefore HALT-PennEast on its own and on behalf of its members respectively
requests FERC grant its Motion for Leave to Intervene Out-Of-Time as a party with full rights to
participate in all future proceedings.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Steven Richardson
Steven Richardson
Wiley Rein LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 719-7489
rsrichardson@wileyrein.com
Church joins crusade against pipeline
http://wnyt.com/article/stories/s4026575.shtml
People packed the pews as a Town of Bethlehem church joined the crusade against a natural gas pipeline, Saturday afternoon.
“Words like fracking are not complimentary with a holy reverence for the earth,” said Rev. Harlan Ratmeyer, First Reformed Church of Bethlehem Pastor.
And what turned the pastor against Kinder Morgan’s plan, was the proposed 30-inch line runs right through the church’s 220 year old nature preserve, and along its cemetery.
“Then we realized this was a much bigger deal than us alone trying to fight something,” said Ratmeyer.
Stop New York Fracked Gas Pipeline led the discussion. They have an estimated 8 months left to persuade the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC to not allow Kinder Morgan to build the 133 mile long pipeline.
“I do believe we’re at a tipping point for a lot of reasons,” said Becky Meier, Stop New York Fracked Gas Pipeline.
She says lawmakers are starting to listen.
“After listening to the information today, A. I want to see a health study, and B. I think I’m inclined to be against it,” said Neil Breslin, D – Bethlehem, who was at the meeting.
It’s clear people are afraid of losing their land to Kinder Morgan through eminent domain.
A number at the meeting, including the church, say Kinder Morgan has sent surveyors onto their land without their permission. Leslie Carey told us they surprised her on a walk in the woods and were confrontational.
“I was very intimidated. Here are three men. I’m alone in the woods with a puppy and a dog. They have machetes and insist I don’t belong there,” said Carey, a Nassau resident.
After five people filed police reports with state police about trespassing surveyors in Nassau, town supervisor Dave Fleming says he’s considering launching an investigation.
We talked to Kinder Morgan media representative Richard Wheatley about that. He recited a prepared statement:
“Mr. Fleming’s accusations are not new to us. We do have permission to survey on electric utility cooridors.”
Wheatley wouldn’t speculate if that’s where they were. But said the company’s contacted police because its surveyors have been threatened.
The company hopes to start building in 2017 and finish by Nov 1, 2018. But the Natural Gas giant has plenty standing in its way.
Kinder Morgan’s stock price has been tumbling with the fall of oil prices. Dropping nearly 75 percent since April. It was at a low last week, until a slight rebound after news the company was cutting 900 million dollars from its capital budget.
N.J. homeowners organize to oppose PennEast pipeline
New Jersey homeowners in Hunterdon and Mercer counties have formed a new group to oppose the proposed PennEast natural gas pipeline, which they say could be built on private property using eminent domain. HALT PennEast — which stands for “homeowners against land taking” — criticized the PennEast Pipeline Company for proposing a route that would abut or intersect the properties of dozens of New Jersey residents, as well as threatening to use the power of eminent domain to install the underground pipeline.
“This is not just for this group of people,” said Vincent DiBianca, one of the group’s organizers, who lives along the proposed route in Delaware Township. “If this starts to set a precedent, and corporate gain is one of the fundamental principles at play here and people can lose their properties, that’s unconstitutional. It’s certainly not fair and just.”
DiBianca said the proposed route touches about 250 properties in New Jersey and that homeowners are starting to speak out aganist the 118- mile pipeline, which would run from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, to Mercer County, ending near Trenton.
On its website, PennEast said that federal approval of the pipeline would allow the company “to access property to survey land and to construct and operate infrastructure; however, PennEast considers it a last resort that would be an exhaustive, socially and financially costly process for all involved.”
PennEast said it would rather reach out to homeowners first and offer to pay them for the use of their land.
But for some residents of Hunterdon and Mercer counties, that dog won’t hunt.
“How would we farm?” said Jacqueline Evans, who lives in Delaware Township with her three children, about a hundred feet from the proposed route of the pipeline.
“This pipeline would compromise that. I’m also transitioning into organic, and that would also be compromised.”
Evans said she is also worried about the safety of a natural gas pipeline so close to her kids. “My children are always asking questions about what happens when it blows up, and these are very difficult questions to answer as a mother.”
So far, members of HALT PennEast are only New Jersey homeowners, but DiBianca said he would be open to expanding the group to include Pennsylvanians as well.
HALT PennEast has hired Wiley Rein, a large Washington, D.C., law firm specializing in government regulation.
Right now the PennEast project is under review at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which reviews any proposed pipeline that would cross state lines. FERC could approve or deny the project as soon as this fall.
PennEast said the pipeline would lower energy costs for customers in the area and increase reliability, especially during extreme weather when demand is high.
FERC wants more details about proposed natural gas pipeline tap in Franklin County
Blair Boone discovered in November that a map filed by Mountain Valley Pipeline sited a tap for Roanoke Gas on the family’s farm in Franklin County.
A black “X” in a blue circle marked the spot. Boone’s heart sank.
In August, he and his mother, Mavis, then 90 years old, told a survey crew seeking a route for the proposed 42-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline to stay off the family’s property adjacent to the Blackwater River.
It now appears that a tap, which would allow Roanoke Gas to draw natural gas from the high-pressure pipeline, would likely be sited in or near the vicinity of Southway Farm, a 350-acre property between Boones Mill and Rocky Mount that Franklin County intends to develop for a business park.
But the site that would be on the Boone family property has not been ruled out, according to officials with Roanoke Gas.
The Mountain Valley project, a 301-mile interstate pipeline, requires a green light from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before construction can begin.
In correspondence dated Dec. 24, FERC instructed Mountain Valley to provide, within 20 days, more details about the proposed Roanoke Gas connection. FERC asked for a pipeline milepost for the site, an estimate of anticipated volume of gas delivered there, a site plan “and other pertinent details.”
John D’Orazio, president and CEO of Roanoke Gas parent company RGC Resources, said Thursday it is possible that at least some of the details requested by FERC could be provided within 20 days.
He said other details could hinge on facts not yet known, such as the pipeline’s final route and what volume of natural gas might flow into a new distribution system.
As of Saturday, Roanoke Gas is the only local distribution company identified along the route of the controversial $3.5 billion project that has expressed interest publicly about tapping the pipe.
Boone and many other foes of the pipeline project contend the agreement between Mountain Valley and RGC Resources was negotiated in an effort to convince FERC that the pipeline would benefit at least one community along the route.
“Everyone believes the Roanoke Gas partnership with MVP is just a smokescreen so MVP can claim public benefit,” Boone said.
Letter in support of PennEast pipeline doesn’t include all the facts | Letter
After you read this great letter, click on the link to re-read the letter by Mike Spille, The PennEast Pipeline is not needed. Be sure to read through the comments below the article – there are quite a few more than there were last time I looked.
To the editor:
One has to admire the tenacity of PennEast pipeline’s proponents, the most recent example being a letter to the editor in the Dec. 3 Hunterdon County Democrat.
It is evident that PennEast is starting to have some doubts about its prospects. Having realized that claiming present gas shortage is a loser, they are starting to emphasize future needs for natural gas – 30 years from now. My hope would be that in 2050 New Jersey would be entirely or nearly so powered by clean renewable energy, and that the pollution and dangers of fracking would be left behind, for all of our sakes.
The writer is the executive director of the NJ Energy Coalition and begins by stating that the public needs factual information. I conclude that what he really means is some factual, but mostly aspirational, information.
Delaware to PennEast: No surveys from rights-of-way
With three committee members in attendance, the vote on a resolution opposing use of rights-of-way for PennEast surveys passed unanimously.
He stresses supply and price problems in 2013-14 winter but does not mention that the bottlenecks were fixed in time for 2014-15. He refers to natural gas as cleaner, but does not specify compared to what; it actually releases large amounts of methane greenhouse gas at the wellhead and also where any leaks occur. Neither one is clean.
He says admiringly that pipelines are safer, but does not specify the basis of his comparison: oil and gas trains explode more frequently, it is true, but pipeline explosions are usually much more damaging. Neither is safe. He also does not mention that PennEast is using the weakest class of pipe material for this project.
He mentions thousands of jobs when really after seven months of construction- mostly by skilled workers from out of state – at most 21 workers will be needed to maintain the pipeline.
The PennEast Pipeline is not needed | Opinion
The question to FERC, and other agencies such as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, is whether over-building of infrastructure on this scale should be allowed when the environmental impacts of this project are proven to be significant, and the cost to land owners in New Jersey from eminent domain is so high.
In a change of emphasis from previous PennEast claims about urgent present-day needs, the writer stresses that the six gas companies which have joined this project – promising to buy 90-percent of the gas – are doing so because New Jersey will need the gas in the future.
Right now, however, he chooses not to mention that the pipeline will hook up with Transco and other pipelines heading south and to an export facility in Maryland.
He claims this new gas will reduce prices to customers although if it is shipped overseas, where it commands three to four times the U.S. price. Our prices are more likely to rise than to fall – especially if we ratepayers also have to repay the billion dollar cost of pipeline construction.
Most offensive is the writer’s dismissive reference to “NIMBY” people, which is how he characterizes the opposition. How dare he say this pipeline will improve the environment. These are real people, our neighbors, who fear having their wells, septic systems, farms, and most of all their families put at risk by PennEast’s greedy partners.
The strategy of pipeline proponents is obvious: repeat the same mantras over and over endlessly until the public begins to believe them. Don’t let them get away with it.
Andrea Bonette
East Amwell Township
Apparent dishonesty & trespass in another pipeline project
Maybe this is standard operating procedure?
Forest Service accuses Atlantic Coast Pipeline of misrepresentation in soil surveys
http://m.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_4e8d5d3c-3220-5c0d-b72a-8af655aa3ff6.html?mode=jqm
The Forest Service filed a detailed account with federal regulators on Thursday that alleges the pipeline company, led by Richmond-based Dominion Transmission Inc., conducted the surveys in early October before determining the protocols for the work, notifying the Forest Service that they were about to begin, or ensuring that qualified soil scientists would collect the samples.
After the company provided résumés of the survey crew in mid-October, the Forest Service determined that the only person qualified to do the work had not actually been hired or used to collect soil samples, according to a 22-page letter from Forest Service Supervisor Clyde Thompson to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Writer is not correct about PennEast pipeline | Letter
“To the editor:
The recent letter regarding the proposed PennEast pipeline is a perfect example of someone parroting industry propaganda without researching facts.
We are lucky that our politicians are fighting this unnecessary project. At the FERC hearings real estate professionals confirmed home values will go down, mortgage professionals warned that easements can invalidate mortgages or property insurance, and scientists showed how pipeline installation in our arsenic rich karst region could contaminate water wells.
This pipeline would not follow existing easements, as a “brownfields” project. Instead, this “greenfields” project would cut new easements through farms and open space preserved with our tax dollars, to reduce PennEast’s costs and avoid time-consuming negotiations for co-location in more industrial areas.
This project would bisect family farms, destroy barns and outbuildings, jeopardize farm income and organic certifications, threaten drinking water for millions, run through high use recreational areas, and beside hospitals, schools, homes and churches. Because we’re rural, PennEast could use a lower grade of pipe.
Seventy percent of residents denied survey permissions which PennEast needs to pursue eminent domain. This proposed pipeline isn’t to meet new demand. It would be built so its member companies could avoid paying shipping charges on existing pipelines, and instead pocket the nearly $280 million annual revenue.
The writer’s knee-jerk bashing of pipeline opposition is insupportable. Thankfully, our leaders understand PennEast’s pursuing this unnecessary project just for corporate gain, at the expense of property owners and communities.
Susan D. Meacham
Holland Township”
Delaware Township Citizens Against the Pipeline 