Background

With the United States’ renewed interest in hydrogen as an energy carrier and the recent proposals for federally-funded hydrogen hubs, Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been closely monitoring hydrogen/hydrogen blended pipelines as part of our advocacy efforts.

Pure hydrogen gas (H₂) is the smallest and most slippery of molecules, meaning it requires very specific infrastructure to prevent it from leaking and embrittling pipelines. As it stands today, there are only 1,600 miles of pure hydrogen pipelines in the United States (compared to 3 million miles of natural gas pipelines). This is troublesome for proponents of a national hydrogen network, who have aspirations of hydrogen being widely distributed to heat our homes, run our gas stoves, and generate electricity.

To mediate the lack of existing infrastructure for pure hydrogen transport, operators have turned to the idea of blending small amounts of hydrogen gas with natural gas, and transporting that mixture through our existing, extensive natural gas network.

Experts have cited a variety of concerns with hydrogen blending in pipelines, which has been untruthfully advertised as a stepping stone to decarbonization. From public safety issues, to economic concerns, to the entirely unestablished regulatory framework for overseeing hydrogen blends in pipelines, the bottom line is this: the rush to introduce hydrogen into our energy system in this way is not safe for our people or our planet.

Currently, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, as a leader in the Victory Over InFRACKstructure, Clean Energy inStead (VOICES) Coalition, has signed onto comments to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) asking them to forgo their information collection requests on hydrogen blending and just say no to hydrogen blending in pipelines. Should PHMSA still pursue hydrogen blending as an option, we have also signed onto comments demanding better safety, research, and information access measures before allowing hydrogen blending to occur.

Learn more about the problems with hydrogen/hydrogen blended pipelines with our resources below.

Background

Carbon Capture and Sequestration/Storage is often shorted to the acronym (CCS). This can be confused with another acronym of a similar process, CCUS. CCUS stands for Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage. Both of these refer to the process of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2), when it is created during a power generating or industrial process. This carbon is then contained and stored, sometimes underground or transported via pipeline, to prevent it being emitted into the atmosphere. The main difference with CCUS is rather than storing the CO2, it can be repurposed in an industrial process such as being used for fuel.

Carbon capture is being touted as a major climate crisis solution, but the evidence is to the contrary. CCS is expected to account for approximately 2.4% of carbon mitigation in the world by 2030.[1] Additionally, industry and legislators alike are saying that current CCS operations will capture 90-95% of the CO2 emitted. This is false. CCS facilities that have been studied have either completely shut down before full operation or fallen short of their goals and the global rate of carbon capture is only averaging about 83% currently.[2] Companies and facilities make bold claims when it comes to how much CO2 they plan to capture in their production. But when it comes to actual performance of the capture rate, expectations fall woefully short. The Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage project forecasted a 22% capture rate, but reported an actual capture rate of 12%.[3]

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Another issue with carbon capture is that it can also be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), which is how the majority of captured carbon has been used to date.[12] This technique is where mature oil fields that are no longer productive through other methods, have the CO2 forcefully injected into the reservoir and force the oil up into the production well.[13] EOR is touted as a good climate solution because most of the time the CO2 injected into the ground stays there, as of now. But not always. A school had to be evacuated and relocated for several months in 2016 in Wyoming due to a CO2 leak from a nearby oil field where the company was using CO2 to force the oil out.[14] The odors of gas came from an abandoned well and it was reported that the levels of CO2 were 20 times higher than recommended.[15] The CO2 leaked through small underground cracks and rose up into the school.[16] This supports continued fossil fuel extraction at a time when we must be developing renewable energy that does not emit greenhouse gasses. Additionally, EOR allows for the dependence on fossil fuels to be perpetuated and continued the parade of false solutions.

[12] Commercial Carbon Dioxide Uses: Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery, National Energy Technology Laboratory, last accessed July 16, 2024, https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/eor, Section 9.2, Figure 1.

[13] Commercial Carbon Dioxide Uses: Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery, National Energy Technology Laboratory, last accessed July 15, 2024, https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/eor

[14] Cooper McKim, Wyoming School Shutter by Gas Leak Ready to Reopen, Inside Energy, May 26, 2017, https://insideenergy.org/2017/05/26/wyoming-school-shuttered-by-gas-leak-ready-to-reopen/#:~:text=Midwest%20School%20shut%20its%20doors,%2Dde%2DLis%20or%20FDL.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

Pilot/Test Project

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s (SEPTA) Hydrogen Bus Project is a pilot project that implements the use of 10 hydrogen fuel cell powered buses beginning in the fall of 2024. From April 2024 through to the fall of 2024, SEPTA states they will be “piloting” the hydrogen buses but it is unclear exactly what that means. SEPTA states that from the fall of 2024 on, the buses are expected to be put into operation in the city for a pilot or test period. During this same period, 10 New Flyer fully electric buses will also be tested. These buses will be operated on various routes around the city of Philadelphia for the next year. The testing period will culminate in approximately the fall of 2025, at which time it is expected that SEPTA will decide which technology to proceed with in the future to power its bus fleet (either hydrogen fuel cell or fully electric or both).

This is part of SEPTA’s larger strategic plan to have a zero-emissions bus fleet in place by 2045. The current bus fleet, powered by diesel fuel, will be phased out or converted to alternative power sources beginning in 2025. The 10 hydrogen fuel cell powered buses in the pilot program will operate out of the Midvale bus depot located at 2401 Roberts Ave. in Philadelphia. The hydrogen will be produced using electrolyzers and shipped approximately 800 miles via electric trucks from Tennessee in containers as a crypto-temp liquid. At the Midvale bus depot, the liquid hydrogen will be warmed to a compressed gas that feeds the fuel cells to power the bus. While in use, the hydrogen gas will be carried in canisters on the roofs of the buses.

Expanded Plans at Build Out

The pilot program is just the start of SEPTA’s hydrogen bus plans. A 2023 feasibility study outlined plans to convert SEPTA’s bus terminals into hydrogen storage and refueling stations to serve its hydrogen-powered bus fleet. The report claims that liquid hydrogen storage and fueling for their bus fleet is feasible at six of their eight bus depots. The hydrogen fueling scenario assumed for each site involves purchase by SEPTA of liquid hydrogen, to be delivered to each site by tanker truck. At each depot the liquid hydrogen would be transferred from the tanker truck to an on-site liquid storage tank(s) with capacity for 1 – 2 days of bus fueling.

Between four and ten tanker truck deliveries of liquid hydrogen would be required per week depending on the depot. The liquid hydrogen would be pumped from the storage tank(s), evaporated, and delivered to on-bus hydrogen tanks as a high-pressure gas via one or more hydrogen dispensers. SEPTA’s largest depot (Midvale) would require 45,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen storage (3 tanks). The estimated cost of installing the hydrogen storage and fueling infrastructure ranges from $6.5 million at the smallest depot to $16.1 million at the largest depot.

Why should I be concerned?

Hydrogen gas is highly flammable and burns with an almost invisible flame in addition to being colorless, odorless, and tasteless. The flammability and potentially explosive attributes of hydrogen makes it very dangerous to handle, transport, and store. The lack of  a visible flame, odor, or taste makes it very hazardous for workers and any residents in the vicinity because they would be unaware when a release has occurred.[1]

Hydrogen gas contains the smallest and lightest molecule, which increases the probability of leaks through small holes and materials. In other words, due to its low viscosity, hydrogen is much more prone to leak from infrastructure than other hydrocarbons. Hydrogen leaks approximately three times faster than natural gas and five times faster than propane on a volumetric basis.[2] Fires and explosions have occurred in various components of hydrogen systems as a result of leaks that can quickly meet a variety of ignition sources.

Overview 

In a December 18, 2012 legal filing, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Environmental Hearing Board was asked to issue an Order of Supersedeas that would prevent the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company from proceeding with mobilization and tree clearing, the first steps in construction of its proposed NorthEast Upgrade Project (TGP’s NEUP). The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Responsible Drilling Alliance filed the petition, essentially a request for a stay of construction activity, together with their notices of appeal of three DEP permits issued for the project, in order to allow the groups enough time to pursue their legal challenge while maintaining the status quo. 

The Petition for Supersedeas requests the EHB to supersede the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) decisions to approve an Erosion & Sedimentation Control General Permit and to approve Water Obstruction & Encroachment permits for Wayne and Pike Counties for the TGP NEUP project. 

The Petition

The Petition, filed by attorneys on behalf of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the Responsible Drilling Alliance, and the Delaware Riverkeeper, Maya van Rossum, asserts that DEP’s decisions to approve TGP’s applications for these various permits violated the law in at least three ways. 

• First, TGP has a record of recent and on-oing environmental violations on pipeline upgrade projects on the same pipeline that clearly shows TGP cannot be trusted to comply with environmental laws. 
• Second, DEP approved the permits even though the permit applications failed to meet the substantive requirements of the regulations. 
• Third, DEP issued the Erosion and Sediment Control permit despite unrebutted expert analysis from the Pike County Conservation District finding that TGP’s plans contained serious technical deficiencies. 

 The petition goes on to say: “Because DEP’s improper approval of TGP’s activities will result in the irreversible discharge of sediment into the tributaries of the Delaware River; the improper destruction of mature trees that prevent sediment from flowing into these tributaries and provide shading to regulate temperatures in streams and wetlands; long-lasting damage and even permanent destruction of Exceptional Value wetlands; and the disruption of macroinvertebrate populations during the time that DRN’s appeal is pending, DRN will suffer irreparable harm unless the Board supersedes DEP’s decisions and suspends the permits and permit authorization.” 

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade Project

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade Project is an interstate transmission line upgrade project.. The NEUP is the final pipeline upgrade project in TGP’s multi-stage 300 Line upgrade project, although TGP has misrepresented that reality in order to avoid critical environmental regulation and oversight. Three of the loops that are part of this project are located within the Delaware River Basin (Loops 321, 323, and 325), which span Wayne and Pike counties in Pennsylvania, and Sussex county in New Jersey. The project includes pipeline drilling activities under the Delaware River, significant new grading and clearing of previously undisturbed forested land and steep slopes, 90 stream crossings, 136 wetland crossings, and 450 acres of land development within our watershed alone. Highpoint State Park and Delaware State Forest are among the public lands to be damaged by this project. 

Currently, the western leg of the 300 Line runs from compressor station 219 in Mercer County, Pennsylvania to compressor station 313 in Potter County and consists of a 24-inch-diameter pipeline with a completed 30-inch-diameter loop along its entire length. Within the last 24 months Tennessee has applied to FERC for approval of four projects that together will compose the Eastern Leg of the 300 Line, starting at compressor station 313 in Potter County, Pennsylvania and stretching east to a delivery point in Mahwah, New Jersey.

Federal Court Rules FERC Violated Federal Law When Issued Approvals for NEUP Pipeline Project 

Update:  FERC has failed to comply with the court’s ruling and revisit its NEPA review of this project – DRN is pressing the issue with the court.

In a decision issued June 6, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the NJ Sierra Club and New Jersey Highlands Coalition were correct in their legal challenge to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade Project and ordered additional analysis and review.  Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s on staff attorneys were the lead in this legal action.

The Court stated: 

“On the record before us, we hold that in conducting its environmental review of the Northeast Project without considering the other connected, closely related, and interdependent projects on the Eastern Leg, FERC impermissibly segmented the environmental review in violation of NEPA. We also find that FERC’s EA is deficient in its failure to include any meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the upgrade projects. We therefore grant the petition for review and remand the case to the Commission for further consideration of segmentation and cumulative impacts.” 

“On the record before us, we find that FERC acted arbitrarily in deciding to evaluate the environment effects of the Northeast Project independent of the other connected action on the Eastern Leg.” 

In May 2012 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company authorizing construction and operation of its Northeast Upgrade Project. Delaware Riverkeeper Network, the NJ Sierra Club and New Jersey Highlands Coalition argued that the approval was inappropriate because FERC had illegally segmented its environmental review of the Northeast Project by failing to consider three other connected and interdependent projects – the 300 Line Project, the Northeast Supply Diversification Project, the MPP Project – and by failing to provide a meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the projects. 

DRN on the Decision

Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper said about the decision: “This is important vindication of the rights of our communities and environment to be honestly considered and protected by our federal agencies. FERC has been allowing illegal segmentation by pipeline companies for years, it has ignored the pleas of the public for equity and for honest review of impacts, and as such FERC has been complicit with the pipeline companies in their ongoing efforts to avoid the rule of law and to ignore the devastating impacts they are having on our environment, impacts that will harm not just present, but also future generations. It is rewarding that a federal court has finally held FERC to account.” 

The case was argued before the Court of Appeals by Delaware Riverkeeper Network attorney Aaron Stemplewicz. Said Stemplewicz of the decision, “The D.C. Circuit’s decision today should put other pipeline companies on notice that the practice of segmenting pipeline projects before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will no longer be tolerated, and that the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from these projects must be fully considered before a project is approved.” 

Added Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum: “This decision is important and powerful for every pipeline, related infrastructure and LNG project to come, but sadly for the communities, forests, streams, wetlands and critters impacted by the four projects at issue here, the decision comes too late to ensure their full consideration and protection. We will be able to press for important mitigation and efforts to undo the harms already inflicted, but as for avoiding the full array of harms, that is now impossible. FERC needed to do its job when it had the opportunity – but they were too busy servicing the gas pipeline companies to care.” 

Of particular note – all three justices ruling on this case concurred on the final judgment rendered. 

Sign Up to Help Provide An Accurate Picture of the Impacts of the Proposed PennEast Pipeline.

From the Comfort of Your Own Home …. You can help us pull key information points from the comments filed on the FERC docket for PennEast that we need to do a full assessment of its impacts.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has received thousands of comments from citizens concerned about the proposed PennEast Pipeline. Please help us to analyze the input received by FERC. The comments you will review have been submitted by interested parties of all kinds, advising FERC on what issues it should consider when writing an Environmental Impact Statement for the PennEast Pipeline. This is all part of FERC’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

You don’t have to be an expert on the issues to help out, but your help will enable detailed economic and policy analysis that will lead to better information being brought to bear on FERC’s decisions regarding the pipeline over the coming year.

Please join the many volunteers already at work on this project by taking the following steps:

1) Sign up by clicking:  I’m In!  

2) You will then receive an email with a “packet” of 3 comment letters attached for you to review as well as instructions for using an online form for recording key information from each of the three letters.

Thank you in advance for considering and hopefully participating in this research effort. Your assistance will lead to powerful results as we hold FERC accountable to the voices of the people and environments who will be affected if the pipeline is approved and built.

If you want to get a sense of what we will be doing with your help and data, check out this great analysis done on the Atlantic Coast pipeline, an analysis we are working on that goes even one step further for the PennEast pipeline:  http://friendsofnelson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160209-FINAL-EconomicCostsOfTheACP_TechnicalReport

Let me take the opportunity to thank you for all you have already done to support our effort. There is much work to be done every day, but the best part of every day is the gratitude I feel for the friends and neighbors who are in this fight with us. We truly cannot thank you enough, and we’ll be thanking you all the more as you pitch in as a citizen-scientist on the review of the FERC comment letters.

If you’d like to learn more about the pipeline proposal and DRN’s work associated with it, you can read about it at here.

Please email keeper@delawareriverkeeper.org if you have any other questions about this opportunity or process.

With high regards,

 Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper

Overview

February 7, 2017 the PADEP issued 401 Certification for the PennEast pipeline.  The Certification was formally noticed in the February 25, addition of the PA Bulletin.  February 28 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a Petition for Review to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  (Appeal filed below).  

July 13, 2017 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s legal counsel argued in court that the third circuit should send the case back to the PA Environmental Hearing Board for review and identifying the myriad of ways that the oranization and its members had been denied critical rights as a result of the cart before the horse process the state, supported by PennEast, was utilizing.  To learn more about the arguments of the organization see the reply brief filed 8.7.17 below.

History of the Certification:

In a May 14, 2016 public notice PADEP announced its intent to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification pursuant to the Clean Water Act for the PennEast Pipeline Project.

A second request for comment was filed August 27, 2016, with a second 30 day comment period on what appears to be the identical filing of materials in May.

Key portions of the Application Submission and the public notice can be found in the resources below.

Additionally below you can find the comments and expert reports submitted by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network making the case to the state that they should deny the PennEast pipeline the Clean Water Act 401 Certification approval it is seeking.

Overview

January 24, 2018, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed a rehearing request challenging the FERC Certificate issued approving the PennEast Pipeline Project.  The FERC Certificate was issued at 8:20 pm on January 19, 2018.

A Rehearing Request must be submitted and denied before a legal challenge in court can be pursued.  FERC has 30 days to respond to the request.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network also submitted to FERC a Motion for Stay to halt construction and any other land disturbance pending the rehearing request. 

The Rehearing Request, Motion for Stay, and associated press release can be found below.

On February 22, 2018 FERC issued a tolling order in response to our rehearing request, placing our organization in legal limbo as it was neither a grant nor denial of our rehearing request. 

On March 15, 2018 the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted a rehearing request on the 2/22/2018 tolling order.  As expected, FERC issued a tolling order on this rehearing request on April 13, 2018.  Again, seeking to use this legal loophole strategy FERC has created to continue to prevent our access to the courts.  

On May 9, 2018, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network filed for a writ of mandamus seeking a court order that FERC respond affirmatively to our rehearing requests and also seeking to challenge the FERC final decision despite the tollling order.

All filings and documents can be found below.

Overview

On Friday, July 22, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the PennEast Pipeline project that is 1,174 pages long giving September 5 (then 12) as the deadline for comments.  FERC’s measly 45/52 day comment period was another blatant abuse of power by FERC in favor of the pipeline companies and to the detriment of the many people facing irreparable damage to their health, safety, environment and economic wellbeing.   Below is the cover comment and series of expert reports the Delaware Riverkeeper Network submitted in response.  

There are other attachments not included below but which can be provided upon request.

Overview

Sign Up to Help Provide An Accurate Picture of the Impacts of the Proposed Millennium Eastern System Upgrade.

From the Comfort of Your Own Home …. You can help us pull key information points from the comments filed on the FERC docket for Millennium that we need to do a full assessment of its impacts.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has received hundreds of comments from citizens concerned about Millennium’s proposed Eastern System Upgrade (ESU). Please help us to analyze the input received by FERC. The comments you will review have been submitted by interested parties of all kinds, advising FERC on what issues it should consider when writing an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for Millennium’s ESU. This is all part of FERC’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

You don’t have to be an expert on the issues to help out, but your help will enable detailed economic and policy analysis that will lead to better information being brought to bear on FERC’s decisions regarding the pipeline upgrade project over the coming year.

Please join the many volunteers already at work on this project by taking the following steps:

1) Sign up by clicking:  I’m In! 
2) You will then receive an email with a “packet” of 3 comment letters attached for you to review as well as instructions for using an online form for recording key information from each of the three letters.

Thank you in advance for considering and hopefully participating in this research effort. Your assistance will lead to powerful results as we hold FERC accountable to the voices of the people and environments who will be affected if the pipeline is approved and built.
If you want to get a sense of what we will be doing with your help and data, check out this great analysis done on the Atlantic Coast pipeline, an analysis we are working on that goes even one step further for the Milllennium ESU:  http://friendsofnelson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/20160209-FINAL-EconomicCostsOfTheACP_TechnicalReport

Let me take the opportunity to thank you for all you have already done to support our effort. There is much work to be done every day, but the best part of every day is the gratitude I feel for the friends and neighbors who are in this fight with us. We truly cannot thank you enough, and we’ll be thanking you all the more as you pitch in as a citizen-scientist on the review of the FERC comment letters.

If you’d like to learn more about the pipeline proposal and DRN’s work associated with it, you can read about it at here.

Please email keeper@delawareriverkeeper.org if you have any other questions about this opportunity or process.

With high regards,

Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper