Data Centers are becoming an increasing concern. They bring with them a myriad of problems ranging from massive consumption of potable water, negative impacts on our nation’s climate goals, use of fossil fuels as an energy source, health concerns, placement in environmental justice communities, and a current lack of regulatory oversight of data centers while their growth continues at an unprecedented rate. Generating a 100 word email with ChatGPT would use an entire bottle of water for cooling down the servers. This water, currently, must be drinking water quality so as to not bring sediment, minerals, or other contaminants into the system that could disrupt the electronic components of the facility. The energy demands of data centers put the climate goals of the entire world in danger. The power demand for artificial intelligence (AI) alone is projected to triple by 2030 in the US.
Communities that live near a Data Center or multiple have reported issues with a consistent low humming noise coming from the facility. Others have experience constant light pollution, problems with drinking water to their homes, strange smells, negative health impacts, and even increased electrical bills. AI and data center use is so novel and new, that regulators, politicians, decisionmakers and the public are not yet aware of the harms that result from its use for the environment and the climate, and in turn for their own health and safety. But these projects are appearing at an unprecedented rate across the country and throughout the Delaware River Watershed.
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.
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]
Carbon capture will not provide reliable or safe carbon reductions. It is estimated that between 100 and 200 gigatons of CO2 will need to buried to bring us back within our carbon budget, including burying hundreds more gigatons after 2050.[4] Even with the best currently used technology, the concern is that the carbon will eventually leak back into the atmosphere.[5]There is not a long enough record of testing carbon storage in different formations to know whether it would stay where injected underground. Sometimes caps are suggested as the solution but what technical experts do know is the likelihood of caps failing is great if there are natural fractures and/or human-made changes such as mines and oil and gas wells; a failed cap means carbon escapes.[6]
There are great risks posed by carbon capture and pollutants that will continue to be emitted even with CCUS. Groundwater and drinking water contamination could occur as carbon leaks through the geologic formation into freshwater aquifers.[7] Carbon can also migrate to the surface and leak into the atmosphere from the injection point.
If carbon escapes to the atmosphere, it can be highly dangerous. Carbon pipeline explosions can occur, uncontrollably releasing carbon into the air. This happened in Satartia, Mississippi when a carbon pipeline exploded without warning. One news story described the catastrophe: “As the carbon dioxide moved through the rural community, more than 200 people evacuated and at least 45 people were hospitalized. Cars stopped working, hobbling emergency response. People lay on the ground, shaking and unable to breathe.”[8] “The story of thepipeline rupture and its lasting effects was first reported in HuffPost in 2021 by the Climate Investigations Center. The Center obtained recordings of the 911 calls and shared them with NPR.”[9] Devastating negative health effects are still felt by residents there today according to reports from health care providers: “Carbon dioxide poisoning can also affect the brain”, says Steven Vercammen, an emergency room physician in Belgium who hasstudied carbon dioxide intoxication.”[10]
Carbon poisoning and asphyxiation from such an incident can occur with any carbon pipeline. As explained about the Satartia incident: “Humans always breathe some carbon dioxide, but too much causes a thirst for oxygen, disorientation and heart malfunction. Extreme exposures to carbon dioxide can lead to death by asphyxiation. The use of carbon dioxideto kill pigs in abattoirs is now underscrutiny over whether it complies with federal laws on humane slaughter. Carbon dioxide in open air can disperse. But third-party air monitoring that night in Satartia showed that potent clouds of CO2 can sometimes hang in the air for hours.”[11]
[1]Carbon Capture and Storage, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, https://ieefa.org/ccs, last accessed July 3, 2024.
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.
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.
These inherent properties of hydrogen pose serious public safety risks, especially in densely populated areas such as Philadelphia. For instance, three of the bus depots proposed for hydrogen storage are directly next to public parks, one is adjacent to an elementary school, and one is next to Cobbs Creek. Many residences and businesses are also in the vicinity of these bus depots, along with other sensitive features like train routes and the PGW gas plant. An accidental hydrogen release or explosion has the potential to be catastrophic. There is an obvious need for a comprehensive safety analysis, for special hazardous materials emergency response training, and for public disclosure of the potential dangers of hydrogen in the city. People should know and understand the safeguards that are in place and the responses that would be activated to protect the public, infrastructure and the environment in the case of a release of hydrogen.
There does not appear to have been any public participation in the decisions regarding this proposal so far, and the public is seemingly unaware of these plans and the risks of transporting, storing, and using hydrogen in their communities. This is a serious flaw in SEPTA planning since public participation is an essential component of good planning and without it, people are left uninformed and without a way to give valuable input into the decisions that are made that have substantial impacts on their lives.
It must be noted that because hydrogen leaks throughout its life cycle, while in transit and in storage and is emitted when it is created, the indirect greenhouse gas effects of direct hydrogen gas releases will amplify and extend methane in the atmosphere.[1] Methane is 86 times more efficient than CO2 at trapping heat over a 20-year period, making it the most potent of the major greenhouse gases.[2] The extension of the life of methane substantially undermines the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that is necessary to tackle the climate crisis.
Also noted is that the hydrogen that will be used by SEPTA during this testing and pilot period cannot be claimed to be “green”. SEPTA plans buy the hydrogen from Plug Power. The Plug Power website states “Plug uses electrolyzer and electricity made from renewable sources like wind, solar, hydro-electric, and nuclear power to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.” This mix of energy sources contains hydroelectric power which emits substantial greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from reservoirs[3], primarily methane. The hydroelectric power used to make hydrogen by Plug Power is not green; it is a greenhouse gas emitter that will add to our burden of climate-destroying greenhouse gas emissions.
The 2021 Pennsylvania Climate Action Plan set a goal based on Governor Wolf’s Executive Order – a 26% reduction in net GHG emissions statewide by 2025 from 2005 levels.[4] President Biden has set a goal of reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030.[5] The deep reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is considered the linchpin to slow atmospheric warming and the climate impacts that result, according to the final report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report.[6] Hydrogen energy and its life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions used to power buses does not move us towards these global and local goals, it actually can be expected to dig us deep into the climate crisis hole. SEPTA’s use of the words “zero emissions” is misleading the public into thinking that these plans are benefiting the climate crisis when in fact they would be making it worse. The public must be made aware so they have an opportunity to speak up and protect their communities and the environment.
SEPTA is shown as a partner of the proposed MACH2 hydrogen hub; it is listed and mapped as a “transportation application” on the MACH2 website.[7] The hydrogen bus project may become an active end use of the hydrogen that MACH2 would produce if the price of the hydrogen is competitive with the sources that SEPTA uses to purchase hydrogen. As the SEPTA plan moves forward, the connection between the proposed MACH2 Hydrogen Hub and the current SEPTA hydrogen bus project will be made transparent, unlike the present where this connection is kept publicly unclear. For now, this is an example of how the MACH2 hydrogen hub is not only in the planning phase as MACH2 leadership claims but is actually materializing in Philadelphia as an end use hydrogen project without public engagement or discussion, even without public awareness, in violation of what MACH2 is required to do by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Community Benefits Plan process supposedly being implemented by DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.
DRN has submitted a Right to Know Law Request with SEPTA to get more information and will be adding information to this web page as we gather it.
[2] Myhre, G. et al. 2013. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Quin, G.K. Plattner, M.Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midglet (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
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.
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.
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.
New York City has one of the few unfiltered water supplies in the nation. That is how healthy our Delaware River water is – it is unfiltered and still clean and healthy to drink.
Pursuant to state and federal law, surface water supplies must be filtered unless they can meet a strict set of standards that allow the avoidance of filtration. The Delaware River water that is served to New York City meets those strict standards.
In July, 2017, New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection (NYDEP) proposed the most recent version of the Filtration Avoidance Determination (FAD) program it needs approved in order to continue its ability to serve unfiltered drinking water to City residents and visitors. NYC’s Watershed Protection Program and FADs have ensured a nationally recognized effort that has protected not just New York City’s primary water supply but that has provided unrivaled protection to the water quality of the Delaware River’s headwater streams and preserved thousands of acres of critical watershed lands and riparian areas in the Catskills. It is important that this program continue on its current watershed protection trajectory and that it not be subverted for political or other purposes that would diminish the quality of the program and therefore the quality of the additional and ongoing protection given to the Delaware River and, in turn, all communities that live downstream.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been active on reviewing and comment on the most recently proposed FAD, dated July 2017, because protecting the headwaters of the Delaware River for New York City also ensures the quality of the River is protected for all those who live and benefit from the Delaware River downstream.
Congress’s “Big Beautiful Bill” is nothing but Big, Bad, and Backwards for Pipeline Policy and Community Health & Safety
The budget bill before the U.S. Senate— dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”— lays out plans for income tax breaks, increased border security and immigration application fees, and even funding cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and children’s health insurance programs.
But did you know that deep within the bill, there are incredibly harmful pro-pipeline policies that undermine states’ rights and put our communities and environments at risk?
Section 41004 of the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill”:
Allows pipeline companies to buy fast-tracked review of their permit applications if they pay $10 million or 1% of the expected cost of project construction (whichever is less);
Strips away states’ rights by requiring state agencies, federal agencies, and interstate agencies to approve pipeline projects (and related infrastructure), only allowing the agencies to establish conditions to be met for pipeline construction and operation. The ability to reject a proposal is entirely eliminated;
Regards projects as approved if regulatory agencies are unable to meet a prescribed one-year deadline for application review and the company refuses to agree to an extension of time;
Only allows impacted property owners or communities to bring a challenge if they can demonstrate economic harm, completely disregarding the safety issues, health harms, and the environmental damages these projects inflict; and
Raises the cost of a legal challenge for many communities by requiring all challenges be brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which imposes steep travel costs and legal/logistical barriers for communities outside of the DC metro area.
FERC-regulated pipelines and LNG infrastructure have ravaged communities by inflicting irreparable damage to our yards, farmlands, businesses, and precious community parks and preserved lands; by spewing pollution at levels that harm the health of our children, friends, and families; by bringing an ever-present threat of accidents, incidents, and explosions that have destroyed our sense of safety; and by degrading cherished environments that enrich lives and offer critical flooding and drinking water protections.
These dangerous provisions strip communities of their ability to protect their homes and businesses from fossil fuel development, and in turn denies them the ability to support and protect their children, their families, and themselves from unnecessary and unfair harm.
What can we do about it?
Our communities– which have already been scarred and damaged by FERC-regulated pipelines, compressor stations, and LNG facilities– deserve better!
Victory Over InFRACKStructure, Clean Energy InStead (VOICES)– a coalition of 250+ organizations founded and led by Delaware Riverkeeper Network– has written a letter urging Senators to vote NO on the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which contains devastating pro-pipeline provisions that would undermine states’ rights and property rights, perpetuate environmental and health harm on our communities, and create a Pay-to-Play scheme whereby big industry polluters can very literally buy the permits they desire.
We are asking organizations to sign on to the letter, so we may send the signed version to Senators that includes the total membership of all the individuals we represent. As more and more organizations sign on, the letter will be resubmitted to Senators to remind them of our presence and ever-growing people power!
The “Big Beautiful Bill” is part of budget reconciliation, a process used by the United States Congress to pass federal spending, tax, and debt limit legislation with only a simple majority in the Senate (as opposed to the usual supermajority requirement of 60 votes). This process typically leads to a flurry of policies being compacted into one large omnibus bill, as seen in the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the Inflation Reduction Act, and COVID-19 Stimulus Package. The policies included in the bill can cover a wide range of topics such as tax cuts, clean energy investment, and prescription drug costs, and congress members will argue that such policies are in-line with federal budget directives. The House and the Senate are required to pass identical versions of this ‘reconciliation package’ before it can get signed into law. As such, the reconciliation process entails a lot of negotiation and deal-making between individual legislators and entire political parties.
On May 22, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the reconciliation package in a narrow 215 – 214 vote. The bill is now in the hands of the Senate, where in order to get a majority vote, there will likely be lots of debate, amending, and arguments that certain provisions are extraneous and should be deleted. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated that he hopes the reconciliation process will be completed by July 4, 2025– so we are expecting a lot of critical Senate discussion over the next month!
Background
The ‘VOICES’ Campaign
February 5, 2020: Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum testified on at a Congressional hearing titled “Modernizing the Natural Gas Act to Ensure it Works for Everyone”, held by the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has been documenting the abuses of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in a comprehensive Dossier and, with the VOICES (Victory Over InFRACKstructure, Clean Energy inStead) coalition, has been calling on Congress to hold investigative hearings into FERC and pass needed reforms to the Natural Gas Act for over four years. van Rossum called for reforms to the Natural Gas Act, written over 80 years ago, which has been used to proliferate natural gas pipelines and enable FERC’s abuses. Among these abuses are FERC’s use of tolling orders that place people in legal limbo, unable to meaningfully challenge a pipeline decision in court; its failure to consider climate change impacts when approving projects; approval of construction before states and other agencies have given needed approvals; and failure to demonstrate project need.
Maya’s testimony drew strong responses from the Congress members in the room. Many asked pointed questions intended to underscore the messages of her testimony, including Chairman Frank Pallone (NJ). Representative Nanette Barragan (CA) tweeted video clip of Maya’s testimony and echoed her concerns. Fossil fuel advocate Representative David McKinley (WV) confronted Maya, calling her “a threat to this economic development in West Virginia and maybe the country, for that matter,” because she is “so adamantly opposed to fracking.” He referenced EPA statements from 2011 and said “fracking’s been around 1860, 1840” in defense of the devastating extraction practice. Maya was joined in the room by members of VOICES who traveled from various states to stand in support and solidarity, holding up scarves reading “#FERCAbuses Communities & Environment”. DRN and VOICES continue urge Congress to enact need NGA reforms to remedy FERC’s abuses.
As shale gas extraction continues the infrastructure to advance and serve it is proliferating into communities throughout our watershed and beyond. Communities are eager for information, strategies, and collaborations they can use to help defeat the pipeline, compressor, LNG facility, process plant, cracker plant that threatens their community. We hope the below resources and actions are helpful.
And if you would like the Delaware Riverkeeper Network to come and talk to your community about how to challenge a pipeline, compressor or other infrastructure project email keepermaya@delawareriverkeeper.org.
In addition to the links provided be sure to take a look at the expert reports, policy documents and maps provided on the list below.
The irreparable harms pipelines inflict on wetlands is an important regulatory battleground. Learn more about those harms so you can be better informed for the debate. Wetlands report.
Learn more about how Pipelines inflict more harm than they have to. We don’t want any of these pipelines cutting through our watershed and communities, but if the battle is lost, there is a way they can be constructed that makes them far less harmful. Learn more about the construction practices associated with Pipelines. Pipeline ROW report.
Gas drilling and pipelines are a major concern for bat populations, already being devastated by other threats and harms. Click the link to see a copy of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network commissioned report. Bat report.
Proliferation of pipelines is intimately connected to the shale gas extraction invasion taking place in communities across PA and beyond. Learn more.
Some background on pipelines and their safety record across the country in this video.
The Delaware Riverkeeper’s presentation of the first pipeline petition to the DRBC on September 12, 2012 on video here.
How compressors associated with pipelines have impacted lives in this video.
Wetlands harms imposed by an Upper Delaware River pipeline and the callous disregard of the company and the agencies in this video.
More pipeline harms in this video.
To see what happened at a March 6, 2013 DRBC meeting where citizens demanded action on pipelines see this video.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network presents Pipeline Lessons video series: To help residents understand the damage caused by natural gas pipelines and provide guidance on the science, law and strategies Delaware Riverkeeper Network presents the Pipeline Lessons video series.
Among the experts interviewed:
Accufacts Incorporated President Rich Kuprewicz discussing pipeline safety issues and the route selection process.
Michelle Adams, a civil engineer with Meliora Associates is featured discussing the weaker regulatory standards shale gas operations face compared to other land developments.
Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum talks about how citizens can organize and strategies to fight proposed pipelines.
Environmental scientist Wilma Subra examines the environmental health effects associated with shale gas extraction and pipelines.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network staff attorney Aaron Stemplewicz discusses the legal actions property owners can take whose land is targeted for pipeline installations.
Leslie Sauer, ecological restoration expert, looks at the construction impacts of pipelines.
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is obligated to review and approve any pipeline projects that pass through the boundaries of the Delaware River Watershed. To date it has chosen not to exercise that jurisdiction. And so DRBC has received a formal Petition from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network to secure the exercise of their jurisdiction.
Pipelines are a serious and significant source of damage for our rivers, streams, wetlands, forests and communities. Pipelines clear, cross, cut and/or otherwise damage what ever is in their path. Exceptional value streams, productive wetlands, mature forests, and peaceful communities have all suffered when they lie in the path of a pipeline. Pipelines also require loud and polluting compressor stations that add insult to injury for the communities where they are placed. The proliferation of pipelines is in order to serve the proliferation of drilling and fracking pressing forth across our states and region. Even communities where fracking and drilling is prohibited or not yet happening, find themselves the unwilling targets of the pipeline companies.
The DRBC could provide a critical and irreplaceable level of review and protection if they would exercise their authority. At least a dozen pipelines or pipeline expansions are being proposed for the Delaware River Watershed. Pipelines that are known to be considered for construction will cross counties throughout the Basin including Chester County, Pike County, and Monroe County, PA; Sussex County, NJ; Delaware County and Broome County, NY; a number of counties leading up to and into Philadelphia yet to be specifically identified. Additional communities will be targeted with additional proposals anticipated.
