Clean Air Council study dismissed completely On 9/26/2013, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C.: Filer: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC NiSource Corporate Services Co. (as Agent) Docket(s): PF13-7-000 Lead Applicant: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Filing Type: Answer/Response to a Pleading/Motion Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Submits Response to Clean Air Council Comments in Docket No. PF13-7. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC ) ) ) Docket No. PF13-7-000 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE OF COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC TO COMMENTS OF THE CLEAN AIR COUNCIL On February 25, 2013, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (“Columbia”) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission” or “FERC”) a request to initiate the prefiling process for its proposal to construct natural gas transmission facilities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. The proposed project includes installation of two natural gas looping pipelines (Line 1278 and Line 10345 Loops) and modifications and upgrades at the Milford, Easton, Eagle, and Rutledge compressor stations and the Wagoner, Quakertown, and Pennsburg meter stations (“East Side Expansion Project” or the “Project”). On June 13, 2013, the Commission issued its Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the Planned East Side Expansion Project, Request For Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting. On July 8, 2013, Clean Air Council (“CAC”) filed a letter (the “CAC Letter”) providing comments on the scope of the Commission’s review under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). On July 25, 2013, Columbia filed a response to comments received during the Commission Staff’s Scoping Period. In that letter, Columbia noted that it would be filing at a later date a more detailed response to the CAC Letter. This filing provides Columbia’s response to the concerns raised in the CAC Letter. CAC urges an overly broad scope of review under NEPA and attempts to conflate air regulatory considerations with the review process performed pursuant to NEPA. For the reasons discussed in detail below, the Commission should reject the CAC comments that attempt to broaden the scope of the EA beyond the Commission’s responsibilities under NEPA for review of the East Side Expansion Project. The air permitting for the Project will be conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) under the general oversight of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). PADEP has the requisite authority and expertise to effectively undertake the review of the Project. Although the Commission’s NEPA review does include developing an understanding of the air emissions of the Project in conjunction with evaluating overall environmental impacts of the project, NEPA does not require that the Commission determine what regulatory or permitting requirements should apply under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The scope of PADEP’s review addresses matters pertaining to air quality impacts and implications related to alternatives, control technologies, and other relevant considerations. The respective roles of the Commission and PADEP must be retained such that each agency can exercise its skills, abilities and experiences in the direct field of its authority. Columbia has provided relevant information on the air permitting process and air quality impacts of the Project in Resource Report 9. The Project also does not trigger any regulatory requirement to conduct air quality modeling, as argued by CAC. Further, despite CAC’s arguments to the contrary, the Commission’s cumulative impact review of the Project should not differ from previous Commission and court precedent, which has concluded that there is insufficient causal connection between the alleged impacts of natural gas production and climate change in the Marcellus Shale region and construction of a project of this type. Finally, Columbia has adequately addressed alternatives to the Project, and, given the purpose and need of the Project, consideration of alternative energy and energy conservation is not warranted. Columbia respectfully requests the Commission allow Columbia to supplement its earlier response to CAC Letter with the following response, and reject CAC’s comments: Columbia’s Responses to Comments in CAC Letter a. CAC’s concerns regarding air quality impacts of the Project have been adequately addressed by Columbia’s Resource Report 9 for the Project and in PADEP’s air permitting process. CAC suggests that the Commission’s NOI failed to properly acknowledge the need to review air quality impacts in the EA. Since the filing of CAC’s Letter, Columbia has submitted Resource Report 9 for the Project, which provides the Commission with the information necessary to address air quality impacts under NEPA and to address the concerns raised by CAC. Columbia’s Resource Report 9 addressing air and noise quality fully complies with the Commission’s information requirements. In fact, Resource Report 9 includes significantly more air quality emissions information than required. Resource Report 9 already includes each compressor station’s potential to emit NOx, CO, SO2, particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5), volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), and hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”) in section 9.1.3. The potential emissions from this Project are less than CAAestablished New Source Review (“NSR”) significance levels for all the referenced pollutants. Moreover, air quality impacts will be addressed through the State Agencies’ air permitting processes and other applicable requirements, as explained in further detail in Resource Report 9. CAC also asserts that the Commission must require that Columbia conduct air quality modeling for the Project to ascertain the environmental impacts of the Project. PADEP’s air permitting process, and ultimately, issuance of air permits, will directly address air quality impacts. Moreover, the air emissions associated with the Project are less than NSR significance levels, and the emissions associated with the Project facilities will be less than major source permitting thresholds. Further, PADEP is the appropriate entity to address the need for air quality modeling and is properly considering the issue within the context of its jurisdiction over air quality issues. For example, the PADEP evaluated air quality modeling in the development of General Permit GP-5. Although GP-5 applies to natural gas production facilities and not to transmission facilities, it addresses similar types of equipment and emissions. In the January 31, 2013 Comment and Response Document (available at dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/aq/permits/gp/January_31_2013GP5_Comments_and_Response_Document.pdf), PADEP responded to comments about air quality and National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) attainment and maintenance as follows: The final GP-5 is applicable only to sources located at a non-major facility. If it is determined to be necessary, the Department may require the owner or operator of the facility to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS after the issuance of an authorization to use GP-5. Notwithstanding these factors, the Department is actively investigating the effects of the Marcellus gas industry on air quality. The Department has completed short-term air monitoring studies in the south west, north central, and north east portions of the state that measured pollutant concentrations near various Marcellus activities (drilling, fracturing, flaring, etc.) to address immediate health concerns of the nearby residents. Short-term sampling for CO, NO2, SO2, and O3 did not detect concentrations above NAAQS at any of the sampling sites. On July 11, 2012, the Department initiated a one-year ambient air project in Washington County with an emphasis on characterizing near-source concentrations of criteria and hazardous air pollutants from permanent facilities related to the Marcellus Shale gas industry (compressor stations, gas processing). PADEP Comment and Response Document General Permit GP-5, at 27 (January 31, 2013). Although GP-5 is not being used to permit the Project-related changes at the Project facilities, PADEP’s assessment of the ambient air quality impacts associated with compressor stations permitted with GP-5 (based on BAT level emissions controls and prior short-term monitoring studies) is indicative of PADEP’s expectations regarding ambient air quality impacts from compressor stations. CAC incorrectly argues that the Commission should require Columbia to perform dispersion modeling in order to ascertain the anticipated impact of additional pollution associated with the Project. However, dispersion modeling is not necessary in this case for the Commission to determine that there will be no significant impacts to air quality because PADEP’s air permits will address air quality impacts. In approving a pipeline certificate application that included new compression facilities, the Commission explained that the applicant’s “compliance with the [state air] permitting process will ensure that the compressor station minimizes air quality impacts.” Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P., 142 FERC ¶ 61,137, at P 62 (2013). In addition, the Commission has also explained that “NEPA does not require that every conceivable study be performed and that each problem be documented from every angle to explore its every potential for good or ill. Rather, what is required is that officials and agencies take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.” Dominion Transmission, Inc., 143 FERC ¶ 61,148, at P 73 citing Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 486 F.2d 946, 951 (7th Cir. 1973) (quoting Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 345 F. Supp. 440, 444 (1972)). This is certainly the case here, where the Commission is already taking a “hard look” at the impacts of the Project on air quality during its environmental review, with the recognition that the State Agencies’ air permits will comprehensively address air impacts. Finally, CAC makes reference to results of modeling it performed for the Barto Compressor Station (which, it should be noted, is not a Columbia facility) as purported evidence regarding NO2 emissions from compressor stations. However, recent analysis by PADEP discredits CAC’s analysis. In a letter dated May 14, 2013 (Attachment A), PADEP questioned the validity of CAC’s modeling at the Barto Compressor Station, based on a variety of factors including use of an outdated version of the model and incorrect site location, stack parameter data, meteorological data, and other relevant parameters. Subsequent to that letter, PADEP performed sampling at that location, and the results demonstrated that concentrations of NO2 were minimal and well below the NAAQS for NO2. On August 29, 2013 the PADEP issued a news release (Attachment B) and the results of the sampling (Attachment C). PADEP noted that the Department operates permanent NO2 monitors downwind of other compressor stations in Pennsylvania, and those monitors are also measuring levels that are well below the NAAQS for NO2. PADEP also conducted three short-term ambient air quality monitoring studies in drilling regions of the state, all of which detected no levels of any pollutant that would violate the NAAQS or pose a health concern. PADEP is also currently conducting a long-term study in Washington County that it expects to complete by year end, to collect data for various pollutants, including ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen sulfide, methane and volatile organic compounds. Thus, it is evident that PADEP is fully engaged in evaluating all air emissions matters in Pennsylvania and that CAC’s comments regarding air modeling are both uninformed and beyond what must be considered in FERC’s NEPA analysis. b. CAC’s concerns regarding natural gas production and climate change, including analysis of cumulative impacts, have been appropriately addressed. CAC claims that additional information on cumulative air quality impacts is needed related to natural gas production and climate change. CAC asserts, without support, that the Project will directly result in increased GHG emissions. Columbia disagrees. In Resource Report 9, Columbia provides supporting documentation that fugitive methane emissions as well as CO2 emissions do not significantly change as a result of the Project. The potential GHG emission calculations are based on the methodology prescribed in the EPA’s Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule at 40 CFR Part 98 and are not significant under the EPA’s Tailoring Rule. CAC also suggests that the Commission evaluate the “cumulative impact of the Project in conjunction with those from natural gas operations in the Marcellus Shale.” The same cumulative impact issues raised by CAC in the instant proceeding were previously raised in the Central New York Oil and Gas Company proceeding at Docket No. CP10-480-000, et al., and addressed by the Commission in its series of orders in that proceeding. 137 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2011); 138 FERC ¶ 61,104 (2012). With respect to cumulative impacts for that project, Commission Staff found in its EA: Given the wide extent of the Marcellus Shale and considering that development of the natural gas reserves in the formation is expected to take 20 to 40 years due to economics and other factors, the exact location, scale, and timing of future Marcellus Shale upstream facilities that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts in the proposed project area is unknown and, thus, outside the scope of our analysis. Similarly, in its Order on Rehearing issued on February 13, 2012, the Commission further responded to various claims for an analysis of cumulative impacts by stating, among other things: In response to numerous comments on the EA, the Commission determined it need not consider the cumulative impacts of Marcellus Shale development in determining whether approval of the MARC I Project would be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Commission concluded that development of the Marcellus Shale and the potential associated environmental impacts are not sufficiently causally-related to the MARC I Project to warrant a comprehensive analysis. November 14 Order, 137 FERC ¶ 61,121 at PP 81-94. . . . The order further found that, even if the Commission had found sufficient causal connection between the MARC I Project and Marcellus Shale development, any potential impacts from such development are not reasonably foreseeable as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC, 138 FERC ¶ 61,104, at P 8 (2012). Subsequent to the issuance of the Commission’s February 13 Order, intervenors in the proceeding appealed the Commission’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s evaluation under NEPA, stating: FERC’s analysis of the development of the Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves was sufficient. FERC included a short discussion of Marcellus Shale development in the EA, and FERC reasonably concluded that the impacts of that development are not sufficiently causally-related to the project to warrant a more in-depth analysis. . . . Accordingly, we hold that FERC properly discharged its responsibilities under NEPA. We have considered all of petitioners’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The petition for review is DENIED. Coalition for Responsible Growth & Resource Conservation v. FERC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11847 at *4, 5 (2d Cir. 2012). See also Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 139 FERC ¶ 61,161 (2012), order on reh’g, 142 FERC ¶ 61,025 (2013); Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,039, order denying reh’g and stay, 140 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2012). Given the wide extent of the Marcellus Shale and considering that development of the natural gas reserves in the formation is expected to take 20 to 40 years due to economics and other factors, the exact location, scale, and timing of future Marcellus Shale upstream facilities that could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts in the proposed project area is unknown and, thus, outside the scope of our analysis. Similarly, in its Order on Rehearing issued on February 13, 2012, the Commission further responded to various claims for an analysis of cumulative impacts by stating, among other things: In response to numerous comments on the EA, the Commission determined it need not consider the cumulative impacts of Marcellus Shale development in determining whether approval of the MARC I Project would be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Commission concluded that development of the Marcellus Shale and the potential associated environmental impacts are not sufficiently causally-related to the MARC I Project to warrant a comprehensive analysis. November 14 Order, 137 FERC ¶ 61,121 at PP 81-94. . . . The order further found that, even if the Commission had found sufficient causal connection between the MARC I Project and Marcellus Shale development, any potential impacts from such development are not reasonably foreseeable as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA. Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC, 138 FERC ¶ 61,104, at P 8 (2012). Subsequent to the issuance of the Commission’s February 13 Order, intervenors in the proceeding appealed the Commission’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s evaluation under NEPA, stating: FERC’s analysis of the development of the Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves was sufficient. FERC included a short discussion of Marcellus Shale development in the EA, and FERC reasonably concluded that the impacts of that development are not sufficiently causally-related to the project to warrant a more in-depth analysis. . . . Accordingly, we hold that FERC properly discharged its responsibilities under NEPA. We have considered all of petitioners’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The petition for review is DENIED. Coalition for Responsible Growth & Resource Conservation v. FERC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11847 at *4, 5 (2d Cir. 2012). See also Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 139 FERC ¶ 61,161 (2012). CAC’s comments do not provide additional information or arguments that should disturb the Commission’s determination in Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC, or the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upholding the Commission’s order, or in subsequent cases. Nothing has changed since the Commission determined that including the cumulative impacts of Marcellus Shale development for a project in the same region where Columbia proposes to construct its project is speculative and not reasonably foreseeable for the purpose of a cumulative impact analysis. Accordingly, the Commission should reject CAC’s request for a more comprehensive review of cumulative impacts resulting from Marcellus Shale development activities for the same reasons cited in the orders cited above. Nevertheless, as noted above, Columbia has provided additional information on cumulative impacts for the Commission’s review of the Application. c. The energy alternatives raised by CAC are not viable alternatives to the Project and thus do not need to be included in the Commission’s analysis of alternatives under NEPA. CAC states that the Commission must include energy alternatives, such as solar and wind power, as well as energy conservation, in its evaluation of alternatives. CAC’s assertion starts from a faulty premise regarding the purpose of the Project. The technologies CAC discusses focus on energy generation and usage, whereas the Project is a natural gas transportation project. Such energy technologies have no relation to the transmission of natural gas, the needs of customers that Columbia would be meeting through the Project, or the purpose of the Project. As described in more detail in Resource Report 1, Columbia is proposing construction of two natural gas looping pipelines in Chester County, Pennsylvania and Gloucester County, New Jersey, and modifications and upgrades at four compressor stations in Pennsylvania and Maryland and three meter stations in Pennsylvania and New York. The Project will not generate energy for delivery to customers, nor will it produce, own, or sell fuel (including natural gas) used to generate energy. The Project will merely provide some additional pipeline capacity and compression for others to transport natural gas to market. This careful consideration of the purpose of the Project is important because under NEPA the reasonableness of an alternative is evaluated by reference to the purpose and need of a project. City of Alexandria v. Slater, 198 F.3d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NEPA did not require consideration of ten-lane alternative that would not meet forecasted demand to be addressed by proposed twelve-lane bridge project); Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 195-98 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (noting “harm that an unbounded understanding of alternatives might cause” and finding reasonable FAA’s decision not to consider other airport locations that did not serve purpose of project). The NEPA alternatives analysis requirement does not suggest that every project must consider all other alternative energy sources. “Alternatives that do not advance the purpose of the . . . Project will not be considered reasonable or appropriate.” Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 428 F.3d 1233, 1247 (9th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). Thus, for Columbia’s Project, the NEPA standard requires an analysis of alternative means to provide customers with natural gas and not other technologies or projects that are unrelated to the purpose of the Project. While it is true, therefore, that energy alternatives are not relevant to the Commission’s analysis of alternatives for this Project, in order to respond to CAC’s comment, Columbia will address the potential for alternative energy sources or energy conservation to meet the demand for energy demonstrated by Columbia’s customers. The use of alternative energy sources is an option that, in theory, might reduce or eliminate the need to build the proposed facilities and thus avoid the associated environmental impacts. Several alternative energy sources to natural gas currently exist, such as petroleum- and coal-based energy, nuclear power, hydropower, and other energy sources, including renewable energy technologies. Petroleum- and coal-based energy are commonly used and found throughout the United States; however, relative to natural gas, the use of petroleum- or coal-based energy would result in greater emissions of pollutants, including GHGs. Further, the mining and transportation of coal to coal-burning power plants is considered to have additional or more complex adverse environmental impacts than environmental impacts associated with the use of natural gas. Similarly, the environmental impacts associated with processing, transporting, and burning more oil would be greater than environmental impacts associated with the use of natural gas. Therefore, compared to the Project, the use of coal- or petroleumbased energy would not offer an environmental benefit, and use of these sources of energy would not be preferred alternatives to the Project. Growth in nuclear generating capacity is estimated to account for approximately 17 percent of total United States generating capacity by 2040. U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), 2013. However, regulatory requirements, cost considerations, and public concerns make it unlikely that a new nuclear power plant will be developed and commissioned to serve the mid-Atlantic energy market within a timeframe that would meet the objectives of the Project. The expansion and upgrading of hydropower facilities are expected to produce incremental additions of power production in the coming years. However, like nuclear power generation, it is unlikely that significant sources of energy production from hydropower sources that could serve potential end use markets would be permitted and brought online within the Project timeframe. For this reason, use of hydropower is not considered to be a preferred or even viable alternative to the Project. Federal, state, and local initiatives likely will contribute to an increase in the availability and cost effectiveness of non-hydropower renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and biomass. EIA projects that the share of generation coming from renewable fuels (including conventional hydropower) will grow from 13 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2040. EIA, 2013. EIA indicates that this increase in the use of renewable energy sources will be driven by federal tax credits, state-level policies, and federal requirements to use more biomassbased transportation fuels. However, it is unlikely that adequate renewable energy sources will be available in a timeframe that would meet the Project’s purpose and need. In addition, any of these alternatives or combinations of alternatives needed to match the energy provided by the Project would require transmission, distribution, and plant site components, all requiring land, as well as construction and operation. Depending on the locations of the sources, development of these components more than likely would result in impacts similar to or greater than those associated with the proposed Project. Energy conservation could help alleviate some of the nation’s growing demand for energy and eventually offset the need for increased natural gas supplies. The reference case in the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2012 projects that per capita energy use will decrease slightly between 2013 and 2035, declining by 0.6 percent per year on average. EIA, 2012. Despite this per capita decrease, overall energy consumption in the United States is projected to increase by 0.3 percent per year from 2010 to 2035 due to population growth. EIA, 2012. Although energy conservation will be an important element in addressing future energy demands in the long term, energy conservation is not a viable alternative to meet the short-term energy demands of the country in general or the specific needs that will be met by the Project. In summary, none of the alternative energy sources, either alone or in combination, would offer a significant environmental advantage over the Project. In fact, use and/or development of many, if not most, of the alternative energy sources would be associated with greater environmental impacts than those associated with the Project. Furthermore, many of the potential alternative energy sources could not be developed in time to meet the Project objectives. Since energy conservation also is not a viable alternative for meeting the short-term energy needs of customers that may receive the natural gas transported as a result of the Project, there are no realistic alternatives to the Project for meeting the Project objectives. Last, zeroemitting renewables, like solar and wind, are intermittent and subject to variability and forecasting errors. Thus, even if renewables were an option, natural gas use would still be necessary to address rapid, unanticipated variations in load. Conclusion Columbia respectfully requests that the Commission allow Columbia to supplement its earlier comments filed July 25, 2013, and reject CAC’s comments. Dated: September 26, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/Carlos F. Peña____ Carlos F. Peña Assistant General Counsel NiSource Corporate Services 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 267-4745 cpena@nisource Fredric J. George, Senior Counsel Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC P. O. Box 1273 Charleston, West Virginia 25325-1273 (304) 357-2359 fgeorge@nisource Attorneys for Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Attachment A: ft P.M~~~~~r~~
Posted on: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:07:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015