 | |
| From left, Kinder Morgan representatives Curtis R. Cole, Mike Lennon and Allen Fore describe the route of the proposed pipeline during interviews Monday. (T&G Staff/RICK CINCLAIR) |
george.barnes@telegram.com
With the proposed natural gas pipeline taking a turn northward, Kinder Morgan representatives say the new route will lessen impact on conservation lands by being on or next to existing utility corridors and open up opportunities to provide gas service to Keene and other communities in New Hampshire.
The new proposal, filed Monday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, still includes smaller 12-inch lateral pipelines into the Fitchburg area and through Berlin, Bolton and into Worcester.
The large pipeline, 30 or 36 inches in diameter, had previously been proposed to run through northern Central Massachusetts. The new proposal misses the central part of the Bay State and goes through southern New Hampshire instead.
The new route would eliminate impacts on 14 communities in Massachusetts, officials said. In Central Massachusetts Athol, Ashby, Ashburnham, Orange and Royalston and Winchendon would no longer be affected. The pipeline instead would run through the Western Massachusetts communities of Cheshire, Hancock, Lanesboro and Shelburne.
The pipeline is intended to increase natural gas supply to New England from the Marcellus shale projects in Pennsylvania.
Allen Fore, vice president for public affairs for Kinder Morgan, said the pipeline will also increase the flow of gas through the current line that runs through southern Worcester County and other parts of Massachusetts.
 |
| Kinder Morgan representative Allen Fore talks about the route of the proposed pipeline. (T&G Staff/RICK CINCLAIR) |
The change, according to Mr. Fore, comes after an extensive effort early in the process to meet with state and local officials and property owners at 40 public meetings held in communities from the New York state line to Dracut.
"It has given us an opportunity to listen to folks, to learn and to better understand the specifics of the needs both of our customers and the constituents that are part of the siting of a pipeline," he said. "This is how the process should work. ... We spent a lot of time with hundreds and hundreds of stakeholders, elected officials and policy makers. The input that you can, at the end of the day, develop a project that is commercially viable, which means customer supported, servicing the needs of the region and then the permitted part, which means a project that can meet and exceed the standards of Massachusetts and adjacent states, as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other key agencies."
Mr. Fore said the current proposal offers the advantage of mostly running through already disturbed areas. The earlier proposal for northern Massachusetts would have cut through many miles of forest and other undisturbed areas. Those areas would have had to be altered in a way that could only be partially restored. Deep-rooting trees could not be allowed to grow back because of the hazard they would pose to the pipeline. The co-located route would allow for the existing habitat, often grasses and low brush, to be restored or, in some cases, expanded if appropriate.
"One of the things that the participants at the state level have discussed with us is, 'Can you lessen your impacts on Article 97 lands and conservation lands?' '' Mr. Fore said.
Article 97 in amendments to the state constitution concerns lands that are under the ownership and control of the state and its political subdivisions. The intent is to ensure no net loss of these properties and disposal only under exceptional circumstances. The number of those properties affected by the pipeline in the state dropped from 138 to 35 with the New Hampshire route.
Mr. Fore said there will be conservation lands affected in New Hampshire, but they will be property already affected by utility rights-of-way.
The northern Massachusetts alternative was one of 12 alternatives considered by Kinder Morgan, including using the Massachusetts Turnpike or Route 2. Mr. Fore said all alternatives had positives and negatives, but it was decided the New Hampshire route made the most sense.
Curtis Cole, director of business development for Kinder Morgan, said the building of the pipeline is being driven by the needs of the natural gas suppliers, all of whom said they need to get additional natural gas to the region. New England pays the highest energy prices in the nation.
 |
| Curtis R. Cole of Kinder Morgan said utilities are turning to gas-fired power generation and they need additional supply. (T&G Staff/RICK CINCLAIR) |
With the abundant supply in the most prolific areas of the Marcellus shale range in Pennsylvania, the pipeline could not only increase supply but also drop energy prices, he said.
Mr. Cole said power companies are increasingly turning to gas-fired generation.
The new line, if it is 30 inches, would more than double the amount of natural gas to the region. A 36-inch line would triple it.
Opponents who came out in opposition to the northern Massachusetts proposal are still concerned about moving the line into New Hampshire.
Pat Larson of the North Quabbin Pipeline Action Steering Committee said there is still concern, especially in Northfield and Warwick, where a compressor station is expected to be built. Those towns are where the pipeline will turn north after crossing Berkshire County.
Ms. Larson said there are still questions about the need for the project and the safety of building it in a utility corridor. She said organizations will continue to speak out about the project.
"Opposition to the pipeline is not just about location, but also about whether there is a real need for the project," she said. "I, along with many others, feel that we have to focus on building a clean-energy economy by working more on energy efficiency and renewables in order to move away from fossil fuels."
The schedule for the project is still being set, but it is hoped that work will begin in 2017 and be completed by the start of the 2018 winter heating season.
Mr. Fore said the estimated $5 billion project is expected to create 3,000 jobs during construction and bring about $25 million in tax revenue to communities along the route.
**************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment