Talking Points to Consider for Your Comment — we will be adding new points regularly, consider checking back each week for new comments you can make:
Feel free to use the language below as a guide or verbatim. New talking points will be added regularly so please check back weekly so you can offer a fresh set of comments to FERC. The more responsive comments they receive from us, the better!
FERC must end the practice of issuing Conditional Certificates and thereby allowing pipeline companies to use eminent domain in order to gain survey access to targeted properties in order to provide outstanding information needed to perfect and finalize their FERC Certificate.
NGA Section 7(h) grants eminent domain authority in order to pursue construction and operation of pipeline infrastructure projects, not in order to gather information to gather information and data necessary for project approval. Eminent Domain authority is not authorized for, nor should it be granted in order for, a pipeline company to invade the sanctity of people’s properties so the company can gather data it needs to secure finalized government approval of its project.
FERC Must Reverse Its Decision to Limit Out of Time Interventions.
The time allowed for in time motions to intervene is often short — in some cases a matter of just 2 weeks. A mere few weeks is not enough time for even engaged communities concerned about a project to realize they are in the unique moment when they need to intervene to preserve their legal rights. Given the level of unremediable impact inflicted by these infrastructure projects, communities Individuals, organizations and communities whose interests, properties and/or environments are going to be impacted should be treated with respect and leniency when it comes to intervention.
I urge FERC to please add hearings to ensure a full and fair opportunity for all to be heard.
To ensure that FERC identifies a full spectrum of truly meaningful fixes to its pipeline review and approval process, and to ensure everyone has a full and fair opportunity to be heard, FERC’s Commissioners need to hear directly from the communities impacted by pipeline infrastructure and the FERC process. I urge you to schedule a minimum of 6 hearings in affected communities across the nation. Testimony should be open to all who are interested and impacted including community members, impacted landowners, environmental advocates, and their representative organizations.
FERC’s Pipeline Review Process needs to mandate that the public interest, including property rights and the environment, be given priority over the goal of the pipeline companies for profit.
This means giving highest priority in FERC consideration of proposed pipelines, compressors, storage facilities and LNG exports, to honoring peoples’ property rights, preventing economic harm, preventing the release of climate changing emissions that will result directly or indirectly from approval of a project, and preventing environmental degradation.
FERC should mandate a legitimate demonstration of and end use “need” for a proposed pipeline/infrastructure project before FERC will consider it for approval.
A company’s claim of “need” for their pipeline project should not be deemed justified if supported/demonstrated by contracts from the pipeline company itself, or any of its subsidiaries or business counterparts or affiliates. This assertion of need must be objectively verified by experts who are not tainted by an industry conflict of interest. A claim of “need” for a project should not be deemed justified if the geographic region to be served already has gas service from other pipelines that would merely be replaced/displaced by gas delivery from the proposed project. Such illegitimate “need” demonstrations must be prohibited, and cannot be used to fulfill the “public use” requirements needed to support project approval and eminent domain authority.
All applications for pipeline/infrastructure projects must include a demonstration that the energy goals to be achieved cannot be fulfilled by renewable energy options, or by existing or proposed energy sources and infrastructure (e.g. the gas is already being supplied by a pre-existing pipeline supply network).
FERC must respect the authority of other state and federal agencies by instituting a regulatory prohibition on:
(a) issuance of a FERC Certificate approving a project or
(b) FERC approvals for projects to proceed with any element of construction or eminent domain authority, until such time as all state, federal and regional (e.g. from River Basin Commissions) reviews have been finalized and any and all necessary approvals, permits, certificates and/or dockets have been granted.
Such a prohibition is essential for ensuring that projects are not allowed to proceed until all government agencies/entities have had the opportunity to fully and fairly evaluate a project and render their own independent determinations regarding necessary approvals. This is required to avoid the current situation where pipeline companies are allowed by FERC to proceed with eminent domain and/or construction only to find that later they have been denied some key permit and are not able to proceed to completion. This prohibition must include the issuances of conditional FERC Certificates or approvals of any kind, because conditional approvals by FERC have resulted in projects advancing prior to securing all necessary reviews, approvals, permits and/or dockets.
FERC must proactively work to remove bias and conflicts of interest from infecting its decisionaking on pipeline and infrastructure projects.
FERC must commit to removing bias from the decision-making process, by no longer hiring consultants with demonstrated conflicts of interest (i.e., those who are representing a pipeline company seeking Commission approval), and by prohibiting Commission staff or Commissioners from working on/deciding upon any pipeline infrastructure project in which they, or a member of their family, have a direct or indirect financial stake or have worked to represent the company within the previous five years or from whom they are seeking future employment.
FERC must end the practice of using segmentation, whereby larger projects are broken up into smaller pieces for FERC review and approval, as a means to undermine environmental and community impact reviews.
FERC’s practice of segmentation has been firmly rejected by the courts and yet the practice continues at the agency. A prohibition on the practice is clearly warranted to make clear to agency staff and Commissioners that this violation of law will no longer be tolerated.
FERC must commit to a full and fair implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Full implementation of NEPA mandates that FERC conduct a complete analysis of the costs and benefits of every aspect of a project (i.e. not just segmented pieces) including, but not limited to, fully evaluating social justice impacts; climate change impacts of pipeline construction and operation; community, environment, and climate change impacts of increased natural gas exploration, fracking, and methane emissions that will result from pipeline infrastructure operations; economic analyses that include costs, not just asserted benefits; alternatives not limited to alternate routes but that also include alternative energy sources and the no-build option; and robust health-and-safety impact analyses. This reform must mandate that all data gaps be filled before FERC issues a Certificate approval. This reform must mandate that all demonstrated data inaccuracies, misleading information, and/or false information be fully investigated and addressed by the applicant before FERC issues a Certificate approval.
FERC must mandate that FERC staff issue final responses to rehearing requests within 30 days, or prohibit eminent domain proceeding or the start of construction until a final rehearing request response is issued,
thereby allowing legal challenge of their decisions before a project exercises eminent domain or begins any element of construction. In addition and/or by extension, FERC must end the use of tolling orders as a response to rehearing requests. Tolling orders place people in legal limbo and prevent communities from challenging a FERC pipeline approval in the courts before property rights are taken by eminent domain; forests are cut; and irreparable harm is inflicted on communities, farmers, businesses, the environment, public open spaces and our global climate.
Because property owners, community groups, business owners and environmental organizations are unable to challenge a FERC Certificate approving a pipeline project until after they have submitted a rehearing request to FERC and that request has been denied or granted and the rehearing process completed, FERC has developed a strategy whereby it refuses to grant or deny rehearing requests and instead issues a decision termed a “tolling order” which merely grants FERC unlimited time to consider the rehearing request. Tolling orders are commonly in effect for a year or more. Without a final decision on the rehearing request, challengers are placed in legal limbo, unable to challenge the project until FERC renders a final yay or nay on the rehearing request.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) operates as a Rubber Stamp on the pipeline infrastructure projects that come before it for review, with FERC approval being a foregone conclusion once the project goes before the FERC Commissioners for their vote.
In addition to FERC’s rubber stamp process, FERC:
relies on biased consultants to advance their reviews,
uses tactics that prevent impacted property owners and members of the community from challenging projects before they advance through eminent domain and construction, undermining the authority of states and other regulatory agencies,
uses truncated reviews, as well as false and misleading information to hide the true impacts of projects,
fails to consider the true climate changing impacts of their projects,
uses tactics and strategies to prevent and/or minimize public comment, and
uses every opportunity to advance the goals of the pipeline companies over the health, safety and needs of our people and environments.
On April 25, 2018 FERC opened a 60 day public comment period regarding how FERC carries out its review and approval of natural gas pipeline infrastructure. (You can read the full notice here). The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and tens of thousands commented during the comment period. In fact, a sign on letter by a leading coalition, VOICES (Victory Over InFRACKstructure, Clean Energy inStead) secured signatures from 32,664 individuals and organizations. See below for the VOICES letter and the Delaware Riverkeeper Networks substantive 94 page comment.
On February 24, 2021, under new leadership from Chairman Glick, FERC reopened the public commenting period on Docket PL18-1-000 and requested answers to several specific questions, some of which are focused on climate change and environmental justice. The public notice for this commenting opportunity can be found here. Comments are due April 26, 2021.
Related
Talking Points For Docket PL18-1 – FERC Pipeline Reviews
uly 10, 2018: The United States Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision rejecting Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s (DRN) due-process challenge to FERC’s funding mechanism and to FERC’s use of tolling orders. Given the makeup of the court, this decision was disappointing but not surprising. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network continues to work with our colleague organizations to find other ways to address the much needed reforms at FERC.
March 22, 2018: Oral arguments were held in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. We are waiting for the Court’s decision as to whether there is merit to DRN’s claims of structural bias in FERC’s funding mechanism.
September 25, 2017: Delaware Riverkeeper Network appealed the dismissal of the case to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The merits brief can be found here.
Background:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has become a demonstrably biased agency that has become a partner with, rather than a regulator of, the pipeline companies it purports to oversee. In addition, FERC is misusing legal loopholes and ignoring court orders to advance gas infrastructure projects while preventing the public from exercising their rights to judicial review or fair public participation in the process. License for FERC’s abuse of power and blatant bias is provided by the agency’s funding mechanism which makes it an agency funded 100% by the industry it regulates, and is advanced by the revolving employee door that exists between FERC and its regulated community.
FERC is in need of reform.
There are two pathways to this reform being advanced by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network:
1) is getting an independent investigation into the agency by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
2) is a legal action brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network challenging FERC’s decisionmaking and funding as a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Examples of the many problems with FERC and how it operates include, but are not limited to:
I. The funding mechanism which results in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission being 100% funded by the industry it regulates has resulted in blatant bias in favor of pipeline companies and against the public. For example, FERC has approved 100% of the pipeline project proposals that it has reviewed. Such an approval rate cannot be found at any other independent federal agency.
II. The revolving door between employment with FERC and the industry it regulates contributes to agency bias in the project review and certification process, the unjustifiably high approval rate of proposed projects, and the lack of oversight and enforcement for FERC approved pipeline projects.
III. FERC abuses of law that deny the public their legal rights:
a) use of “tolling orders” to allow projects to advance while denying citizens the ability to initiate an appeal in court;
b) granting permission for pipeline companies to begin construction activity prior to the company securing all necessary permits and approvals;
c) continued use of segmentation and the failure to undertake cumulative impact environmental reviews in clear violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and in disregard of a July 2014 court order and opinion from the D.C. Circuit;
d) failure to comply with the requirements of NEPA, and instead using subjective judgment to pre-determine the level of environmental review for proposed projects.
IV. Allowing the taking of public and private land via eminent domain for projects that are for private benefit as opposed to a public purpose.
Litigation Updates:
On March 22, 2018, oral arguments were held in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. We are waiting for the Court’s decision as to whether there is merit to DRN’s claims of structural bias in FERC’s funding mechanism.
On September 25, 2017, Delaware Riverkeeper Network appealed the dismissal of the case to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The merits brief can be found here.
On March 22, 2017, the court dismissed the case. The Court found that DRN had standing to bring the action, yet DRN was unable to show that FERC’s funding mechanism was unable demonstrate structural bias. Below find a statement from the Delaware Riverkeeper addressing the results of the case.
Statement from Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network Concerning the Dismissal of the D.C. District Court Case:
It was gratifying to have set important precedent regarding standing. The court did explicitly find that we did have standing to bring the action. That is an important outcome in terms of precedent and future cases.
As to how we will proceed legally in the wake of this decision is certainly under consideration. The decision just came out and so there is a lot to consider.
My biggest concern about this decision is that it means that at this point all branches of government have now taken a pass on checking FERC’s abuses of process and law when it comes to their pipeline review and approval process. The congress will continue to rubber stamp their budget, the president will continue to appoint bad commissioners who will perpetuate the practices of abuse, and now the courts have denied their responsibility to oversee the abuses of power and law by FERC. Now that FERC has been given a license to continue business as usual, I anticipate that FERC’s abuses will continue to get worse. We have already seen an expansion of the level and quality of abuse they are subjecting communities to. Their environmental reviews are getting worse, simply embracing the bad information provided by the pipeline companies and ignoring the hard data and evidence provided by the communities. The length of the tolling orders used to prevent people from challenging pipeline projects before FERC allows them to go to construction are getting longer and I’m sure that trend will now continue. The leap frogging over state authority will also continue as will the increasing strategies for removing meaningful opportunities for the public to be engaged in the regulatory review process. FERC has received another green light for its abuse of the people from each of the branches of government. And the people have lost yet again.
What this means is that the responsibility on members of the Senate to stand up strongly and passionately against the restoration of a quorum at FERC has become even more important and consequential.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) is a demonstrably biased agency that has become a partner with, rather than a regulator of, the pipeline companies it purports to oversee. FERC is misusing legal loopholes and ignoring court orders to advance gas infrastructure projects, while preventing affected and concerned communities from participating in the process. The agency is funded 100% by the industry it regulates, and a revolving employee door between FERC and its regulated community feeds the agency’s bias and abuse of power.
It is time that the public secure an independent investigation of FERC and that necessary reforms be identified.
We need a review of FERC by Congress in the form of Congressional Hearings, as well as investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Organizations from across the nation have joined forces to advance these requests of our elected officials in Congress.
To see a comprehensive listing of reforms view here.
Penn America Energy is proposing to build a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Chester, PA on the Delaware River. Their purported plan is to build an LNG processing plant, known as a “liquefier”, and a deepwater port terminal with a dock in the river at the location of the shuttered Ford Motor Assembly Plant at 800 W Front St. The LNG would be exported in enormous ships that would travel down the Delaware River, through the Delaware Bay and overseas to “Europe, Asia or Latin America”.1 The company says, “Natural gas will be sourced primarily from Pennsylvania given the proximity to the Utica and Marcellus shale fields”.2
The fracked gas is proposed to be transported from the shale fields by an Enbridge (formerly Spectra) natural gas pipeline. A new greenfields pipeline connector would need to be built from the location of the Eagle Compressor Station in Chester Springs through Chester and Delaware Counties for about 5 miles to the plant in Chester.
Submitted File Requests
DRN has submitted several file requests with various agencies to learn more about what Penn America is planning because much of the available information is out of date or very limited in detail. For instance, the owner of the Ford Motor Company site has stated publicly the property is not for sale and is already being used by other facilities.3
Other information from news articles and reports:
Ford Motor Assembly Plant Site is reportedly 100 acres.4
It is a $4 to $8 billion project.5
They plan to process up to 1 B cubic feet of gas per day.6
They plan to export 7 million metric tonnes of LNG each year.7
They plan to operate for 20 years: 2023-2043.8
The Greater Philadelphia Lateral Expansion pipeline:
This Enbridge (formerly Spectra) pipeline project seems to be dormant. The website is outdated with an “in-service” date of 2019. Their open season was back in 2015. They would need to get easements for about 5 miles for a new connector pipeline of the existing market pipeline in Chester County. The Eagle Compressor, shown below on the map from the pipeline site, exist at 310 Fellowship Rd., Chester Springs, PA 19425. People have opposed it here.
The Texas Eastern and Columbia pipelines interconnect at the Eagle Compressor Station. DRN has learned that other pipeline connections may be available to carry the natural gas to a location on the river. The recent public statements by U. S. Senator Dave McCormick that the project is going to be built in Eddystone, opens up different routes for a natural gas line to reach that community.
The Transco pipeline coming from the west joins Compressor Station 200 located off of North Bacton Rd in East Whiteland Township, PA. From here, the Marcus Hook Lateral runs south to the Marcus Hook facility and then east to Penn LNG. The Marcus Hook Lateral is active, but there are planned upgrades to Compressor Station 200 to support the increased transportation volumes resulting from the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project. DEP issued 401 State Water Quality Certification in 2018, but the Chapter 102 and 105 applications are still pending in 2025. DEP issued technical deficiency letters for the 102 and 105 applications as recently as July 31, 2025 and August 8, 2025.
Political Maneuvering Behind the Scenes:
There is quite a bit of information in the copies of emails that were secured by WHYY through records requests, linked in WHYY article.9
The project’s plans lack public transparency. In a Feb. 23, 2021 email from Franc James to M. Doweary,10 Mr. James of Penn America stated that the Penn America LNG project had been “in development for the last 5+ years”.11
Yet, there has been no public discussion or public information available until the news articles were published in June 2022. The expose has sparked strong public opposition, as revealed in the WHYY article. The Chester environmental justice group, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) is a community organization dedicated for decades to protecting Chester residents from just this kind of environmental affront. Zulene Mayfield, founder of the group, has pledged to fight the project being located in Chester. Delaware Riverkeeper Network is also opposing the project.
We do know from the company’s economic report that they are behind schedule for all phases of the project.12 From the report:
2016-2019 Development phase
2019-2023 Build Phase
2023-2043 Operations (20-year life of project)
Stated they would pre-file with FERC in 2021 (then apply to FERC in 2022) but they have not done so.
Evonik Chemical appears to use the dock that has navigation channel access (google satellite). The river would need to be dredged if a new dock were to be built for the proposed terminal to access the now-deepened navigation channel.
It appears that M and M Industries and Dee paper use parts of the old Ford Motor site (google satellite).
The Ford site is reportedly 100 acres, undersized for the facilities and storage that would be needed for such a project.
Here is a google satellite map of the Ford Motor Assembly Plant site on the river:
Chester Is an Environmental Justice Community
One of the first communities in the United States to use the term “environmental justice”, Chester has been struggling with environmental injustice that is best described by the community organizations who are active in the City. See the website of the Chester environmental justice group, Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL). This is a community organization dedicated to protecting and empowering Chester and its residents to challenge a plethora of environmental burdens for decades. Founder Zulene Mayfield and the organization have pledged to fight the proposed LNG facility due to its inescapable dangers and polluting emissions that would add to the intolerable burdens from which they are already fighting to free their community.
Points About the Location on the Delaware River re. Ships
The ships that Penn America would use would likely be similar to the size of the ships that would use the LNG export dock (Dock 2) proposed for the Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal, across the river from Chester, about 1.9 miles north in New Jersey. These ships would be larger than any currently embarking from this far north on the river. In addition to other impacts associated with enormous vessels, these ships would have more explosive power should there be a release of the contents because they hold more product. One ship holds the equivalent energy of 69 Hiroshima bombs.13
Many permits would be needed for this type of project. So far, DRN file requests have resulted in no records located at PA DEP or DRBC. Other FOIAs and Right to Know Law requests submitted by DRN are pending.
Permits Needed Could Include:
U.S. Coast Guard
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Energy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Delaware River Basin Commission
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection – several permits needed depending on the site specifics (i.e. stormwater management) but these are key: Air Permit and perhaps Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit.
Depending on the process they would use, may need: National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permits (NPDES) discharge permits and water allocation permits from PADEP and DRBC.
May need municipal and county approvals.
Pipeline will need another set of permitting at various government levels/agencies.
Proximity to the Proposed Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal
The Ford Motor Assembly site in Chester is 1.94 miles from the proposed Gibbstown LNG Export Terminal (Dock 2) on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River.
A release of LNG to the atmosphere can impact a large area. When released, LNG, which is liquid methane, boils furiously into a flammable vapor cloud 620 times larger than the storage container. An unignited ground-hugging vapor cloud can move far distances,14 and exposure to the vapor can cause extreme freeze burns. If in an enclosed space, it asphyxiates, causing death.15 If ignited (ignition can be from a small spark or even the ignition switch on a car), the fire is inextinguishable. Fire companies are told to evacuate as quickly as possible and let it burn out on its own. A resulting pool fire is so hot that second degree burns can occur within 5 seconds for those exposed within .69 miles and 10 seconds of exposure could be fatal.16
An LNG release can cause a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion.17 The explosive force of LNG is similar to a thermobaric explosion – a catastrophically powerful bomb. The 2016 US Emergency Response Guidebook advises fire chiefs initially to immediately evacuate the surrounding 1-mile area.18 No federal field research has shown how far the vapor cloud can move so in the most recent serious Plymouth, Washington LNG fire, emergency responders evacuated a 2-mile radius.19
Chester and Gibbstown are both within 2 miles of each other. An incident that releases LNG at one facility would impact the other, compounding the public safety risks for residents and the environment in both communities and the Delaware River. The threats posed by LNG being handled, processed, stored, transloaded, or transported at either site are unmitigatable due to the unique and far-reaching hazards of LNG.
Spillage of LNG into water presents a hazardous situation where the water quickly transfers heat to the liquid methane, causing it to expand with explosive speed that can result in damage to nearby structures.20 Explosion can occur and have a cascading effect as the vapor cloud moves downwind or along topographical features such as a tributary, ditch, tunnel, or human built structures, threatening public safety, human life and the environment. Accidents have occurred over the years across the globe that have had caused severe harm; some have had catastrophic effects. See: https://www.laohamutuk.org/Oil/LNG/app4.htm
Proximity to the State of Delaware, where LNG terminals are banned
Chester is approximately 3 miles from the Delaware State Line. Delaware would be exposed to the hazards of LNG, both the public health and safety issues and the environmental impacts. The State of Delaware Administrative Code prohibits the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in the coastal zone in Delaware under current law.21 The Coastal Zone runs the length of the state, including all of the coast along the Delaware River and Bay. See: https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/coastal-zone-act/
The environmental impact statement that concluded that LNG terminals were too dangerous to allow in Delaware’s Coastal Management Zone stated that Wilmington was not an acceptable location because: “A recent study, for reasons discussed below, recommends that population near proposed sites be “zero or very low” density within a one-mile radius, and low within a 6-mile radius.”22 Chester’s population density far exceeds “low” at 32,565 people living within 4.8 square miles of land area.
The reference cited in the Delaware Coastal Management Program FEIS states that a study cited by the U.S. Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) “…recommends that population near proposed [LNG terminal] sites be “zero or very low” density within a one-mile radius, and low within a 6-mile radius”23. The same report states, “There has never been a massive LNG spill on water. Estimated distance vary from less than one mile to more than 50 miles, depending on different assumptions. Work by the U. S. Bureau of Mines has indicated that a 25,000 cubic meter spill–the contents of one the cargo tanks in a big LNG tanker- – could produce a 1500 foot long plume, the major part of it is highly flammable. With stable weather conditions and a steady wind of about 7 miles an hour, the plume could theoretically travel some 19 to 38 miles according to the BLM study. More recent studies by the Coast Guard suggest that the impacted area would be from 1.25 to 3.2 miles under normal weather conditions and no more than 10.5 miles under extreme conditions.”24
Further justifications are detailed below in excerpts from the relevant documents:
From the Final EIS, Page 16 of the PDF25:
“Delaware’s CMP prohibition against the siting of L.N.G. facilities, deepwater ports and refineries might at first appear to disregard national interests for the sake of local concerns, yet a close examination reveals these facts:
(1) LNG facilities: The use of Delaware’s coastal strip for the siting of such a facility does not appear to be feasible because a number of siting criteria which must be met. Furthermore, the still undefined dangers associated with LNG facilities in areas of population density and the potential impacts of shipments on environmental resources, appear to outweigh benefits related to the potential energy supply.
(2) Deepwater Ports: Delaware CMP prohibits the siting of such ports in Delaware Bay for environmental reasons, (i.e., spillage, dredging and spoil disposal). This policy prefers instead the siting of Deepwater Ports offshore in the Atlantic provided they meet certain standards. These standards include but are not limited to:
a. Requiring location far enough offshore to minimize oil spill threats
b. Environmental Safeguards.”
From the Final EIS, page 16 of the PDF26:
“It is evident that many potential uses of Underwater Lands and the Coastal Strip may be incompatible with each other. In particular, heavy industrial uses and recreational pursuits, as well as other uses which rely on maintenance of the natural environment, cannot be accommodated near each other. The possibility of human error or equipment failure in the operation of certain facilities, such as LNG terminals or deepwater ports, poses grave risks in or near areas used for high density recreation, and relied upon by commercially important fish. Moreover, such facilities and certain heavy industrial uses not only threaten the fragile coastal environment directly, but also typically generate pressure for additional development with negative impact of its own. Finally, many “lighter” manufacturing activities are better suited in inland locations where the ecological, aesthetic, and other impacts are less severe.”
From the Final EIS, page 222 of PDF27:
“In 1973, the Federal Power Commission identified 19 potential LNG receiving areas based on at least some of the criteria discussed below. One of those areas was along the Delaware River, where several sites are in high gas demand areas and also near major transmission lines. Two New Jersey sites near the Delaware River not far from Philadelphia (oil refineries and power plants) were proposed. The Federal Power Commission’s environmental staff recently concluded, however, that there were “unacceptable risks” in carrying LNG by tanker up the crowded Delaware River, and recommended that approval be denied.”
Penn America announced they were going to submit their application for the LNG export project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the last quarter of 2022. They did not. They have now announced they will file with FERC in the first quarter of 2023. As of January, nothing has been noticed in the FERC Docket from Penn America. Until we see the details regarding the project, we do not have critical information about the project that we need such as precise location, needed infrastructure, scale, etc.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network has filed numerous file review requests under state and federal laws for information regarding the Penn America LNG Project – the Right to Know Law in PA and Freedom of Information Act Law for federal agencies. Here are some recent revelations about the proposed project:
Recent items we have learned from Right to Know Law requests
The project may ship gas to Lithuania and Germany
The project would be designed/built by Bechtel Energy
Tellurian Energy is involved in an “evaluation process specific to citing Penn LNG in the City of Chester”
Penn LNG either met with or sought meetings with Senator Robert Casey, Ambassador Amy Gutmann (Germany), Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon, and AFL-CIO leadership
Penn LNG plans on developing a public park adjacent to the terminal; they say they plan on funding community projects, such as a sports stadium, via a “Penn LNG Foundation”
Advisory Board includes former FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee
Penn LNG is seeking tax benefits per “Qualified Opportunity Zone” rules
Pipeline supply options to Chester include TETCO Philadelphia Lateral (includes adding compressor to Eagle Compressor Station, replacing a portion of the lateral with larger pipe, and creating about 5 miles of new pipeline), and/or Transco’s Marcus Hook lateral (includes 2,000 ft. new pipeline and upgrade diameter of existing lateral)
Penn LNG facility plans to have two storage tanks (2 x 160,000 square meters)
One LNG ship would export out of the terminal every 4 days
PA Department of Community and Economic Development, which, as we know, has met with Penn America for a period of time, wrongfully denied our Right to Know Law requests and we are currently in an administrative appeal process.
Chester City Right to Know Law requests have required an administrative appeal that resulted in DRN finally securing records, which are reported on in this update.
PHMSA wrongfully denied our Freedom of Information Act requests, DRN is in an appeal process.
See recent slide presentations by DRN below for new maps and other information.
In 2022 the gas industry’s effort to build an LNG export terminal at Chester or in some other southeastern PA location took on new energy, fueled by the PA Legislature in support of fracking, fossil fuel development and market expansion. The Philadelphia LNG Task Force was formed with the passage by the Pennsylvania General Assembly of the PA LNG Export Task Force Act, signed into law by Governor Tom Wolf (see: https://bit.ly/3u5R702). The Task Force started up in January 2023 with a little known meeting of its members, named in the Act, held before the newly elected Representatives had been sworn in. This is important because a new Democratic majority was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives but the chairperson was elected by a vote of the members without the new House President’s appointee included because the meeting was held prior to the inauguration. The chair, Rep. Martina White, represents District 170 which includes portions of Philadelphia. She is the Republican Caucus secretary.
The Philadelphia LNG Task Force targets southeast Pennsylvania in the Delaware River Watershed as an “LNG export hub”, most specifically focusing on Chester, the only location where an LNG export terminal (Penn America Energy LLC) was being proposed. From the start, the Task Force displayed a lack of transparency, shutting out the very communities that would be exposed to the pollution and danger of an LNG processing plant and export terminal.
Representative Joe Hohenstein (District 177, serving Philadelphia County and the Delaware River Port region, www.pahouse.com/Hohenstein) was appointed to the Task Force in 2023 by the new Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives when the Democratic majority was seated. With practically no public notice, the first Task Force hearing was held on April 23 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Rep. Hohenstein held a press conference with community members outside of the hearing location to draw needed public attention to the little-known Task Force meeting (See Press Release under Supporting Documents). Rep. Hohenstein worked with community members to organize an effort to open the Task Force up to the public, inform the public of the hearing, and arrange for independent experts and community representatives to speak at the hearing instead of the Task Force’s hand-picked speakers, all of whom were biased towards LNG export. At the last minute, Chair White of the Task Force barred all the community and independent expert speakers that were slated to testify and the public was turned away from even entering the hearing room.
At the Task Force’s May hearing, Pennsylvania State Representative Carol Kazeem (District 159, serving Delaware County, including Chester, https://www.pahouse.com/Kazeem/) testified eloquently for her District, but members of the public or local community were not allowed to speak. Rep. Hohenstein arranged for a community-accessible hearing location for the Task Force’s August hearing.
DRN & Philadelphia Organizations
DRN, Philadelphia organizations, and community members from throughout the southeastern PA region worked with Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) and their chairperson Zulene Mayfield, to mount a powerful unified public rebuke of the Task Force’s goals at the August hearing in Chester on the Widener University campus. Zulene Mayfield (see: https://www.muralarts.org/artist/zulene-mayfield/ ) and Stefan Roots, Chester City Council member and Democratic mayoral candidate for the City of Chester (and Chester City mayor as of January 3, 2024, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Roots) spoke on the record before the Hearing Task Force for those that would be impacted by an LNG facility. A statement by Fermin Morales, a member of the Philadelphia community group Philly Boricuas and a union electrician for IBEW Local 98, was read into the record by Zulene Mayfield because he wasn’t available to attend.
The regional communities united and turned out in force at the public hearing; residents and community leaders filled the hall at Widener University to standing room only with a rambunctious rally beforehand in front of the meeting hall. A press conference was held after the Hearing by organizations from Southeastern PA with Pennsylvania State Representative Joseph Hohenstein, Pennsylvania State Representative and Chester resident Carol Kazeem, and people who testified or were supposed to testify – including Zulene Mayfield, Stefan Roots, Earl Wilson of the Eastwick Friends and Neighbors Association, Philadelphia and Shawmar Pitts of Philly Thrive, Philadelphia (see Press Release under Supporting Documents).
The effect of the united front against an LNG facility in Chester (or anywhere in the Delaware River ports) was clear – the Task Force could no longer claim they had community-level support. However, the Task Force continued to move ahead with its planning. The Task Force released their recommendation report on November 3 after it was approved at a Task Force public meeting livestreamed on YouTube. Representative Joe Hohenstein and Task Force member was the lone “no” vote on the Report (see DRN press release under Supporting Documents).
The Philadelphia LNG Export Task Force Report
In a press statement issued Nov. 3, DRN dismissed the Task Force Report as inaccurate, misleading, and an affront to Delaware River communities. DRN condemned the shocking and upfront biased omission of the testimony of impacted community members who testified at the LNG Task Force Hearings as insulting and a grave mistake. The report contained no mentions of or quotes from Pennsylvania Representative Carol Kazeem, who represents the District where the LNG terminal would most likely be located, community representative Zulene Mayfield of the Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL), or Chester City Councilman Stefan Roots. All three were invited speakers from Chester who presented testimony before the Task Force at their public hearings and all spoke on the record.
The Task Force Report neglected to address the public health and environmental impacts of such a terminal on residents of Chester or the larger southeastern PA communities that would be impacted or the substantial environmental impacts of an LNG facility and its required infrastructure on the Delaware River and Bay and on the ecological and natural resources of the southeastern PA region and its watershed.
DRN also faulted the Task Force Report for its poorly informed and unconvincing rationalization about why exporting LNG from the Delaware River Watershed would help war-torn European allies to get out from under the yoke of the burden of foreign energy dominance. There is no evidence that an LNG facility located in the Delaware River ports is needed, especially considering its “Johnny come lately” timing, that there is glut of LNG and other sources of natural gas globally, there is so much LNG already in development from other locations, and there is an active and well-planned movement away from imported fossil fuels and towards self-sustained renewable zero-carbon energy in Europe.
DRN pointed out that another obvious gaffe was the Report’s reliance on the old “natural gas is a transition fuel” rationalization for continuing to use dirty fracked gas regardless of the climate impacts. DRN considers the path to truly clean energy is not through expanding fracking and shale gas extraction but through the development of energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases and that will measurably and dramatically help our nation and the world achieve the minimum goal of a 50% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, which scientists explain is urgently required and the need for a 100% zero-carbon renewable energy system by 2050 at the latest to address the climate crisis and protect communities already suffering the ravages of climate change and global warming.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network has heightened concerns that an LNG Export Terminal and the proposed MACH2 Hydrogen Hub are both being proposed for the same spaces, on top of the same already overburdened communities, targeting the Delaware River.
The Task Force report contained an extensively documented Minority Report authored by Rep. Joe Hohenstein that presented a compelling and fact-based conclusion and recommendation: “For all of the reasons stated above, we make the recommendation to the General Assembly against any further resources being committed to investigating an LNG facility in Philadelphia or elsewhere in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The sooner we recognize reality, the sooner we can take the steps we need to continue to secure Pennsylvania’s energy independence in ways that benefit all Pennsylvanians.” (see a copy of the Minority Report under Supporting Documents)
As of January 2024, no new actions have been taken to advance the development of an LNG facility and/or export terminal in Chester or any other location in southeastern PA. There has been no filing submitted by Penn America Energy with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as was promised by the company each year since 2022 and most recently was slated for 2024. This would be a first step towards building an LNG terminal. There has been no news announcements of funding or other support for the proposed Penn America project. DRN will continue to work shoulder to shoulder with CRCQL and the other engaged community groups in our broad network to block any attempt to build LNG export terminal(s) anywhere in the Delaware River Watershed.
On January 26th, President Joe Biden announced a pause on approval of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from all U.S. ports. Specifically, the White House announced that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) authorization of new LNG export projects are put on hold while the climate and community impacts of these projects are assessed by the agency during the public interest determination process. The pause applies to all new and pending applications for LNG exports to “non-Free Trade” countries. The President’s announcement read in part: “During this period, we will take a hard look at the impacts of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment. This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.”
Regarding the proposed Penn America LNG export facility, the LNG pause will prevent it from getting federal authorizations from DOE. This is because Penn America did not apply for authorization yet with Free Trade nations nor with non-Free Trade nations. Without DOE authorization, they cannot export LNG although they could begin the application and approval process with other agencies such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
The President’s announcement was welcomed by the local and regional community led by the Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) founder and chairperson Zulene Mayfield, PA State Representatives Carol Kazeem and Joe Hohenstein, and Mayor Stefan Roots (see: https://whyy.org/articles/biden-chester-lng-pipeline-penn-america-energy/). In a follow up news article, Penn America CEO Franc James was quoted as saying “…he ‘pumped the brakes’ on the LNG project last summer after a tense public meeting…” but insisted that he still is planning to build the Chester LNG facility. But no applications have been filed with any agency yet and whether or not the company can raise the $7Billion they say they need is unclear. The Penn America website disappeared months ago without explanation. The company’s LinkedIn profile at Penn America Energy Holdings LLC mentions 2 employees but has very little other information.
The next step with the LNG Export Pause is for DOE to issue a proposed rulemaking open to public comment that would lay out how DOE would carry out the public interest determination process regarding LNG export’s impacts as they consider applications for export to non-Free Trade countries. DRN and allies support that DOE must institute an assessment process that considers LNG’s full life cycle from cradle to grave, starting from fracking at extraction wells through the complete supply chain to end use. The analysis must consider environmental justice and energy justice implications and include the cumulative public health impacts, environmental impacts including climate and pollution impacts and costs, and economic impacts such as the price of domestic gas for consumers. DRN will be working to encourage wide and deep public participation in the DOE public rulemaking process.
The LNG Pause is temporary and politically fragile. There is bipartisan blowback, including from U.S. Senators Bob Casey and John Fetterman from Pennsylvania and Governor Shapiro stated he hoped that the “pause is limited”. Sixteen Republican Attorneys General have sued the Biden Administration to overturn it; bills have been introduced in Congress to stop it with the Pause becoming a potential bargaining chip in various political and government dealings.
DRN supports the Pause to be made permanent and for the LNG facilities now operating across the nation, including those concentrated on the Gulf Coast where most LNG is exported, to be stopped as our nation and the world move to truly clean, renewable and efficient energy sources that do not degrade or pollute our environment or quality of life, harm public health, or release greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere and fuel the climate crisis.
2025 UPDATE on Penn America LNG Export plans:
With the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2025, there have been renewed attempts by Penn America to revive its proposal to build their LNG Export Facility on the Delaware River in southeastern PA. The company has been holding closed door meetings with government officials, agencies, local, state, and federal elected representatives, and other decisionmakers whom they are trying to influence in favor of their project.
Some of these closed-door meetings, as per the Right to Know records DRN has received, seem to have been arranged by Thomas B. Murphy, who works for TeamPA. He is the Senior Managing Director, Strategic Energy Initiatives. He was the co-director of the Penn State Marcellus Center for Outreach and Research.
TeamPA is a non-profit – “Working together for all Pennsylvanians in public-private partnership, Team Pennsylvania accelerates the commonwealth’s long-term economic future. A dynamic, non-profit organization, Team Pennsylvania is a statewide entity co-chaired by the Governor and a private sector leader. We are the state’s trusted neutral broker and convener, and we couple collaboration with strategic investment of public and private funds to accelerate Pennsylvania’s economy.” https://leadiq.com/c/team-pennsylvania/5a1d9db923000053008d9b97
Franc James, CEO of Penn America, has made presentations to participants at these meetings. TeamPA records are not available through the Right to Know Law since they are a nonprofit corporation. Records requests to agencies such as PADEP has yielded no records. DRN did receive records from Governor Shapiro’s office, which included this PowerPoint presentation from Penn America.The records include the latest available PowerPoint presentation by Penn America. To see the records, go to this link.
PAUSE UPDATE:
DOE issued its LNG report with a public comment period on December 17, 2024. The comment period was extended, ending March 20, 2025.
The report updates how they decide whether a proposed LNG export project is in the public interest based on public health impacts, environmental/climate impacts, and economic impacts. The extensive report explains that approving more LNG exports will undermine critical climate goals, increasing greenhouse gas emissions; bring economic hardship and instability for consumers; and harm public health, especially in communities already overburdened by pollution.
Delaware Riverkeeper Network, our members, members of the public and our LNG Network organizations, plus veterans, economic experts, 150+ organizations, members of Congress, and over 156,000 Americans all submitted comments urging @ENERGY to #StopLNG exports during the comment period. DRN’s comment is available here.
On May 19, 2025 DOE issued its response to comments document. Subsequently, DOE posted this statement, rejecting the DOE LNG study that was produced by the Biden Administration: “Update 10/7/2025 – Since issuing the 2024 LNG Export Study and the Response to Comments, DOE has determined that the environmental analysis in the 2024 LNG Export Study is not required for DOE’s decision on applications to export natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries under NGA section 3(a), 15 U.S.C. § 717b(a).”
DRN does not accept this unfounded rejection of the comprehensive analysis and recommended changes to the DOE process that would have improved how these decisions are made.
[10] NOTE about who M. Doweary is and his position: Michael Doweary – City of Chester https://www.chestercity.com/chester-receivership-appointed-and-confirmed-michael-t-doweary/ “News for Immediate Release, July 1, 2020, Office of the Receiver for the City of Chester, Chester, PA – The Office of the Receiver for the City of Chester announces the appointment of Michael T. Doweary as the Receiver for the City of Chester, Pennsylvania. Secretary Dennis M. Davin with the Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED) petitioned Commonwealth Court for the appointment of a Receiver for the City of Chester and on June 22, 2020, Judge J. Andrew Crompton with Commonwealth Court granted the Order making Mr. Doweary Receiver for the City of Chester.”
Specific cited paragraph: “As the Chief Executive Officer of Penn America Energy Holdings, the developer of the $5.6 billion energy project sited in the City of Chester, Pennsylvania, I am reaching out to you in my attempt to coordinate an appointment while I am in Harrisburg on Thursday, Feb 25th for several meetings. Understanding your critically important role as the appointed Receiver for the City of Chester, it is my hope to coordinate a discussion that will provide you visibility to the scope, magnitude, and timing of the project in development for the last 5+ years.”
[12] KPMG LLC, Penn America Energy, “Economic Impact Analysis (EIA): City of Chester LNG Project, Executive Summary, August, 2016”.
[13] “After converting therms to tons of TNT, one LNG ship at Dock 2 equals 1,039,053 tons of TNT.
For comparison, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of the Second World War was the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. This means that one LNG ship is equal to approximately 69 Hiroshima atomic bombs.” From: DRN Protest to FERC, available here.
[14] “Immediate ignition with liquid still on the ground could cause the spill to develop into a pool fire and present a radiant heat hazard. If there is no ignition source, the LNG will vaporize rapidly forming a cold gas cloud that is initially heavier than air, mixes with ambient air, spreads and is carried downwind.” P. 10 “Methane in vapor state can be an asphyxiant when it displaces oxygen in a confined space.” P. 11. SP 20534 Special Permit to transport LNG by rail in DOT-113C120W rail tank cars. Final Environmental Assessment. Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0100. December 5, 2019. P. 10.
[15] SP 20534 Special Permit to transport LNG by rail in DOT-113C120W rail tank cars. Final Environmental Assessment. Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0100. December 5, 2019. P, 11.
[16] “The Council on Environmental Quality describes the danger: The characteristics of these fires on water, like the behavior of vapor clouds, are subject to great uncertainties and estimates of the safe distance from their intense radiant heat vary significantly. According to a recent FPC (Federal Power Commission) analysis, a generally safe distance from a 25,000-cubic-meter pool fire would be about 8,300 feet or 1.6 miles. People standing 3,600 feet away would blister in 5 seconds, and exposure for longer times-perhaps 10 seconds — would be fatal. Estimates based on Bureau of Mines figures indicate that the danger might extend farther. According to these figures, on a windless day when thermal radiation is greatest, unsheltered people at a distance of 9,600 feet, or nearly 2 miles, could suffer fatal burns.” “DELAWARE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT”. [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov ]. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, *41T4 O74f. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20230, JUL 2 1979. P. 225 of PDF.
[17] “LNG tank BLEVE is possible in some transportation scenarios.” Sandia National Laboratories, “LNG Use and Safety Concerns (LNG export facility, refueling stations, marine/barge/ferry/rail/truck transport)”, Tom Blanchat, Mike Hightower, Anay Luketa. November 2014. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1367739 P. 23.
[22] “DELAWARE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT”. [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov ]. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, *41T4 O74f. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20230, JUL 2 1979. P. 223.
The Department of Energy (DOE’s) Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) announced on Friday October 13th the earmarking of $7 Billion in federal funding for “hydrogen hubs” across the nation, utilizing the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Act of 2021. There are two hubs that have been chosen as funding recipients that are proposed to be located in Pennsylvania – one in the Delaware River Watershed called Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub (MACH2) and one called the Appalachian Hydrogen Hub(ARCH2) in western PA. MACH2 is reportedly slated to be made up of 17 sites that span Southeastern Pennsylvania, Southern New Jersey, and Delaware. ARCH2 includes locations in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
MACH2: President Joe Biden came to the Tioga Marine Terminal on the Delaware River in Philadelphia on Friday to focus on the MACH2 hub, stating that the MACH2 “hub alone is going to produce 100,000 tons of hydrogen per year”. The components of the MACH2 hub are being kept secret from the public so we don’t know exactly where these sites are that will make up the hub, exactly what the energy sources for the hydrogen manufacture will be, what facilities will be located where, precisely how the hydrogen will be used, or what the environmental and public health impacts may be. Because of the lack of transparency of what these hubs actually entail, at this time we have no hub maps, no firm timeline, or any informed picture of the full environmental footprint of MACH2. Delaware Riverkeeper Network is seeking out information to share about the MACH2 hub and will update this web page as we proceed. The abstract for MACH2 said it would “work to create primarily green and pink hydrogen” methods but the abstract also noted MACH2 would “employ steam methane reforming with carbon capture”, which is called blue hydrogen, while the MACH2 ‘green hydrogen” capabilities are being developed. When that switch would be made is anyone’s guess at this point. Whether it will be made is also unknown, considering the investment of the fracking and gas and oil infrastructure industries in the hydrogen hubs, including MACH2.
What We Do Know Now:
We know all the hydrogen hubs will need processing facilities and extensive infrastructure and each will use various energy sources to make hydrogen and to distribute and use hydrogen. According to the MACH2 promoters, MACH2 will encompass the entire state of Delaware and the regions of Southern New Jersey and Southeastern Pennsylvania which border the Delaware River, extending from Delaware City, DE to the south to Trenton, NJ to the north along the I-95 corridor (MACH2 Abstract, November 7, 2022).
The MACH2 hub is supposed to use nuclear, fracked gas, and wind and/or solar, according to the MACH2 Abtract. The Abtract states that they will employ “blue hydrogen” – using fracked gas – through a processing method known as steam methane reforming with carbon capture during early phases of development while green H2 production is developed. Using fracked gas perpetuates the human harm and environmental destruction of the fracked gas industry in Pennsylvania and it would emit massive amounts of the powerful greenhouse gas methane, warming the atmosphere and worsening the climate crisis; that’s intolerable.
The use of nuclear energy at MACH2 is expected to be substantial – it would come from PSEG’s nuclear power plants in Salem County, NJ and from “modular” nuclear units at the closed Oyster Creek Facility in NJ (see HOLTEC info.). The Salem nuclear facility is already nearing the end of scheduled life; the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, which possibly could be used for MACH2, inflicts significant environmental harm as it is, destroying over 14 billion Delaware River fish, eggs and larvae every year in the Delaware estuary and Bay through impingement and entrainment, with its grandfathered and outdated monster of a once-through cooling system. Extending operations of this facility would be devastating to the Delaware’s marine life and ecosystems. Creating more nuclear waste at Oyster Creek or any location by the use nuclear energy to make hydrogen is irresponsible and destructive. And using wind and solar directly to electrify is the cleanest and most efficient way to utilize these renewables, not waste them to make polluting hydrogen. MACH2 makes no environmental or climate sense.
The MACH2 developers state they will “reuse and revitalize significant existing pipeline infrastructure”, possible including reusing an old oil pipeline that cuts through Delaware, southeastern PA, under the Delaware River, and into southern New Jersey. There is a small grey hydrogen plant at the PBF (Delaware City) Refinery owned by Air Products (see: https://delawarebusinesstimes.com/news/pbf-sells-del-city-hydrogen-plant-as-it-manages-virus-impact/ . It has been in operation for a few years, with a distribution pipeline system. This is expected to be part of the MACH2 plans for producing hydrogen. Also, there is a reported plan to build hydrogen fueling stations along transportation routes in the Delaware River region, modeled on a system in California.
It has been mentioned that the Delaware City Refinery would “figure prominently into the MACH2 plans” and aiming to create a (presumably) new plant “capable of producing upward of 137 megatons” a day, of what they call ‘clean” hydrogen. DRN weighed in with the New Castle County Land Use and Planning Board on October 17 regarding an application for rezoning a portion of the PBF (Delaware City) Refinery property to allow for it to be used by right for the development of one of the components of the MACH2 hydrogen hub. See DRN letter here: https://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/sites/default/files/20231017_DRN_Letter_NCC_Rezoning_Hydrogen.pdf This application came up without any public engagement, as a completely stealth action. DRN was alerted by a member in Delaware and we submitted a letter to the Board opposing the rezoning; other regional and local environmental groups attended to speak up in opposition on the record at the October 17 public hearing. The application was not approved but we will not know for certain if the application will be denied until a later date; DRN and Delaware activists will remain in active alert mode to ensure this totally unjust attempt to usher through a comprehensive zoning change for a component of the as-yet unfunded and secretive MACH2 hydrogen hub, currently making grey hydrogen no less, does not get any traction.
At a conference held at Rowan University on October 23 (“Sweeney Center for Public Policy: Future of Nuclear & Hydrogen Energy Conference at Rowan University”) a few more details were offered to the public. One was that HOLTEC, a modular nuclear unit manufacturer (see: https://holtecinternational.com/products-and-services/smr/) is planning to build a modular nuke on the decommissioned Oyster Creek Nuclear facility site, closed in 2018, now owned by HOLTEC. HOLTEC stated that they are planning a “small modular nuclear unit” (300 MW), hydrolyzers, and capability to manufacture hydrogen there using “pink hydrogen” (nuclear energy), and “possibly” wind energy and solar energy as part of the MACH2 hub. It was stated by PSEG that they will be adding “molecules of energy” from the Salem nuclear facility on the Delaware River to make hydrogen. South Jersey Industries said they have experience now with hydrogen manufacturing and will be using pipeline infrastructure to move hydrogen from production facilities to end use facilities. South Jersey Industries said they are building a “green hydrogen” plant now. It was unclear what the energy source would be for that plant.
It was also stated by New Jersey business representatives at the conference that they blend a small amount of hydrogen into natural gas now and their goal is to maximize blending hydrogen and natural gas in the existing pipeline systems in NJ. There is a small “green hydrogen” plant in Howell, NJ, owned and operated by New Jersey Resources Corporation (See: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/new-jersey-resources-starts-up-1st-east-coast-green-hydrogen-blending-project-67570888) Reportedly, it uses wind to power the plant but also plans to use solar. It was also mentioned at the New Jersey conference that “renewable natural gas” from landfills and farms is also going to be employed to make hydrogen.
But no links to written documents were shared at the NJ conference, so the only document we have to rely on is the original Abstract for MACH2. We have submitted a FOIA with the Department of Energy for a reportedly more current Abstract for MACH2. DRN will continue to investigate; DRN has filed FOIAs for information and will update this site as we obtain facts. The dribbling out of bits of information is frustrating for the public as it leaves us in the dark while the companies roll ahead behind closed doors. This lack of open discussion and disclosure of actual MACH2 plans is a tactic often used by industries and government to obscure the facts and shut out the public in an attempt to move through permit approvals quickly and under the radar and to avoid controversy. DRN is fighting back with a campaign to discover all we can about these proposed hydrogen hubs.
MACH2 has $750M of public tax funding promised. But the funding has not been released for the MACH2 hub or any other hub yet. The developers must meet certain requirements in the coming months before they receive funds and the “phased-in” process described by OCED has several review stages that could stop the HUB from being funded. This phase-in could last up to a year after negotiations, which will then be followed by two to three years of project development, and a range of several more years between development, construction, and beginning operations. There are also federal tax subsidies and incentives that are not yet approved that are supposed to be used to support the hubs. The uncertainty of funding and the lack of final approval by OCED means that these hubs can be stopped and as communities become more aware of the details, it will be critical for the public to be fully engaged.
Upcoming government briefings and meetings/conferences are already scheduled that will help sort out the critical details. DRN will host webinars and forums to share what we are learning and opportunities for action. See our website Home Page for dates and how to participate.
Background:
Hydrogen is not a clean energy source as it is described.MACH2 is described as helping to “unlock hydrogen-driven decarbonization in the Mid-Atlantic while repurposing historic oil infrastructure and using existing rights-of-way.” There are 4 main color systems used to describe each type of hydrogen technology ─ pink, grey, blue, and green. Simplified, grey is described as using fossil gas in a steam reforming process, blue uses fossil gas with carbon capture and storage, pink uses nuclear energy, and green is described as using electricity from renewable energy sources like wind and solar to split the hydrogen away from other molecules.
See the color wheel from an industry website embedded here:
Scientists explain that “hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas100 times more times potent than carbon dioxide over a 10-year period. Because it’s the smallest molecule, hydrogen is more prone to leaking into the air from tanks and pipelines”. And a 2021 study found that “burning blue hydrogen would emit more than 20 percent more greenhouse gases than natural gas or coal.” Burning hydrogen to make energy also emits polluting nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the air as well as other toxics, harming public health. And the manufacturing process of hydrogen uses immense amounts of water, uses so much energy to make that it is actually a net loss, requires huge infrastructure with an enormous environmental footprint, and hydrogen, no matter how it is made, is highly flammable and explosive, threatening communities and the environment at every step of the process.
The President is pressing for passage of a new trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement (TPP). Leaked sections of the secret deal demonstrate it is light on environmental preservation and heavy on corporate protection.
The TPP would give foreign corporations the right to sue our government for millions of dollars if they believe a U.S. environmental law (State, Federal or local) has diminished its ability to make profits – one corporation is already taking action under similar provisions in NAFTA against Canada for a ban on fracking passed in Quebec.
If passed as planned, the TPP will also give special status to new countries who will then benefit from automatic approval LNG export plans – those countries include Japan, Vietman, Brunei, Malaysia, and New Zealand, with China expected to be added to the list soon. That means environmental and economic reviews of the impacts of the new LNG construction, operation and export would be by-passed.
More LNG exports means more pressure for shale gas development and fracking; more legal challenges against environmental protection laws means less protection against gas drilling and fracking.
And to top it off, the President wants Congress to pass a piece of legislation called the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014 — “Fast Track” for short, that will give the President super powers to be able to continue to negotiate his deal in secret, to sign the deal on behalf of the United States, to draft and put forth before Congress the legislation that would change or modify any existing U.S. laws necessary to bring the country into compliance with the TPP, and to relegate our Congress to a mere “yay” or “nay” vote, no hearings, no amendments, and very little conversation at all. The Constitution of the United States carefully shares authority for international dealmaking between the President and the Congress – President Obama wants to change all that.
To learn more review the white paper provided below. Also below is a copy of a recent letter sent to a variety of congressional representatives from around the region by 54 organizations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc2UUeMqQ48&feature=youtu.be
Currently there are at least 15 applications for liquefied-natural-gas (LNG) export facilities in the U.S. pending before the federal government. These applications, along with already approved exports, would have the capacity to move over 40 percent of the U.S. annual production of natural gas to foreign countries. The gas companies want the exports overseas because they can sell the gas for more than 4 times the price as they can capture here in the U.S and at present there is a glut of gas in this country and so unless the industry sells it overseas they won’t get their immediate cash sale reward.
Expert reports and data demonstrate that while LNG exports generate generous profits for the gas drillers and export companies, all other sectors of our country’s economy are in decline. In other words, LNG exports only benefit the gas industry. Similarly, LNG exports, while creating some jobs in the gas industry, many temporary, creates a net job loss effect for the country. In fact, LNG exports could result in the net loss of as many as 270,000 jobs per year in our country.
The Environmental Cost
It is almost daily that new research emerges showing the harms of shale gas for our communities, our country and our earth. Among the most recent scientific findings is that as much as 9% of the methane — one of the most potent greenhouse gases known to man — produced while drilling for gas is lost to the atmosphere. That 9% coupled with all the methane emitted during the transport of gas through pipelines, storage and use of the gas means that shale gas is a more potent contributor to climate change than any other fossil fuel – 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide if you look over a 20 year period when it is the most crucial that we reduce damaging emissions.
The unparalleled level of harm to drinking water, air quality, food supplies, and people’s health that result from ongoing and increasing levels of drilling and fracking for shale gas bring high price tags for the United States economy and taxpayers. Not only do our communities lose out on life’s basic needs – air, water, food and health – but we as taxpayers have to pay the upfront and long-term financial burden of these harms, including the necessary clean up and health care costs.
The deforestation, land compaction, wetlands destruction, and increased earthquake potential inflicted by shale gas development means increased flooding and flood ravaged homes and communities; it means increased erosion of public and private lands; it means the fear and harm of an earthquake where it happens; it means lost fishing, hunting, boating, birding and all the jobs they generate. And of course someone has to pay for all this harm – that someone is the public in the form of emergency services, taxes, hazard mitigation, and more national debt.
Transforming our country into one dependent on shale gas instead of oil and coal brings with it a hefty price tag – by some estimates it will cost as much as $700 billion. Recent estimates from the United States Geological Survey of the volume of undiscovered Marcellus Shale gas that may be recoverable is an average 84 trillion cubic feet. At the current U.S. consumption rate of 24 trillion cubic feet per year , chasing after this gas, and incurring all of the harm shale drilling and fracking brings, will only give an additional 3 ½ years of supply. Other estimates that include gas which is proved, probable and recoverable calculate all U.S. natural gas as supporting only 11 to 21 years of energy at this consumption rate. The timeline for infrastructure replacement gets further shortened as LNG exports increase.
Isn’t it just smarter to pay this bill once? And put in place the infrastructure needed for sustainable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal and so on?
May 1, 2013 Update:
May 1, 2013 Representative Kowalko asked for a hearing on HB 54, a bill that would have prevented construction of LNG facilities in Delaware’s coastal zone. At the end of the hearing the bill was tabled. It is unknown when it may be revived for consideration. A copy of Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper’s testimony, is provided below.
On May 17, 2016 a case was filed in US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging the DRBC’s authority over drilling and fracking actitivies and challenging its defacto moratorium that currently prevents such activities anywhere within the Delaware River watershed.
The case was filed by the Wayne Land and Mineral Group. The action was filed against the Delaware River Basin Commission. The Delaware Riverkeeper Network successfully intervened in the case.
March 23, 2017 the case was dismissed with an important legal determination that the DRBC does in fact have jurisdication over drilling and fracking activities in the watershed.
Act 13 Act 13, also known as HB1950, was signed into law by Governor Corbett on February 14, 2012. It amended the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, preempting municipal zoning of oil and gas development and also established an impact fee on natural gas.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Maya van Rossum in her capacity as the Delaware Riverkeeper, Dr. Mehernosh Khan, and seven municipalities filed suit on March 29, 2012 challenging the law on the grounds it violates the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions and endangers public health, natural resources, communities and the environment. The municipalities participating are: Township of Robinson, Washington County; Township of Nockamixon, Bucks County; Township of South Fayette, Allegheny County; Peters Township, Washington County; Township of Cecil, Washington County; Mount Pleasant Township, Washington County; and the Borough of Yardley, Bucks County.
The named Appellants are the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”); Office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”).
Oral argument was held before the PA supreme court on October 17, 2012.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision on December 19, 2013. In that decision the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Act 13 violates the Pennsylvania Constitution on the grounds that it violates the Environmental Rights Amendment. In doing so, the Court held that the right to pure water, clean air and a healthy environment are fundamental rights that must be given high-priority consideration and protection by every level of Pennsylvania’s government. The Court’s decision also struck down the shale gas industry’s effort to force every municipality in the state to allow gas drilling and related industrial operations in every zoning district. The Court’s decision upheld the ability of local governments to protect their local communities and natural resources through zoning. Chief Justice Castille authored the historic majority opinion. Justices Todd, McCaffrey and Baer joined in the result.
Justices Castille, Todd, and McCaffrey held that provisions of the law violate Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution – the Environmental Rights Amendment. Justice Castille stated that “we agree with the citizens that, as an exercise of the police power, Sections 3215(b)(4) and (d), 3303, and 3304 are incompatible with the Commonwealth’s duty as trustee of Pennsylvania’s public natural resources.” In discussing Section 3304’s uniform zoning provisions, Justices Castille, Todd, and McCaffrey agreed that the provisions “sanctioned a direct and harmful degradation of the environmental quality of life in these communities and zoning districts.” They also concluded that the Act forced some citizens to bear “heavier environmental and habitability burdens than others,” in violation of Section 27’s mandate that public trust resources be managed for the benefit of all the people.
Justice Baer concurred in finding Act 13 unconstitutional, agreeing with the Commonwealth Court’s reasoning. Justice Baer stated that the provisions “force municipalities to enact zoning ordinances, which violate the substantive due process rights of their citizenries.” He further noted “Pennsylvania’s extreme diversity” in municipality size and topography and that zoning ordinances must “give consideration to the character of the municipality,” among other factors, which Act 13 did not.
The State requested the court reconsider its opinion and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and the seven towns opposed the request.
