Pennsylvania

Energy. Environment. Economy.

Feds approve pipeline to bring Marcellus gas to New York, New England

The dotted black circle shows the gas supply area in Susquehanna County. The red line is the proposed path of the Constitution Pipeline.

COURTESY: FERC

The dotted black circle shows the gas supply area in Susquehanna County. The red line is the proposed path of the Constitution Pipeline.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has given the green light to a proposed interstate pipeline that would bring Marcellus Shale natural gas to markets in New York and New England, provided it meets certain environmental conditions.

The Constitution project involves building 124 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline, connecting gas production in Susquehanna County to existing transmission lines in New York. It would be operated by subsidiaries of Williams Partners, Cabot Oil and Gas, Piedmont Natural Gas, and WGL Holdings.

In an Environmental Impact Statement released in October, FERC determined the pipeline would have some limited, but adverse environmental impacts. The commission is requiring Constitution’s operators to submit numerous mitigation plans before construction to avoid impacts to sensitive areas and wildlife.

The project will also need final permits from Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

Williams spokesman Chris Stockton said construction could begin by the end of the first quarter of 2015 and the pipeline could come online by the end of next year.

However, that timeline could prove to be overly optimistic if environmental groups and landowners in upstate New York opposing the pipeline decide to challenge these permits in court.

“We’re doing everything we can and working hard to get everything lined up,” Stockton said.

While developers say the Constitution pipeline will keep customers in New York and New England from experiencing sticker shock when they get their gas bills next winter, these projects have gotten pushback from those who argue there is little benefit to local communities – especially in Pennsylvania.

“These pipelines and transmission lines have an impact on Pennsylvanians,” said PennFuture President Cindy Dunn. “They have virtually no say in it and no benefit and that’s a problem.”

For example, Pennsylvania doesn’t charge property tax on pipelines, while neighboring New York state does.

According to a study by the project developers, the Constitution Pipeline will pass through four counties in New York that will rake in a combined $12.7 million each year in tax revenue. Susquehanna County will receive only $250,000 in property taxes on a metering station for the line.

However, Tony Ventello argues Pennsylvania isn’t getting the short end of the stick.

Ventello is with the Progress Authority, an economic development organization in Northeast Pennsylvania where the Constitution Pipeline will start.

“It starts with the wells. You’ve got plenty of taxes being paid by the industry to develop the wells,” he said. “They’re buying products in Susquehanna County. There’s a lot of impact to businesses just building that line directly.”

Comments

  • George Wythe

    It’s about time! Thanks to FERC for approving this earlier than they had to. This line will supply gas to several towns and factories along it’s path, as well as other places when it connects in Schoharie County.

  • JimBarth

    The shale gas/oil extraction bubble will burst in the not too distant future, just read the story posted today in these pages. If pipelines from the Marcellus are built to transport the existing gas at a faster rate, what happens to the excess pipelines when the gas depletes (much faster than the government and industry predict)? Investment in such increased infrastructure is a colossal waste, and it takes investment away from the real future of energy, and which only makes a small percentage of people a lot of money. Always, these types of capitalists want to privatize the profit, and socialize the cost. Free markets?

    • George Wythe

      Sorry Mr. Barth, I don’t agree with you at all, which certainly isn’t surprising. Although I know natural gas from our world will not last forever, I believe it will last much longer than our lifetime. The other article posted here isn’t worth commenting on, since it just refers to another anti-gas article by ‘Nature’.

      The Marcellus shale reserve has still increased in production since it was tapped. Once it ‘runs out’, even the same wells could be re-drilled deeper into the Utica-shale layer, which will send up even more gas than the Marcellus, through the same pipelines, which are maintained very well.

      Hopefully by the end of that time, we will create a new way to produce power here on earth. The choices the environmental groups have in their renewable energy visions, are never going to happen, at least in this part of the US. There isn’t enough wind or sun to produce much of our power needs, and not many want to see them everywhere, nor would they want powerlines connecting them.

  • George Wythe

    Some foolish people attempt to convince others that pipelines cost taxpayers money, — they don’t. Not only do the gas companies pay for their pipelines, as well as the land they lease for them, but they also donate money to towns and communities that are traversed by the proposed pipeline. The Constitution just gave over $300,000. in grants, to the area they must go through, totaling over $1.6 million just for a project they haven’t even built yet!
    Any ‘cost’ to citizens will be added to the price of delivered gas, that’s normal, but that is much cheaper now and will stay low with the amount we now have. Thanks for horizontal drilling & hydraulic fracturing!

    • Willy

      And the tax advantages of the mastered limited partnerships that build the pipelines? What do they cost tax payers? How about the public costs of climate change?

      Your comments are adorable. What company’s payroll are you on?

      • George Wythe

        I don’t see how they ‘cost’ taxpayers. The advantage of an MLP is that it combines the tax benefits of a limited partnership (the partnership does not pay taxes from the profit – the money is only taxed when unitholders receive distributions) with the liquidity of a publicly traded company.

        Climate change? So, should I assume you don’t cause that too? You don’t heat your living space, drive any vehicles, purchase anything from companies that causes a climate change?

        Tell us, how would you stop any ‘climate change’ ? Since it’s obvious you are against natural gas, which is the lowest dependable power we have, what would you use to supply power to our country?

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Economy
Education