New York State's Rejection of the Constitution Pipeline

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, during the winter months, natural gas demand in New York City outstrips the ability of existing pipelines to deliver natural gas from the nearby Marcellus gas field in Pennsylvania. This capacity limitation can cause gas prices to spike during cold weather. For example, on January 22, 2014, when the price in the Marcellus was $3.50 per thousand cubic feet, the New York City price was $123. I want to repeat that; $3.50 in the Marcellus, and in New York City the price was $123.

Constraints on natural gas make electricity more expensive. High energy prices are especially hard on the poor. Businesses suffer and jobs are lost when they lack abundant supply of affordable, clean energy. However, there is a shovel-ready solution: build the Constitution pipeline to bring more of Pennsylvania's Marcellus gas to New York.

You would think that New York would welcome a new supply of clean, economical natural gas to lower consumer costs. However, on April 22, New York's State Department of Environmental Conservation denied the construction of the Constitution pipeline needed to deliver more Pennsylvania gas.

For several years, the Constitution Pipeline Company, a group led by Williams Partners, located in my district, has been developing an $875 million privately funded project to build a pipeline from Pennsylvania to Albany to deliver gas to the Iroquois pipeline and to consumers in New York State and in New England.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Constitution pipeline in 2014. I want to repeat that. FERC approves of the pipeline. According to the company, FERC's final environmental review of the proposed pipeline concluded that environmental impacts would be reduced to ``less than significant levels.'' A year and a half later, the State of New York decided to deny certification necessary to issue construction permits.

The Williams Group worked with the State for 3 years, including two 1-year extensions requested by the State, and yet the State asserted that information provided by the company concerning the 250 or so stream crossings was incomplete.

The company refuted the State of New York's assertions, saying: ``Completely contrary to the New York DEC's assertion, we provided detailed drawings and profiles for every stream crossing in New York, including showing depth of pipe. In fact, all stream crossings were fully vetted with the DEC throughout the review process. We are appalled . . .''

Amazingly, Federal regulations provide no recourse to challenge a State's rejection of a section 401 certification, so Constitution Pipeline may need to initiate legal action to contest the decision. The decision has every appearance of political motivation. The Wall Street Journal called it ``Cuomo's Energy Jobs Veto.''

One has to wonder if the Governor of New York really wants to help the poor and if he can recognize a shovel-ready job when he sees one. This pipeline project would create 2,400 construction jobs and infuse $130 million of labor income into the region, in addition to providing a reliable supply of clean energy. The real victims in this matter, Mr. Speaker, are the people of New York.

Hopefully, political agendas that threaten to deny New Yorkers the benefits of the Constitution pipeline will be confounded. In the meantime, the message from New York's executive branch is that would-be energy suppliers to New York State need not apply. It appears to be time for consumers and their representatives to make their views known in Albany and for Congress--that is us--to revisit the pipeline permitting process.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source