The Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline in NH

The Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline (NED) was an interstate natural gas pipeline proposed by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan. The project would have brought gas from shale fields in Pennsylvania into the New England regional market, entering New Hampshire through Winchester and passing around Nashua before exiting in Pelham. The route then briefly cut through the Granite State again in Salem before ending at a distribution station in eastern Massachusetts.

The project was suspended indefinitely in April 2016, with parent company Kinder Morgan claiming they had been unable to secure sufficient capacity contracts with prospective customers to justify the pipeline, and saw little chance of being able to do so in the near future. 

Additional facts about the proposal:

• 87% of the route would have been buried adjacent to an existing utility right-of-way corridor, requiring 100 feet of clearance during construction, reduced to a 50 foot buffer after completion.
• A total of 71 miles of pipeline would have passed through 17 NH towns.
• The route included a 41,000 hp compressor station and a 50,000 dht/d meter station .
• The 30 inch pipe would have carried roughly 1.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day.
• TGP originally hoped to begin construction in January of 2017, with an expected in-service date of November 2018.

The initial route remained in Massachusetts, but TGP officials announced the new route through NH in December of 2014, citing reduced environmental impact, greater opportunity for utilizing existing rights-of-way, and opportunity to expand access to natural gas service. 

Jurisdiction

The U.S. Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority over the approval of interstate pipeline projects. FERC must issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity before such projects can move forward.

FERC authority supersedes nearly all state or local laws related to such projects, and approval may even override local regulations.

• The lone area of exception to this rule is the Clean Water Act, which gives state water authorities the power to determine whether a proposed project would violate state water quality standards.
• The National Environmental Protection Act does require that FERC note where a project violates state or local regulations. FERC may then opt to request a revision of the project to bring it into line with local ordinances.
• The NH Site Evaluation Committee (SEC) must also approve the project once FERC issues a certificate. However, the SEC cannot reject the pipeline or alter its route. The SEC may impose conditions such as wetland restoration or erosion control measures on its approval of the project. These amount to requests, as the developer is not obligated to honor them.

Once a pipeline project is completed and operational, jurisdiction passes from FERC to the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Approval process and opportunities for public input

Approval of interstate pipeline projects is the sole jurisdiction of FERC.

Before certifying a project, FERC must first determine whether the public benefit the project offers outweighs any negative impacts, such as environmental damage or the use of eminent domain. FERC must also examine alternative projects that could answer the same public need to determine if any of them offer a lower adverse impact.

The certificate process allows several opportunities for public comment.

• Project developers must hold public hearings before filing a complete application. This preliminary comment period closed on October 16^th, 2015.
• After the application is received, FERC authors a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This draft is then opened for public comment, with a series of local hearings held before a final draft is issued.

Eminent domain

Once FERC approves a pipeline, the developer may exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire needed land they have been unable to secure through negotiation.

Requests to exercise eminent domain are submitted to federal court. If the court agrees that the land is necessary for the public benefit, it may authorize transfer of it to the developer, determining a fair market value for the parcel.

A NH constitutional amendment passed in 2006 forbids the state from exercising the power of eminent domain for any privately-owned projects. However, as interstate pipeline projects are subject to federal authority, the NH amendment cannot prevent those that are approved by FERC from using eminent domain.

Local utilities

In the fall of 2015, the NH Public Utilities Commission announced it had approved a 20-year deal allowing Liberty Utilities to transport up to 115,000 dekatherms of natural gas from the NED pipeline to local customers. This was the only arrangement that would have seen fuel transported to the pipeline used in the NH market. 

State policy issues

Despite the fact that federal authority trumps any efforts by states to regulate the construction of interstate pipelines, several bills related to pipeline development have been considered in the NH Legislature.

Notably, a provision in a 2015 bill that would have required a pipeline company to purchase the entirety of a piece of property when trying to take a parcel through eminent domain was eliminated after analysis revealed that the regulation would be essentially ineffective in the face of federal authority.

Pro: NH officials should support the NED pipeline

• The NED pipeline will increase NH’s access to natural gas, an efficient and cost-effective fuel, expanding service to communities which currently do not have it.
•  The pipeline will help stabilize and lower energy costs in the region, with one study estimating it could save consumers from $2.1 to $2.8 billion per year.
• The pipeline would allow for the possible creation of a natural-gas fired power plant to replace retiring facilities such as the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, which is set to close in 2019.
• The project will lead to millions in both state and local tax revenue and will create hundreds of construction jobs. 

Con: NH officials should do all in their power to oppose the NED pipeline

• The pipeline will lower property values on adjacent lots and expose residents to the danger of accidents or disasters.
• The project continues the region’s reliance on fossil fuels, which have a greater impact on the environment than renewable energy sources.  
• It is unfair that some residents may have their land seized by eminent domain for a project that may not ultimately benefit them.
• The project has not demonstrated a clear public benefit to justify the impacts on the NH environment and on local property-owners.