Employment & Economy

Key Writing Points For Comments

Economic and Homeowner Impacts


  • FERC reports that “the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on the local population or housing in any of the counties”, yet FERC points to no data to support its finding and there is evidence that pipelines have greatly devalued properties in the past. 

  • FERC adopts a biased picture of positive job impacts without addressing the Goodman Report study (2015), or explaining why it has dismissed it. The Goodman Study has debunked PennEast’s jobs claims, and found that PennEast inflated their jobs estimates by at least three times more than the actual number of jobs that would be created due to a multiplier that is inconsistent with other similar projects.

  • Tourism to the area will be negatively impacted temporarily from construction, as well as permanently from adverse impacts to scenic beauty and vistas. The DEIS does not evaluate these impacts.

  • The significant use of eminent domain that would likely be required for the project is not given any consideration.  

Sample Letter  

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE, Room 1A
Washington, DC  20426

RE: PennEast Pipeline (CP15-558-000) 

Dear Secretary Bose,

I am (enter your name and state how you are affected - directly impacted landowner?  Intervener?  Business  Owner?) in this proceeding who lives in (enter your address or Twsp)

In the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) on page 4-156 under paragraph talks about Employment and the Economy, and says ”Several potential natural gas consumers, including Elizabeth Gas, South Jersey Gas Company, PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, and Enerplus, expressed their support for the PennEast Project during public scoping, some noting that the Project would provide greater natural supply reliability and flexibility, reduce price volatility, and result in significant gas cost savings.

But this references companies whose shareholders will financially benefit from this project.  Enerplus was established in 1986 and its corporate profile page says  “Enerplus is a responsible developer of high quality crude oil and natural gas assets in Canada and the United States, focused on providing both growth and income to its shareholders.”  Of course Enerplus is supporting this project – the whole project itself is for the financial benefit of the gas companies and their shareholders.  

The loophole in the FERC process that permits these companies to claim themselves as their own “customers” to try and persuade FERC that this is somehow public necessity does not take into account the fact that the true end users – the home owners and small business operators – will be asked to bear the costs of any new infrastructure.  In addition, they have already received price reductions in their gas bills, which simply proves that price volatility doesn’t exist for the general public.

While Spectra Energy was not mentioned as a company that expressed support for this proposed project, we know that they too will benefit greatly by virtue of their partial ownership of this project, and the fact that this PennEast project will interconnect with Spectra’s AIM line to go to New England.  That hold no direct financial benefit for the landowners in Pennsylvania and New Jersey whose property could be taken to support this corporate land grab. 

Page 4-156 also says “Local chambers of commerce also indicated their support for the Project during public scoping, noting the benefits of improved natural gas supply and the short-term economic benefits of Project construction.” 

Where is the mention of the fact that every single municipality in New Jersey filed a Resolution against this project, in large measure because of the ecological damage and financial detriment it would impose on their municipal budgets?  Those Resolutions were filed early on, because we all knew this corporate land grab was not going to benefit us or our towns.  Where is the in depth review of the many comments presented during the scoping sessions regarding these economic concerns? 

This DEIS seems to have been prepared from boiler plate language and opinions that only support this proposed unnecessary and devastating project.  FERC has not performed to its own regulations, and if for no other reason, this DEIS should be immediately withdrawn.  Once the FERC has all the information that PennEast has yet to submit and FERC has actually included all dissenting information in a true and fair analysis, a revised DEIS should be submitted for public comment.  The public should then be given one hundred twenty (120) days to review and comment.

I ask that the FERC respond directly to me in regard to this specific comment, because it appears the public’s comments go unheeded. 

You will have a FERC ID, if
you filed as an intervener or have filed previously.

  Forgot your FERC ID?
If you have intervened or commented before you should have recieved a FERC ID #.
If you do not have it you can enter your email address you used to file.
Ready to

You will need to know the Docket # CP15-558 when you file.

Comments to FERC on the Docket

Below are some of the teriffic comments from citizens they have already filed on the docket.

You can use these as a tool to help you build your comments. Some of these comments are from specialist in their field so your comment does not have to be as detailed. You can write about your concerns about EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMY.