How a quick flow of information impacted gas pipeline plans
Vincent DeVito
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline may not be running through the Northeast, but we have a similar project trying to get on the books.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) has, in its most recent configuration, proposed a natural gas pipeline route from upstate New York through the Berkshires and across southern New Hampshire, then back into Massachusetts. The proposal has its flaws, but the developer, Kinder Morgan, believes it will help lower electricity costs.
Interestingly, the national debate over Keystone is very similar to the debate here over TGP. Both propose to transport a somewhat controversial fuel (tar sands oil for Keystone, fracked gas for TGP) through valuable land, with some of the product potentially going to foreign markets. What's most interesting is that both projects are generating sophisticated debate among an engaged public that has taken the time to learn about regulatory processes and review approval thresholds to participate effectively in grassroots forums, media events, and the regulatory processes.
When TGP filed its initial pre-application for the gas pipeline, it was immediately lampooned for its aged data and lack of accuracy. The swift public response signaled a new era in gas pipeline siting and, I suspect, a welcomed one by state and federal regulators and market operators.
There was a time when regulators could rely only on information provided by the developer and what their own resource-limited staffs could produce and verify. Now, through electronic filing, group list serves, reliable information on the Internet and intelligence sharing through social media, all types of stakeholders can respond independently and rapidly to developer information and educate regulators as part of a proceeding. In turn, this information can be made readily available to elected officials and policymakers, who can use it to inform and question the regulators and the developer.
While responsible development of energy infrastructure is something most of us can agree on, TGP's proposal will be a case study in how not to propose a pipeline today. That's not to say the project is doomed. However, Pandora's box has been opened and the ham-handed nature of TGP's efforts is a narrative that's sticking. TGP got ahead of itself and failed to contemplate the true nature of today's energy and environmental stakeholders.
Interestingly, the public is not saying “No pipeline, period!” They're asking questions with embedded answers. For instance, why not simply expand existing narrow-gauge pipelines with larger-diameter pipes, or build alongside existing pipelines? Or, if the gas is used for heating and can't be used to generate electricity, how will it lower power prices and help manufacturers and homeowners?
None of this, of course, is to say we don't need new sources of reliable and affordable energy, and we certainly don't want to unduly interfere with products getting to legitimate markets. However, an approach that takes into account community and regional needs and includes stakeholder interest in a meaningful manner should be adopted.
Vincent DeVito is a corporate attorney at Bowditch & Dewey LLP and a former U.S. assistant secretary of energy for policy and international affairs.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments