An answer to Sen. Yudichak's letter to FERC

Seldom have I been so disappointed in a legislator’s action as I was with Sen. John Yudichak’s letter to FERC endorsing the PennEast/UGI pipeline.  My original intent was to post my entire reply to Sen. Yudichak, but even when I cut it in half, it will still my be longest two posts ever.  Nonetheless, I think it is important to get this out into the public.  So here is the first portion of what I wrote to the Senator.  I will post the remaining part tomorrow night.

It was with great disappointment that I read your letter to Secretary Kimberly Bose of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the proposed PennEast/UGI pipeline.  

You gave the pipeline your unconditional blessing, stating that Pennsylvania had “yet to fully leverage our extensive energy reserves for short and long-term economic development.”  You went on to say that “[N]ew pipelines delivering Pennsylvania’s gas to Pennsylvania communities and beyond will be beneficial in so many ways.”

You wrote that “[s]afety and environmental protection are primary concerns of mine.”  You also stated that the pipeline would create “thousands of good-paying jobs.”

You quoted an estimate of almost a billion dollars of savings for electric and natural gas users in Eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey had the PennEast/UGI pipeline been in operation in 2013-2014.

First, let me say that I served for a number of years as field representative for California State Senator Jerry Smith (Silicon Valley), and I am fully aware of the conflicting demands of constituents.  I can understand why you might take a position favoring the PennEast/UGI pipeline. 

Certainly the natural gas industry and the fracking industry favor the pipeline, as do a number of construction unions.  What I wish you had done is talk to some of your constituents and local officials who oppose the pipeline or have grave reservations about the process under which it is being built.  Goodness knows we have made enough noise in opposition.

All four Carbon County townships directly affected by the pipeline have adopted resolutions opposing the impacts of the pipeline.  The Carbon County Commissioners have adopted a similar resolution and have spoken out against the pipeline, and the County Planner has publicly detailed why the pipeline is not in keeping with the County’s general plan.  None of these people are wild-eyed radicals, and all had good reasons for their opposition.

Many of your constituents believe that the PennEast/UGI pipeline is poorly routed, has deleterious effects on the tourism industry so vital to Carbon County, fails to use best practices, is incredibly harmful to the environment, does not remotely follow the recommendations in the Pipeline Infrastructure Task Force Report, uses eminent domain for private profit, will deliver gas to only one customer (admittedly important politically) along the route, will provide almost no long term jobs, and is being rammed down the throats of landowners along the route by an arrogant and unfeeling company.  

I taught state and local government at San Jose State University for many years, and I advised my students in contact with a legislator to cover only one subject and write no more than one page.  In this case I am ignoring my own advice.  There is no way that I can say what needs saying in one page. 

• Siting

The existing Transco Pipeline actually runs parallel to the proposed PennEast/UGI pipeline for a number of miles and ends almost at the same place.  Co-location would be natural, but it hasn’t happened.

In Carbon County alone the PennEast/UGI pipeline would run through Hickory Run and Beltzville State Parks, cross high quality trout streams, cut through Bethlehem Municipal Water Authority lands, cross two preserved farms, and scar the Blue Mountain on both sides of the Appalachian Trail.  The siting shows a complete disregard for the land and its people.

to be continued.