By Michael Hill
Correspondent
Another setback for billion dollar, 118-mile PennEast natural gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New Jersey.
“We are asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take a closer look at whether the pipeline is needed at all. We’re also asking them to take a closer look at the request by the company to earn, what we consider to be a very high return on their investment,” said Stefanie Brand.
Brand directs the New Jersey Division of the Rate Counsel. It acts as consumer watchdog on utility issues. Its recommendation to federal regulators is another departure from support for the pipeline by the Christie administration.
The Rate Counsel — with its economic consultants — says PennEast Pipeline is making up the need for a new pipeline.
“In their initial filing they really didn’t, what they said was we have contracts for most of the capacity that’s going to be on the pipeline so therefore there’s clearly a need,” Brand said.
But wouldn’t increasing the supply of gas drive down the price of gas, being a benefit to consumers?
“Sure if it’s needed. But if it’s not needed then you have to add on top of that the cost of building the pipeline when you’re looking at how much it’s going to cost. So that’s why, we’re not opposed to pipelines as a general proposition. If a pipeline is needed then it needs to be built. But we are opposed to building pipelines that we don’t think are needed,” Brand said.
“It’s a bit surprising that someone dedicated to serving energy consumers, electrical and natural gas consumers throughout New Jersey would question the numerous benefits of the PennEast Pipeline from an environmental, economical and practical benefit stance,” said PennEast Pipeline Spokesperson Pat Kornick.
A Penn East spokesperson says the Rate Counsel is wrong.
“You cannot simply build a pipeline and hope people subscribe to using it. A company, in this case PennEast, has to demonstrate there’s clear need for a pipeline that is there to serve the demands,” Kornick said.
There already was strong environmental opposition to this pipeline. With the Rate Counsel’s decision, now environmentalists have another reason to oppose the pipeline — an economic need one.
“We think it absolutely should not go forward. That we should not have our land and water damaged. We should not have our public health and safety put at risk. We should not have hundreds of private homes taken through eminent domain for a project that would only profit the owner companies and it’s not about public need,” said Tom Gilbert, campaign director for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation.
PennEast says the pipeline would benefit consumers so its fight is far from over.