Don’t let the proposed New Fortress Energy’s Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project get away without FERC review!
Please take a few minutes to submit written comment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today.
If you can devote a few minutes to submit a comment into these dockets, it will signify to FERC how important the threats of the proposed LNG Export Project are to you and will help convince FERC that this project cannot be allowed to escape their review.
Please submit a comment ASAP. We don’t know when FERC will take action but it could be very soon.
What’s happening? Delaware River Partners LLC (DRP) for the Gibbstown liquefied natural gas (LNG) Export Terminal (also known as the Repauno Port and Rail Terminal) and Bradford County Real Estate Partners LLC’s (BCREP) for the proposed Wyalusing Township LNG liquefaction facility, both connected with New Fortress Energy, in September 2020 filed Petitions for a Declaratory Order asking that each of the respective components of the proposed New Fortress Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project be declared not subject to FERC jurisdiction (DRP Petition: FERC Docket No. CP20-522-000 (Sept. 11, 2020) and BCRP Petition: FERC Docket No. CP20-524-000 (Sept. 18, 2020)). No decision has been made on the Petitions by FERC since. For unknown reasons, FERC staff submitted requests to DRP and BCREP in April that asked if they intend to proceed, considering that LNG by rail is currently not allowed.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) does not allow the transport of LNG by rail as of September 2023 through a suspension of the “Trump Rule” that allowed LNG to be transported in rail cars anywhere in the nation.[1] DRP and New Fortress/BCREP are claiming that instead they will truck the LNG so the lack of rail transport is of no consequence to their plans. They claim that moving all the LNG from the proposed liquefaction plant in Wyalusing Twp., Bradford County on the Susquehanna River to Gibbstown NJ on the Delaware River by truck is an alternative to rail car transport and that the project is not subject to FERC review.
What can we do? Let’s tell FERC to exercise its authority and deny the companies’ requests to escape review. First, LNG by rail could be allowed in the future because the suspension rule that disallowed it will expire June 30, 2025 unless a permanent rule replaces it that bans LNG by Rail once again. Additionally, New Fortress could obtain a special permit for LNG transport by rail under current regulations. Therefore, FERC should still consider and rule upon the rail aspect of the project now. Secondly, regardless of the mode of transportation, the facilities are both (individually and collectively) export facilities and under the Natural Gas Act FERC has jurisdiction.
Why is this important? In reality, truck transport is totally unacceptable, polluting, and recklessly dangerous, as is railcar transport of LNG. Additionally, it would take tens to hundreds of thousands of trucks per day to transport the quantity of LNG that New Fortress wants to export according to the authorization for export they obtained from the U.S. Department of Energy and as defined in its various permits and authorizations. From the LNG export project’s inception, New Fortress has stated it would use both trucks and railcars to meet the volume of LNG they planned to export. As far as FERC review is concerned, FERC has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and should assert its authority to provide essential review of the LNG operations proposed for this enormous LNG export project.
It is outrageous that New Fortress wants to continue to move this project forward despite the myriad impacts and while ignoring the requirement for this federal review by FERC. However, it is not surprising. Attempting to avoid regulatory review and trying to fly under the radar and the public eye are hallmarks of how New Fortress Energy has operated from the start. In reality, truck transport is totally unacceptable, polluting, and dangerous and the project still falls under FERC review. There is absolutely no reason that this enormous LNG export project should be given a free pass by avoiding the review that is required by law. Thanks to all of you, this project is not constructed yet and new permits are needed for some aspects. Let’s not let them speed ahead by ducking FERC!
Suggested Talking Points to FERC May 2024
Proposed New Fortress Energy Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket No. CP20-522-000 and Docket CP20-524-000
Comments Concerning Delaware River Partners LLC’s (DRP) Response[2] to Staff Data Request Dated April 18, 2024, in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Docket No. CP20-522-000,[3] as well as Bradford County Real Estate Partners LLC’s (BCREP) Response[4] to Staff Data Request Dated April 18, 2024[5], in FERC Docket CP20-524-000.
Here are some suggested talking points and at the bottom of this document are instructions about how to submit a comment to FERC. It is not one simple click, it requires a few steps but they are not difficult to navigate.
These suggested talking points focus on the discrete issues involved with trucking LNG because the companies have said that is how they will proceed and we want FERC to know no matter whether they transport by truck or rail, this project will have enormous negative impacts and that can’t be waived away. The Natural Gas Act clearly says that FERC has authority to review the proposed New Fortress LNG Export Project. Additionally, our region that is impacted by the enormous footprint of this project needs and deserves a comprehensive review of the LNG operations – including transport, storage and transloading — that only FERC would do; no other agency would carry this out. Important national precedent will be set by what FERC decides; this enormous LNG export project must not slip under regulatory and statutory radar.
For those who want to review the legal arguments as to why FERC has jurisdiction, see the comment DRN’s attorney submitted to the FERC Dockets.
View DRN’s interactive map that illustrates the 2 most likely routes that would be used to truck the LNG to Gibbstown.
Go here for more information about the background and current status of the proposed New Fortress Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project.
Go here for step by step instructions from how to submit a comment.
You can comment in on 2 dockets in the one submission: DRP Gibbstown Docket No. CP20-522-000 and NFE/BCREP Wyalusing Docket CP20-524-000
If you want to only comment on one Docket, choose the one most relevant to you.
To: VIA FERC ONLINE comment
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of the Secretary
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
- The New Fortress Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project is a dangerous proposal that will manufacture, transport, store, manage, and transload LNG for export overseas.
- Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is classified as a hazardous material and difficult to safely handle.
- I am asking that FERC deny DRP’s and BCREP’s petitions for declaratory orders, and exercise its jurisdiction not only based upon their new trucking-only plan, but also based upon their original truck-and-rail plan. The Natural Gas Act clearly says that FERC has authority to review the proposed New Fortress LNG Export Project.
- My community and the environment I live and work in is impacted by the enormous footprint of the proposed New Fortress Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project. We need and deserve a comprehensive review of the LNG operations – including transport, storage and transloading — that only FERC would do; no other agency would carry this out.
- FERC should exercise its authority and deny the companies’ requests to escape review now since LNG by rail could be allowed in the future because the suspension rule that disallowed it will expire June 30, 2025 unless a permanent rule replaces it that bans LNG by Rail once again. Now is the time for FERC to act!
- FERC should exercise its authority and deny the companies’ requests to escape review because New Fortress could obtain a special permit for LNG transport by rail under current regulations. Therefore, FERC should still consider and rule upon the rail aspect of the project now. Now is the time for FERC to act!
- I know that LNG is highly dangerous and threatens my health and safety. The U.S. Department of Transportation requires LNG to carry a Flammable Gas/1972 placard. There is no prohibition on transporting it by truck, however. A Hazardous Materials Safety permit would be required but as long as the rules are followed, LNG is carried by tank truck in the U.S., subject to specific highway limitations in some locations. There are some restrictions in Pennsylvania but no route restrictions for hazardous materials in NJ. This causes me much concern.
- LNG is in flammable gas class 2.1 which is prohibited in bulk packaging from going through PA Turnpike Tunnels. Interstate 476 is the most likely route trucks would use from Wyalusing PA to Gibbstown NJ.[6] The Lehigh Tunnel is located on Interstate 476, the northeast extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.[7] How will LNG trucks avoid the Tunnel?
- Interstate 476, the northeast extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which would be the most likely route has restrictions 1, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and is in place.[8] It is not clear how these hazardous material trucks would navigate from Wyalusing Township to Gibbstown NJ considering the restrictions on the interstate highway and weight, size, bridge limits and hazardous material limitations on secondary roads. How will LNG trucks avoid the restrictions on this part of the highway?
- Trucks do not carry as much volume as rail cars. In its application for a Special Permit to PHMSA to transport LNG by rail car, New Fortress Energy said the risk of accident would be reduced if they used rail cars because of “…the reduced number of shipments because a single unit train moving from origin to destination may be capable of transporting approximately 3,000,000 gallons of LNG in a single shipment. By comparison, approximately 300 truck shipments would be needed to transport the same volume of LNG.”[9] New Fortress Energy has been planning to move LNG in unit trains of 100 cars, up to 2-4 unit trains per day, in addition to transporting LNG by truck. An LNG tanker truck carries ~12,000 gallons.[10] This is an enormous amount of hazardous truck traffic! FERC can’t turn a blind eye!
- The project plans to liquefy LNG at a proposed facility in Wyalusing Township, Bradford County, PA and transport it across Pennsylvania and New Jersey by tanker truck ~200 miles to the proposed Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal in New Jersey. DRP and New Fortress/BCREP do not give any estimates in their responses as to how many trucks would be used to transport the LNG each day. Other documents, permits and authorizations use different figures, some even much higher.[11] One thing seems certain to me, trucks carrying hazardous, highly flammable, and potentially explosive LNG would represent unprecedented volume of hazmat trucks on the roads, changing substantially the traffic makeup and risks for communities and travelers.
- The use of LNG highway cargo tanks or ISO portable tanks, “…could increase the safety risk as volumes transported would increase. The increase in risk is not only due to the increased number of shipments placed into the public transportation system, but also from the increase in handling cycles (i.e. loading, unloading, etc.) of those shipments.”[12] Trucks are subject to adverse weather conditions and delays and dangers associated with traffic accidents and congestion. I don’t see how this possibly could be safely done with such huge numbers of trucks.
- I know the dangers to public safety and catastrophic loss of life and property damage are inherent to LNG, no matter how it is transported. All the same devastating impacts that can occur when LNG is released would occur when LNG escapes any container, albeit on a smaller scale than a train with much greater volumes. Nonetheless, in the environmental assessment for the Special Permit to New Fortress/ETS PHMSA stated ETS would use MC-338 cargo tank motor vehicles and PHMSA explained the potential for an increase in some of the adverse impacts of a release: “…damage to human tissues and container integrity due to -162C (-260 °F) cryogenic materials and the radiant heat from fires that could result from vapor ignition could increase….”.[13] “The risks…are increased trips (because of lower volume transported per cargo tank), thereby increasing opportunity for an incident, higher accident rate for highway traffic as compared with rail traffic, and closer proximity to people, including other travelers, and inhabited structures along roadways as compared to rail rights of way.”[14] “A failure of either an MC-338 [tanker truck] or a DOT-113 [rail car] could cause injury, death, property destruction and environmental harm. The likelihood of failure of MC-338 is higher…”[15]
- The impact on people may be more for LNG transport by truck [than by rail] (depending upon the location of the accident) in the case of a cargo tank [motor carrier] because of the highway proximity to densely populated areas compared to the location of rail tracks. It is also noted that highway incidents in general are more common than rail incidents.[16] It appears highway accidents are increasing with the growing economy and the rise in distracted driving.”[17]
- Highway transport of hazardous materials in densely populated areas such as through Delaware County, PA, where the LNG trucks would travel on Interstate 95 to access the Commodore Barry Bridge in Chester to cross the Delaware River to New Jersey (Truck Route A)[18], is seen as one of the most dangerous stretches of highway for such shipments, according to a CBS News investigative report. “A CBS News Investigation found that of all forms of transportation of hazardous materials — highways pose the greatest danger. The investigation shows in the last 10 years — there have been 462 incidents on Pennsylvania highways involving flammable liquids and corrosive materials. The total amount for damages associated with those incidents: $10.3 million.”[19] “On Interstate 95, hundreds of thousands of cars drive by every single day — at points it’s one of the busiest highways in the country. Emergency officials call an eight-lane stretch just south of Philadelphia in Delaware County the ‘high consequence area.’”[20] The message is clear from those who would have to respond to disaster – we are not prepared for the challenges to public health and safety that such an onslaught of new hazmat trucks would represent. This terrifies me and my family!
- The trucks would travel through hundreds of communities exposing well over 1.2 million people to the risk of exposure to an LNG release should they be an accident or an incident. Many of these communities are already overburdened with environmental pollution and degradation and human health harms resulting from pollution exposures. These overburdened communities such as those along the truck routes (A and B)[21] Chester, Philadelphia, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, and Norristown in PA and Camden, Willingboro, Paulsboro and Trenton in NJ cannot be subjected to any more air pollution or environmental hazards; to do so would be an intolerable environmental injustice.
- There is no tracking of highway transport of LNG. Neither PHMSA nor the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has “…hazardous material-specific data on volume shipped via highways.” The information is not captured by PHMSA’s incident reporting and there is no centralized entity, such as EIA, tracking all hazmat being shipped by highway.”[22] No tracking means no record of shipments that can be shared publicly, leaving people on the roads and in their homes and businesses unaware of the dangerous transport of this hazardous material right next to them. Additionally, there is no ability to measure the extent of LNG transport by truck, handicapping transit planning to protect public safety and the environment. We’re going to be put into great jeopardy but people don’t even know it!
- MC-338 Tanker trucks (which New Fortress/ETS stated they would use in their application to PHMSA for the Special Permit for LNG transport in railcars) have diesel engines. Diesel engines produce a variety of emissions, including: volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and sulfur oxides (SOx).[23] These emissions directly affect air quality which can cause negative health effects such as respiratory and cardiovascular complications.[24] Truck transport using diesel engines has a higher amount of polluting emissions that trains, as calculated by the United States Department of Transportation in their Freight Routing and Emissions Analysis Tool (FREAT).[25] I cannot shoulder any more pollution!
- Trucks contribute greenhouse gas emissions as they run on petroleum (hydrocarbons) and emit carbon to the atmosphere, worsening the climate crisis. We are in a race against time to tackle the climate emergency. Scientists say we must ratchet back greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 to avert catastrophe. President Biden has committed our nation to a goal of achieving a reduction of greenhouse gas pollution by 50 to 52% from 2005 levels by 2030.[26] 2030 is only 6 years away! I ask that FERC assert jurisdiction so it can conduct a comprehensive review of the proposed New Fortress Gibbstown/Wyalusing LNG Export Project.