VA Gas Pipeline Proposals-July 2014-

Why Now?

• Cheap Natural Gas Supplies• Interstate and Export• Limited Transmission Capability – North and

South• Duke Energy RFP

Shale Fields

US Pipeline Network

Spectra Gas Line•Former Subsidiary of Duke Energy•427- mile line connecting Marcellus Shale gas fields in WV to NC Duke facility.•Impacting Rappahannock, Fauquier, Culpeper, Madison, Albemarle and Orange.•Single or Primary Purpose•Alignment appears hastily derived•Conservation Easements, National Landmarks and federally owned lands.

Dominion SERP Line•Multi purpose – Dominion wants larger control of SE transmission •Meeting Duke Energy needs•Trunk line to SE VA•Does appear to be ahead of Spectra in some regards.

Dominion Cove Point LNG

EXPORT

Third Proposal? More to Follow?

• EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy Inc. • 330-mile project • Terminates on NC border.• Desires to extend into NC• Rumors of at least two additional lines• Unknown alignments

Pipeline Inspectors

Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration– In 1999 there were 10 inspectors– Increase of staff in response to series of pipeline

accidents - 2001 and 2005 Congressional Inquiries.– After 2012 legislation, today there are 135– Safety still an issue

Spectra Track Record?

• Spectra Energy has had twenty one incidents since 2006 for their Texas Eastern Transmission Line (one project) resulting in $8,564,246 in property damage, according to PHMSA

•

Damage (A) Value of Product Lost (B) 06/04/13 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $522,432 $22,432 03/27/13 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $552,580 $52,580 11/03/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $647,212 $47,212 10/24/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $269,974 $29,974 09/06/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $673,200 $73,200 09/01/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $444,913 $19,005 08/13/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $642,498 $42,498 04/19/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $339,188 $39,188 04/13/12 GT MARIETTA PA YORK MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE PUMP/COMPRESSOR-RELATED EQUIPMENT 0 1 $251,170 $1,170 05/04/11 GT HALLETTSVILLE (15 MILES SOUTHE TX LAVACA MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE MANUFACTURING-RELATED 0 0 $219,929 $43,490 12/19/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $661,268 $161,268 10/12/10 GT TOMPKINSVILLE KY MONROE OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE VEHICLE NOT ENGAGED IN EXCAVATION 0 0 $131,004 $127,504 09/29/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $649,580 $49,580 09/16/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $302,400 $52,400 09/02/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $432,820 $32,820 06/20/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $861,268 $161,268 06/08/09 GT OFFSHORE LA ALL OTHER CAUSES MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE 0 0 $130,000 $1,000 10/01/08 GT CLINTON MS HINDS OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE VEHICLE NOT ENGAGED IN EXCAVATION 0 0 $120,010 $120,000 07/12/08 GT RED LION OH WARREN MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE MALFUNCTION OF CONTROL/RELIEF EQUIPMENT 0 0 $55,100 $5,050 09/30/06 GT OFFSHORE N/A MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE JOINT/FITTING/COMPONENT 0 0 $255,000 $5,000 04/09/06 GT DELMONT PA WESTMORELAND MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE NON-THREADED CONNECTION FAILURE 0 0 $402,700 $2,700 Totals 0 1 $8,564,246 $1,089,339terials Safety Administration.

VA Code§ 56-49.01. Natural gas companies; right of entry upon property.

A. Any firm, corporation, company, or partnership, organized for the bona fide purpose of operating as a natural gas company as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 717a, as amended, may make such examinations, tests, hand auger borings, appraisals, and surveys for its proposed line or location of its works as are necessary (i) to satisfy any regulatory requirements and (ii) for the selection of the most advantageous location or route, the improvement or straightening of its line or works, changes of location or construction, or providing additional facilities, and for such purposes, by its duly authorized officers, agents, or employees, may enter upon any property without the written permission of its owner if (a) the natural gas company has requested the owner's permission to inspect the property as provided in subsection B, (b) the owner's written permission is not received prior to the date entry is proposed, and (c) the natural gas company has given the owner notice of intent to enter as provided in subsection C. A natural gas company may use motor vehicles, self-propelled machinery, and power equipment on property only after receiving the permission of the landowner or his agent.

B. A request for permission to inspect shall (i) be sent to the owner by certified mail, (ii) set forth the date such inspection is proposed to be made, and (iii) be made not less than 15 days prior to the date of the proposed inspection.

C. Notice of intent to enter shall (i) be sent to the owner by certified mail, (ii) set forth the date of the intended entry, and (iii) be made not less than 15 days prior to the date of mailing of the notice of intent to enter.

D. Any entry authorized by this section shall not be deemed a trespass. The natural gas company shall make reimbursement for any actual damages resulting from such entry. Nothing in this section shall impair or limit any right of a natural gas company obtained by (i) the power of eminent domain, (ii) any easement granted by the landowner or his predecessor in title, or (iii) any right-of-way agreement, lease or other agreement by and between a natural gas company and a landowner or their predecessors in title or interest.

FERC Process

• No applications or files at this time• FERC could approve all lines that “meet the

bar”.• NEPA and NHPA do apply• Environmental groups question rigor of FERC

review• Ultimately the banks/financiers will decide

which proposal gets built.

Duke Energy – Who Gets to Build?

• Likely to announce their preferred proposal in early fall

• Stated desire to own part of the line• Should influence loan decisions…

Other Considerations• Environmental• Transition Fuel or Major Setback• Renewable Energy• Future implications from

approvals/construction

Decision from DC Circuit • June 6, 2014

• Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al., v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company

• Tennessee Gas Company proposed to upgrade a section of existing natural gas pipeline.

• The FERC prepared an Environmental Assessment for that segment.• At nearly the same time Tennessee Gas company proposed a series of

three other upgrades to portions of the same pipeline.• The FERC recommended a "Finding of No Significant Impact" from the

segment before it.• Delaware Riverkeeper Network argued at every stage of the proceedings

that there should be a consideration of all four projects together.• The DC Circuit Court agreed that the FERC had inappropriately

segmented its review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

PEC Planned Activities

• Community Meetings• Organizing Partners• Informational Resource• Commonwealth’s Response on Easements and

Resources• FERC Permitting Process• Contacting Spectra and Duke Energy

Information as we get it:

www.pecva.org/gasline

Questions?