After Hurricane, Some Begin To Question Wisdom of Rockaway Pipeline Project

Monday, December 03, 2012  | by Sarah Crean

Gotham Gazette

NEW YORK — Now that the construction of a new chain of natural gas pipelines running from the Rockaway peninsula to Brooklyn has been delayed following Superstorm Sandy, residents and elected officials are beginning to question whether the project is safe to build at all.

The exceedingly complex project would be constructed in separate phases — under the regulation of federal, state and local authorities — adjacent to coastal communities that were among the hardest hit during the storm.

U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke, who represents central Brooklyn, told Gotham Gazette in an emailed statement that the destruction caused by Sandy had raised concerns among residents who live near the proposed gas pipeline project.

"Our need for independent energy cannot precede the safety of our community and environment," she said.

State Sen. Joseph Addabbo, whose new district includes the Rockaways, said he would organize a town hall meeting where residents could ask their questions about the project.

"Doing this simultaneously with Sandy becomes a daunting task," he said of the project. "People are trying to get their lives back."

He added that residents have come to him with some hard questions about the project. “This is a major endeavor," he continued. "What is the protection from a gas leak? What are the precautions? What is the time frame?”

National Grid spokeswoman Karen Young told Gotham Gazette that the storm had not affected phase one of the project — the utility’s plans to construct two gas pipelines underneath Jamaica Bay’s Rockaway Inlet. She added that they were "still meeting with all of the officials and agencies to determine the best time.”

A Nov. 21 project report filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Oklahoma-based Williams Companies, which is also constructing sections of the pipeline, stated: “Construction originally planned for December 2012 is currently scheduled to begin in February 2013.”

Williams spokesman Chris Stockton said on Friday: “We’re still moving forward with our project. The hurricane has not changed our plans, nor has it changed the need for this project and the gas for the city." But, referring to the fact that Williams’ portion of the project had not yet received the necessary approvals, he added that there was "still a long way to go.”

Asked whether additional precautions needed to be taken during pipeline construction, Young said: “We had a robust plan in place, and the measures that we are planning to implement are above and beyond industry standards”.

She added that the pipeline had been designed to withstand flooding, would be buried underneath the seabed of Jamaica Bay and regularly monitored and inspected, especially during severe weather events.

Young stated that National Grid felt it had designed a "very safe” pipeline. She noted that the pipeline would have isolation valves that could be activated remotely in the event of an emergency.

The Rockaway pipeline is a key part of the energy initiatives outlined in PlaNYC, Mayor Bloomberg’s far-reaching sustainability plan.

The mayor’s office did not respond to questions regarding whether construction or ongoing maintenance of the Rockaway pipeline would need to be re-thought in light of the area’s vulnerability to future catastrophic storms.

SANDY'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

A full month after Sandy made landfall, the profound impact of the storm on both the residents and natural environment of the Rockaways is grimly evident.

Major arteries in the Rockaways were jammed with emergency and utility trucks on Saturday, and construction on damaged homes was visible throughout. In Breezy Point, the community closest to where pipeline construction will begin shortly, it was possible to see homes that had been torn off their foundations, and a car that had been incinerated almost beyond recognition by the fires that engulfed the area.

Much of the construction on the pipeline will take place in Gateway National Recreation Area, a 26,000-acre National Park, which includes ocean-facing Jacob Riis Park and the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge. The Bay’s wildlife refuge is the only such refuge in the National Park System, according to the New York Harbor Conservancy.

Other sections of the park — which will eventually be adjacent to pipeline construction — are now serving as sites for hurricane clean-up and reconstruction efforts.

“The Bay has taken a big hit,” said Dan Mundy, vice-president of Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers. He added that “tremendous amounts” of fuel oil and debris had entered Jamaica Bay as a result of the storm, and that two freshwater ponds had breached “in a very dramatic fashion." Mundy explained that tides had flushed out much of the oil, but he added that the post-storm period was a “critical time for mitigation”.

Just across the Bay, the scope of the tragedy of the storm is visible in the parking lots of Jacob Riis Park, which have been turned into a massive dumping ground for the remains of destroyed homes and other refuse. From the dumping ground, one can see the fences and other beach infrastructure torn apart by the reported 14-foot coastal storm surge that entered the area on the night of Oct. 29.

Because of its vulnerable position, areas around the Rockaway peninsula are now considered possible locations for storm barriers.

A key section of the Rockaway pipeline, to be constructed by Williams, will run directly underneath Jacob Riis Park, delivering gas from an off-shore pipeline to National Grid’s new mains underneath Jamaica Bay. The 10,000-mile Transco natural gas pipeline, which runs parallel to the Rockaway coast, is managed by Williams.

In a later phase of construction, National Grid will connect its cross-Bay lines to customers in Brooklyn and Queens, via a new gas meter and regulating station to be housed within a historic hangar at Floyd Bennett Field, and by eventually linking with an existing gas main on Flatbush Avenue.

The 60,000-square-foot meter station will be constructed by Williams. Parking lots behind the hangars at Floyd Bennett Field are currently a massive staging area for FEMA, the Red Cross, construction companies and scores of fuel tanker trucks.

The National Grid portion of the Rockaway pipeline project has been approved by the city and did not require a public review process or full-scale environmental review. Williams’ off-shore pipeline and meter station proposal, however, is still working its way through a federal environmental review process.

Chris Stockton said that Williams planned to submit a final proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by late 2012 or early 2013. He said that based on the company’s experience with previous applications to FERC, the agency’s review of the proposal could take another eight months.

President Obama signed legislation Nov. 27 bringing the Rockaway pipeline project one step closer to reality. The New York City Natural Gas Enhancement Act authorizes the National Park Service to permit the pipeline and related infrastructure within the boundaries of Gateway National Recreation Area.

In a statement on the signing, Mayor Bloomberg said: “Given the destruction of Hurricane Sandy, this law could not come at a more critical time for New York City. This pipeline will help us build a stable, clean-energy future for New Yorkers and will ensure the reliability of the City’s future energy needs.” The mayor specifically thanked the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Charles Schumer and Congressmen Michael Grimm of Brooklyn and Staten Island, and Gregory Meeks of Queens.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

The Rockaway pipeline project has spurred protests from some local residents and environmental groups, who have raised questions about possible impacts to coastal marine life, and whether a gas pipeline is an appropriate use for an urban park. The city’s commitment to natural gas — a fossil fuel — as an ongoing energy source has also proved controversial.

“This bill puts a pipeline under a popular beach and introduces private industrial use of a federal park, and it does so with no public input,” said Karen Orlando, a local resident and Floyd Bennett Garden Association member.

Local groups like Jamaica Bay Eco-Watchers are watching the federal review process closely, and believe that they may be able to impact decisions that are yet to be made. They also say that the Rockaway Pipeline speaks to public policy questions relevant to the entire city.

Mundy argued that if the Williams section of the pipeline project is to go forward, there must be a commitment to off-set some of the ecological damage that he said he believes will inevitably be inflicted by construction of a 2.79-mile pipeline on the ocean floor.

Another federal agency has raised questions similar to Mundy’s. In October, the Army Corps of Engineers wrote to FERC, requesting that Williams provide more specifics on the ocean floor trenching and dredging techniques it will use, and how the aquatic ecosystem off the Rockaways could be affected.

Stockton said that questions on the project raised by the Army Corps and other agencies would be addressed in the company’s final proposal to FERC.

Mundy said he believes that any possible damage to the ocean floor habitat should be offset by a focus on restoring Jamaica Bay’s saltwater marshes.

Marshes throughout the city have attracted new attention because they can help to blunt the impact of coastal storm surges. “The wetlands will be a big topic of discussion,” said Mundy. He added that not only are they a form of “soft infrastructure”, but they also help to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

At the same time, Orlando argued that the placement of what she describes as “industrial infrastructure” within Floyd Bennett Field, “a couple hundred of feet from a community garden used by four to five-hundred members and their families” has broader implications for both private use of public space and government transparency.

She said the city "couldn’t do that in Prospect Park or Central Park.”

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/topics/environment/2167-after-hurricane-some-begin-to-question-wisdom-of-rockaway-pipeline-project

The cause of MIT’s major power loss

By John A. Hawkinson

STAFF REPORTER

the Tech

December 4, 2012

What actually happened when MIT and much of Cambridge lost power last Thursday night? Why didn’t MIT’s 20 megawatt cogeneration turbine power the campus like a lighthouse in a sea of Cantabrigian darkness? What was the root cause of the failure?

MIT’s Central Utilities Plant, in Building 42, has a gas turbine that can supply up to about 22 megawatts of electrical power to most of MIT’s campus south of Albany St. But the campus regularly draws 25 MW or more, so the cogen turbine cannot supply it all — the balance comes from NSTAR, the local utility.

While the cogen plant provides a measure of redundancy, that’s not its primary purpose. It exists to save energy and improve efficiency by generating heat and electrical power simultaneously.

(The plant is called cogeneration because it produces both electricity and steam. The plant burns fuel, usually natural gas, which mixes with air under compression and spins the gas turbine to produce electricity. The same hot gases are used to boil water and produce steam, which is used to both heat the campus and to run chillers that provide cooling.)

Outage begins

At 4:24 p.m. on Nov. 29, an automated NSTAR relay detected a disturbance and took a 115 kilovolt underground transmission line out of service, affecting 19,000 customers, according to NSTAR’s early diagnosis. NSTAR spokesman Michael Durand said that NSTAR’s analysis was preliminary and that a more detailed investigation was ongoing.

The 115 kV line was one of two parallel lines that would normally back up each other. But maintenance crews were working on the other line, so it was unavailable.

That work is part of NSTAR’s “Cambridge Cooling Line Reliability Project,”. The transmission lines connect NSTAR’s Alewife East and Putnam Stations, and serve all of Cambridge east of Harvard Square, according to NSTAR filings with the city. The work is expected to increase the lines’ load capacity by 20–40 percent. The lines date from 1988 and each consists of three copper cables in an 8 5/8" steel pipe surrounded by dielectric fluid.

Large parts of Cambridge lost power. It affected East Cambridge, Kendall Square, and MIT, as well as many sections along Massachusetts Avenue up to Harvard.

MIT was using 27 MW: 22 MW from cogen, and 5 MW from NSTAR. The cogen turbine couldn’t supply the extra load, so it shut down automatically, as designed. MIT was without power, just like much of Cambridge.

In buildings throughout the campus, generators start automatically. They power emergency lighting, elevators, life-safety equipment, critical research equipment, etc. In some buildings, computer network equipment is on emergency power.

Within the main group, this emergency power comes from a single large generator located at the Central Utilities Plant. But newer buildings are required to have their own generators, so scores of generators started all around campus. The emergency power circuits are connected to automatic transfer switches that switch them to the generator power. Generators are designed to start within a few seconds of an outage.

Central Utilities Plant

At the plant, a number of things have to happen after power fails before the turbine can start generating electricity again. The process takes hours. The first order of business is to start up a steam boiler and restore steam pressure, according to Randall D. Preston, director of utilities for Facilities.

Meanwhile, NSTAR was trying to restore power. Within 20 minutes, NSTAR was able to restore power to 5,500 customers (29 percent of those affected), using remote switching technology and powering them from other parts of the grid, Durand said. For instance, the traffic signal at Main and Vassar was running, but signals on Mass. Ave. were not. Everybody else, including MIT, would have to wait.

After steam is available, MIT’s attention can turn to the cogeneration turbine. MIT can operate the turbine in “island” mode, disconnected from NSTAR’s grid. Preston said that MIT will try to do this unless NSTAR has estimated the outage will be short — but even then they’ll prepare for the possibility of no NSTAR power. MIT does not require NSTAR’s permission to operate in island mode.

A number of services need to function before the gas turbine can operate, Preston said. They include compressed air, cooling water, and exhaust ventilation. Without those, the turbine cannot run. And, of course they need to disconnect from NSTAR to avoid trying to power all of Cambridge.

Plant operators also need to clear any alarms that the turbine control system might report. They need to make sure that neither the turbine nor any other critical component was damaged when the power failed.

The best case is “probably an hour,” Preston said, “but realistically it takes one to two hours.”

Once they’re ready to go, they start by disconnecting almost all the circuits that feed the campus from the plant, so that the turbine can start with a known low load. They then start the turbine.

Then, they slowly add campus circuits to the turbine to control its load and warm up the heat recovery steam generator that captures the heat from the turbine’s exhaust.

“We were at the point of pushing the start button,” Preston said, when NSTAR restored power.

But because MIT is such a large customer, NSTAR treats it carefully, and wants to bring back large loads slowly.

“NSTAR asked us to wait 15 minutes,” Preston said. And the 15 minutes dragged on to 20 minutes. But Facilities used that time to reconnect the campus circuits that they had disconnected in preparation for starting the cogeneration turbine. Meanwhile, the traffic signal at 77 Mass. Ave. was back on.

What if NSTAR hadn’t come back? Preston said that Facilities would have to leave some portions of the campus without power until they could get unnecessary loads removed from the sections that were powered up first.

“In general, we would power up the campus circuits serving major research buildings and critical facilities first, and then go from there,” Preston said.

NSTAR’s effort

Why did it take NSTAR two hours? Durand said the time taken is actually “expected and normal to get that kind of transmission line back in service given the detailed analysis and numerous restoration steps involved.” NSTAR was “all hands on deck,” including every available management and field crew, he said.

NSTAR had to test the 115 kV line to determine if there was a fault in it. Much of the time is spent eliminating possibilities and making sure that the situation is “what we believe it is,” Durand said.

NSTAR’s preliminary determination was that the relay was operating in error, and there was no damage to the line. “The relay sensed something that didn’t happen,” Durand said.

After concluding that the relay had misoperated, it had to be removed from service.

Durand said Friday that the parallel 115 kV transmission line which had been out of service for maintenance was expected to be back in service on Saturday. No NSTAR workers were injured in either the outage or the response.

http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N58/power.html

3,300 gas leaks are found in Boston

Most are small; perspectives differ on risk

By Beth Daley

 |  GLOBE STAFF  

  NOVEMBER 20, 2012

Natural gas is escaping from more than 3,300 leaks in ­Boston’s underground pipelines, according to a new ­Boston University study that underscores the explosion risk and environmental damage from aging infrastructure ­under city sidewalks and streets.

The vast majority of the leaks are tiny, ­although six locations had gas levels higher than the threshold at which explosions could ­occur. Although there have been no reports of explosions in ­Boston from any of the leaks, the study comes three years ­after a Gloucester house ­exploded probably because of a cracked and corroded gas main dating to 1911.

The research, being published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Pollution, confirms what Bostonians sometimes smell on city streets: a telltale whiff of gas.

“It is something that is distributed across all neighborhoods in Boston,’’ said Nathan Phillips, associate professor in BU’s Department of Earth and Environment and a lead author of the study. Phillips and an assistant drove a black hatchback over every one of Boston’s 785 miles of roads to test methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas, in the air. “And we know once we go outside of Boston, Newton is just as leaky. . . . Any old, mature city is going to have this problem.”

Gas companies and the state Department of Public Utilities say the risk of an explosion from the leaks is exceedingly small. Serious leaks are repaired right away — as were the six that Phillips’s research team discovered — and the remaining ones are not at levels high enough to cause an explosion.

“Do they pose a safety problem to the public? No, safety is our highest priority,’’ said Ann G. Berwick, chairwoman of the state Department of Public Utilities. She said the agency has a financial incentive program to encourage gas companies to replace aging mains.

Leaks can develop in corroded pipes but are most often caused by contractors or homeowners using excavation equipment, according to the public utilities department. During cold weather, frost can penetrate deep into the ground and shift the earth around mains to cause hairline fractures. Other cracks can form at joints where service lines to homes or businesses join mains.

A spokesman for National Grid, the predominant gas distributor in Boston, said it does not make sense to repair all the minor leaks if they are not causing a safety problem. Rather the company is working to replace aging pipes with more flexible plastic pipe as quickly as possible, at a rate of about 150 miles a year in Massachusetts. “It’s a better course of action,” said David Graves, the spokesman, adding that National Grid investigates every report of a gas odor — actually the rotten egg smell of mercaptan, an odor added to odorless gas.Leaks can develop in corroded pipes but are most often caused by contractors or homeowners using excavation equipment, according to the public utilities department. During cold weather, frost can penetrate deep into the ground and shift the earth around mains to cause hairline fractures. Other cracks can form at joints where service lines to homes or businesses join mains.“Do they pose a safety problem to the public? No, safety is our highest priority,’’ said Ann G. Berwick, chairwoman of the state Department of Public Utilities. She said the agency has a financial incentive program to encourage gas companies to replace aging mains.

“We always respond and always make the situation safe,” he said.

About 9 billion cubic feet of natural gas was unaccounted for in Massachusetts gas distribution system in 2010, which includes leaks, thefts, and purging of pipelines for maintenance, according to federal energy statistics. That represents about 5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions each year in Massachusetts, Phillips said. Counting only leaks that utilities have documented, it would represent about $40 million worth of gas, according to an analysis by the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based legal advocacy group. Many leaks are not known.

The problem is not one of safety alone. Leaking natural gas can damage vegetation and trees by displacing oxygen in the soil, scientists say. It is also a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change: Methane is over 20 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, although it is not as long-lived. Phillips and co-author Robert B. Jackson of Duke University began their research in part with global warming in mind. Natural gas emits far less carbon dioxide than coal when it burns, and new reserves have driven down its price, greatly expanding its use in power plants, homes, and businesses. But Phillips and Jackson were curious whether leaks — and other emissions that occur during the extraction and transportation of natural gas — might mean the fuel is not as friendly to the climate.

“The question we are struggling with is how leaky is natural gas as a fuel source,’’ said Jackson.

To test the air, Phillips and an assistant drove about 15 to 20 miles an hour down one side of a street with a device in the back that measured methane in the air higher than 2 parts per million — the amount normally in the air. Sometimes when they got a high reading, they would get out of the car and test the air — in some cases they traced it to a specific manhole cover. They knew it was gas from pipelines, rather than landfills or other sources, because of its chemical signature, which showed it was an old fossil fuel rather than newer methane created from decaying garbage, for example. The study was funded by Barr Foundation.

Phillips, who credits gas companies for working hard to fix gas leaks, said his work captures only a hazy picture of leaking gas in Boston; he drove down only one side of streets, and gas readings depended heavily on wind and other weather. The amount of methane in the air also does not directly reflect what is happening underground. For example, a large amount of gas could be trapped underneath a street and only a small amount makes it to the surface.

“There are a lot of unknowns,’’ said Phillips. He and Jackson have put sensors on Boston buildings to understand the collective effect of gas leaks in the city — and how much escapes to the atmosphere.

Shanna Cleveland of the Conservation Law Foundation, which has a natural gas leak report coming out soon, said the state Department of Public Utilities could require timelines for gas companies to repair various grades of leaks and improve upon accelerated reimbursement rates for gas companies that replace old gas lines.

A bill sponsored by state Representative Lori Ehrlich of Marblehead that would require a timeline for the most serious leaks to be fixed and require utilities to notify police and fire of the locations of leaks unanimously passed the House in June and is before the Senate.

Ehrlich said better regulations are needed for gas pipelines. “If everyone could see methane, I doubt if there would be any leaks left,” Ehrlich said. “Can you imagine if it came out red?”

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/11/20/boston-riddled-with-mostly-small-natural-gas-leaks-boston-university-study-finds/m1LvyBqHhdVhCQEZM60mwJ/story.html

A pipeline bringing natural gas produced by 'hydraulic fracturing' into New York City creates a new focus for environmental protest

A pipeline bringing natural gas produced by 'hydraulic fracturing' into New York City creates a new focus for environmental protest

Naomi Wolf

The Guardian

October 12, 2012

I saw an odd sight on a quiet, West Village street in New York City on Saturday 6 October. A group of about 30 young women and men – all naked or topless – were dancing about, with their flesh painted green.

Patrick Robbins, a 26-year-old native of Brooklyn who works on sustainable development at Cooper Union, is the spokesperson for the group, Occupy the Pipeline. He explained the purpose of the protest-art show hybrid:

"[We're] protesting the pipeline's construction on New York City's West Side Highway and Gansevoort, which is soon to be completed. The pipeline … is slated to bring hydrofracked gas from the marcellus shale – a bed that lies under Pennsylvania and New York State – into New York City's gas infrastructure."

While the health hazards at the point of fracking are well-known, I was not aware of hazards on the consuming end of using fracked gas. According to Occupy the Pipeline, the fracked gas threatens New Yorkers because gas produced from Marcellus shale has 70 times the average radioactivity of natural gas and very high radon content. The trouble with the noble gas (meaning that it is an inert gas) is that it was not one of the issues looked into by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when it analyzed the pipeline project. The commission asserted that radon risk assessment was "outside their purview", said Robbins. But the element has been linked to increases in the risk of lung cancer among non-smokers, claims Occupy the Pipeline, and poses a special risk to New Yorkers with immuno-compromised systems the moment the gas is burned – dispersing the radon.

Other health and safety concerns with fracking are linked to precedent, such as the undrinkable groundwater at Dimock, Pennsylvania, or the explosion from a pipeline of similar size and pressure in San Bruno, California in 2010 that claimed the lives of eight people.

The activists of Occupy the Pipeline assert that the pipeline's construction was part of an anti-democratic process. A moratorium on fracking in New York state has expired; now, Governor Andrew Cuomo is discussing a pilot program for fracking in the five counties of the southern tier in New York state. He refuses to say he will ban fracking altogether, a goal of the activists. As for Councilwoman Christine Quinn, a contender in the New York City mayoral race, she has also kept mum on the pipeline; she did not even send a representative to listen in on the hearings, says Robbins.

"Occupy the Pipeline and the Sane Energy Project have approached her office countless times … NYH20 sent her a petition letter requesting hearings on the Radon issue; representatives from Food and Water Watch, United for Action and multiple enviro groups met with her a month ago to remind her of the request … why is Christine Quinn ignoring calls to protect public health?"

There is a government-mandated legal buffer zone between the area to be fracked and the watershed for drinking and household use – but it is one that Department of Environmental Protection scientists have called inadequate. Fracking involves pumping underground a chemical cocktail that, according to a New York City government report (pdf) about the chemicals, comprises 58% known immune system suppressants and other toxins:

"Significant percentages contain one or more chemicals that are associated with negative health effects: cancer (33% of products contain one or more chemicals associated with cancer), endocrine disruption (41%), reproductive problems (34%), immune suppression (58%), genetic mutation (43%), and other adverse health impacts."

As for the rest, we don't really know what it may contain since that information is protected by "the Halliburton Loophole" – a Bush administration rollback of environmental regulation under the Clean Water Act. Comments Robbins:

"So they can pump carcinogens into our land and they don't they don't have to tell us what is in it because they say it is 'proprietary information'."

Given all these data, how can New York officials keep silent?

Well, the energy companies, and the major banks that finance them, all donate to the Quinn, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Cuomo campaigns. Occupy the Pipeline claims that the entities profiting from fracking are "the same old cast of characters", namely: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America. Economists Jeanette Barth, president of JM Barth and Associates, an environmental and economic consulting group, and Deborah Rogers, another energy consultant formerly of Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch, both spoke at a lecture this past April entitled "Frackonomics". They pointed out that in times of crisis, such as we have at present, new growth industries are hyped. Investment companies are parroting the hype around natural gas, claiming that investors will make enormous profits from hydrofracking – despite the fact that these wells are almost certainly not going to live up to economic promises now being made. The economists' message was:

"We have a word for this, and it is a bubble."

In light of all this – with politicians turning a deaf ear to their people's concerns, and companies blinded from the dangers by their greed – I asked Robbins, "What do you say to people who say Occupy is dead?"

"Occupy has given birth to a thousand more extremely important projects that are all still doing the work of transforming society. The environmental working group, from which Occupy the Pipeline sprung, have participated in all aspects of democratic process – from NVDA [nonviolent direct action] to attending hearings and submitting testimony."

As I write, natural gas companies are scouting upstate counties, trying to build, for instance, an expansion to a storage facility for natural gas in a salt cavern that sits on the edge of the Finger Lakes area, in New York. But that plan, too, has met with resistance. The Seneca Three are residents of Seneca County who were arrested for blockading a compressor station this past September by chaining themselves to its gates. On 15 October, Occupy the Pipeline will stage a protest event in solidarity with those arrested for protesting the tar sands pipeline (one notable arrestee being actress Daryl Hannah) and other pipeline activists.

"Occupy can no longer be considered outliers. Occupy groups are what democracy looks like!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/occupy-pipeline-battles-fracking-threat-new-york 

Climate Change Threatens Power Output, Study Says

By MATTHEW L. WALD

New York Times

June 4, 2012

As the climate gets warmer, so do the rivers and lakes that power plants draw their cooling water from. And that is going to make it harder to generate electricity in decades to come, researchers report.

In an article in the journal Nature Climate Change, scientists measured temperatures now and projected what they would be at midcentury. The temperatures vary according to the time of year, and, even if the extremes remain similar, they will be more frequent — meaning that the water will be too warm to allow full power production, they predict.

All power plants that burn coal or split uranium, and most of the plants that burn natural gas, turn the resulting heat into steam, which spins a turbine that turns a generator to make power. Then the steam has to be converted back to water before being reheated. If the river or lake water used to condense the steam is getting warmer, the amount it can condense is reduced, leading to a decline in power output.

Using computer projections of climate change possible outcomes, the researchers wrote that generating capacity in the United States could fall 4.4 to 16 percent on hot days from 2031 to 2060. And the number of days when river water is at a temperature that is now considered extremely high will be triple the number today, on average, they said.

The idea of varying availability of cooling water is not new; many American steam-electric plants already have a summer power rating and a winter power rating.

Extremely hot weather is not the norm today. Still, power plants have experienced the headache of cooling water shortages in the past. Some power plants in the United States shut down during a drought in 1988 because the level of water in the Mississippi fell below the opening of their intake pipes.

The Electric Power Research Institute, a nonprofit utility consortium, produced a lengthy study in 1995 on the threat posed by climate change. It discussed the possibility of federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions (which 17 years later, may now be approaching) and the problem of hot cooling water.

It found that in addition to making electricity harder to generate, warm weather would make peaks in electricity demand even higher. That would raise costs, it said, because utilities might need more generating stations that would run for only a few hours a year, during the peak summer demand periods.

It also pointed out that if rainfall patterns changed, hydroelectric dams would be less productive.

The solutions to this problem are not obvious. Wind generation might not help much, because the wind usually does not blow much in hot weather. Solar photovoltaic cells could help, but they do not generate much in the last hour before sunset, and not at all after that. That is the period in which many utilities experience peak demand, as people return home from work and turn on air-conditioners, television sets and ovens.

Some generating stations have air-cooled condensers that use electrically driven fans instead of water. But that means less output of electricity – and more carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour.

The researchers who wrote the article for Nature Climate Change — from Austria, the Netherlands, Germany and Washington State — pointed out that plants running on natural gas at a higher efficiency – that is, putting more of the heat into making power and less into waste that must be absorbed by water — could be helpful. Because generating plants usually last for many decades, ”adaptation options should be included in today’s planning,’’ they wrote.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/climate-change-threatens-power-output-study-says/?src=recg

Will Truckers Ditch Diesel? Surplus of Natural Gas Prompts Some Fleets to Switch; Lack of Fueling Stations

By REBECCA SMITH

Wall Street Journal

May 23, 2012

Rising diesel costs last year forced Waste Management Inc. to charge customers an extra $169 million, just to keep its garbage trucks fueled. This year, the nation's biggest trash hauler has a new defensive strategy: it is buying trucks that will run on cheaper natural gas.

In fact, the company says 80% of the trucks it purchases during the next five years will be fueled by natural gas. Though the vehicles cost about $30,000 more than conventional diesel models, each will save $27,000-a-year or more in fuel, says Eric Woods, head of fleet logistics for Waste Management. By 2017, the company expects to burn more natural gas than diesel.

"The economics favoring natural gas are overwhelming," says Scott Perry, a vice president at Ryder Systems Inc., one of the nation's largest truck-leasing companies and a transporter for the grocery, automotive, electronics and retail industries.

The shale gas revolution, which cut the price of natural gas by about 45% over the past year, already has triggered a shift by the utility industry to natural gas from coal. Vast amounts of natural gas in shale rock formations have been unlocked by improved drilling techniques, making the fuel cheap and plentiful across the U.S.

Now the shale-gas boom is rippling through transportation. Never before has the price gap between natural gas and diesel been so large, suddenly making natural-gas-powered trucks an alluring option for company fleets, rather than an impractical idea pushed mainly by natural-gas boosters like T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman. Railroad operators also are being affected as coal shipments declining.

Many fleet operators, particularly long-haul truckers, remain concerned about a scarcity of refueling stations. Other challenges include the bulky tanks for compressed gas and the hazards of handling liquefied gas. In the past, the volatility of natural-gas prices also hampered wider use.

But today, truck manufacturers are embracing natural gas for everything from bi-fuel pickup trucks like the Chevy Silverado HD to eighteen-wheelers that can burn natural gas either compressed, called CNG, or super-chilled, called LNG. Navistar International Corp., Cummins Inc. and General Motors Co. all are courting the market with new natural-gas powered trucks or engines.

Navistar's goal is to "expand to a full range of products using natural gas in the next 18 months," says Eric Tech, president of Navistar's engine business. This year, the Illinois company is introducing delivery trucks burning natural gas. Next year, it is adding long-haul trucks with its biggest engines. 

Mr. Tech says in a couple of years, one in three Navistar trucks sold will burn natural gas. "This is not a subsidy-driven market," Mr. Tech says. "It's developing on its own because the economics are compelling."

Companies like United Parcel Service Inc. and AT&T Inc. are buying the vehicles. AT&T recently ordered 1,200 Chevrolet Express cargo vans equipped to run on compressed natural gas, which GM said was its largest CNG vehicle order ever.

Ryder Systems began renting out natural gas trucks in California last yea. The response has been so strong Ryder is expanding the program to Michigan and Arizona. And it is introducing them in truck clusters it operates for big box retailers like Staples Inc. and manufacturers including carpet-maker Mohawk Industries Inc.

For years, a barrel of oil cost about as much as six units of natural gas and their prices moved in tandem, notes Don Mason, a gas-industry consultant in Ohio. Today, a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude costs more than 33 times as much as a unit of natural gas in the U.S. At the pump, a gallon of diesel often costs more than twice as much as CNG, on a diesel-gallon-equivalent basis.

"I think we're at a turning point, even if it's a slow, wide turn," Mr. Mason says.

Although the U.S. has loads of natural gas, adoption of natural gas vehicles has been spotty. Less than 0.1% of vehicles on American roads burn the fuel today and the percentage sagged slightly from 2005 to 2010, when federal policies encouraging their use waned. The number began edging up last year, lifted by market forces.

Meanwhile, in the Asia-Pacific region, natural gas vehicle sales have grown at an average annual clip of 42% during the past decade, according to NGV Global, a trade group formed in 1986 to promote gas-friendly policies. Pakistan led the list in 2010 with 2.7 million natural gas vehicles, though many are tiny tuk-tuks, out of a total of 13 million natural gas vehicles worldwide. The U.S. came in 14th with 112,000 natural gas vehicles.

Many people are trying to figure out whether natural gas really has legs as a transportation fuel. Greg Burns, chairman and chief executive of PLS Logistics Services Inc. in Pittsburgh decided this year to ask 100 trucking company executives. The result: eight in 10 respondents said natural gas in its densest form, as LNG, has potential for highway use. Nearly a third said they were actively researching it for their own companies. But 54% said current infrastructure is inadequate and 23% worried about the higher cost of the trucks.

Mr. Burns' conclusion: "If you have a long-enough time frame, it's a pretty bullish picture."

Some truckers soon will have the ability to hedge their bets. That is because the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved retrofit technology for big rigs that lets them burn LNG and diesel.  Kathryn Clay, executive director of the Drive Natural Gas initiative of the American Gas Association, says "the new technology is really game changing because the trucker can run on either fuel, eliminating refueling anxiety."

The potential market is enormous. The 3.2 million big rigs on U.S. roads today burn some 25 billion gallons of diesel annually. Almost 7 million single-unit trucks, such as UPS or FedEx Corp. trucks, consume another 10 billion gallons of diesel.

Converting even a modest number of these trucks, which often get 5 to 8 miles a gallon, to natural gas could save significant amounts of money. Tailpipe emissions also would drop, since natural gas burns cleaner than diesel or gasoline.

If large numbers of fleet operators decided to embrace natural gas, it could rev up truck manufacturing, which slowed dramatically during the recession. North American heavy duty truck sales peaked in 2006 with 360,000 units, just ahead of tighter emission standards, and plunged to 110,000 units in 2009.

Noel Perry, principal at Transport Fundamentals Inc., a trucking research company in Lebanon, Penn., says one disadvantage of natural gas is that it isn't as dense as diesel. CNG is only 25% as dense and LNG is 60% as dense. That means trucks need more tanks or bigger tanks to go as far, or they must refuel more often. That's not a big deal for city buses or delivery trucks that go back to home base each night, where they can refuel. But it's a problem for trucks that drive unpredictable routes or venture out into the hinterland.

Ann Duignan, managing director at J.P. Morgan Equity Research, says "there's huge excitement" about natural gas but infrastructure immaturity will depress truck sales. She expects fastest adoption among fleets that can run on CNG and return home each night but is skeptical about long-haul trucking. "It will be slow, steady, one-fleet-at-a-time type growth," she says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304707604577422192910235090.html

U.S. Agency Approves New Gas Line to Run Under Hudson

By MIREYA NAVARRO

New York Times

May 22, 2012

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved the construction of a much-debated natural gas pipeline that would run beneath the Hudson River from New Jersey into the West Village in Manhattan, connecting with Consolidated Edison’s distribution system.

The 4-to-0 decision on Monday had been widely expected since the commission’s staff concluded in March that the construction and operation of the pipeline would not pose significant environmental hazards.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg supports the project, which would transport up to 800 million cubic feet of gas a day, as a way of meeting New York City’s growing energy needs. But antidrilling groups and many public officials in the region, including the mayors of Hoboken and Jersey City, oppose the pipeline, and legal challenges are expected.

The $1.2 billion project, proposed by Spectra Energy of Houston, includes 15.2 miles of new pipeline that would run from Staten Island through Bayonne, N.J., and Jersey City before crossing over to Manhattan beneath West Street. It would be the first major natural gas transmission line to reach the city in 40 years.

“This approval clears the way for a much-needed new natural gas supply in the New York City region,” Mr. Bloomberg’s deputy mayor for operations, Caswell F. Holloway, said in a statement. Mr. Holloway said the project would make the city’s energy supply more reliable and help reduce emissions of soot and heat-trapping greenhouse gases by providing an alternative to more polluting energy sources like oil.

But opponents on both sides of the Hudson have cited safety concerns, including the possibility of accidental explosions beneath densely populated areas, industrial sites and bodies of water.

Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy of Jersey City said in an interview that he also worried that the pipeline and the construction bustle would discourage investment in his city, where the population of about 250,000 is already doubled on weekdays by commuters. He said the city planned to appeal the commission’s decision and, if need be, to challenge it in court.

“This is a foolhardy place to put this high-pressure pipeline,” Mr. Healy said.

The pipeline has also been caught in the furor over horizontal hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting large volumes of water and chemicals underground to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. New York environmental officials are weighing whether to begin granting permits for such drilling upstate.

The federal commission addressed some of the concerns in its order approving the pipeline, saying it would bring in natural gas from multiple sources.

“This project is driven by a desire to bring additional, reliable, competitively priced gas supplies to New Jersey and New York end users,” the order said. “It is not designed to serve as a gathering system for gas from the Marcellus Shale.”

It added, “The development of the Marcellus and other shale reserves is expected to proceed over decades, and will do so with or without the proposed project.”

Spectra officials said they hoped to begin construction on the pipeline, an expansion of the company’s Texas Eastern Transmission and Algonquin Gas Transmission interstate pipeline systems, in June and to complete the work by November 2013, when the pipeline would start service.

“We remain committed to safely constructing this critically needed pipeline and look forward to a timely notice to proceed,” said Marylee Hanley, a spokeswoman for the company.

Spectra officials said that the project had been modified considerably to meet safety concerns and that it now exceeded federal requirements. Plans call for the pipeline to lie as deep as 200 feet underground.

The project also involves replacing five miles of existing pipeline from Staten Island to Linden, N.J., and installing associated equipment and facilities in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It would span Middlesex County in Connecticut; Bergen, Hudson, Morris and Union Counties in New Jersey; and Manhattan, Staten Island and Rockland County in New York.

Parties have 30 days to request a rehearing of the action by the commission, which regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil as well as proposals to build interstate natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/gas-pipeline-beneath-hudson-river-is-approved.html?_r=1&src=rechp&pagewanted=print

Pipeline Plan Stirs Debate on Both Sides of Hudson

By MIREYA NAVARRO

New York Times

Published: October 26, 2011

A debate that pits energy needs against safety risks is playing out in the New York region as federal officials weigh approval of a natural gas pipeline that would terminate in the West Village in Manhattan.

The $850 million project, developed by Spectra Energy of Houston, calls for 15 miles of new pipeline to run from Staten Island to Bayonne and Jersey City before crossing into Manhattan. Five miles of pipeline between Staten Island and Linden, N.J., would also be replaced.

The new pipeline, the first major one to be built in New York City in decades, has drawn firm support from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and barely a shrug from environmental groups. But with a decision by federal regulators expected early next year, an opposition campaign is gaining some heft. Critics of the natural gas drilling method known as fracking have also leapt into the fray, arguing that the pipeline would abet an environmental ill by carrying some gas extracted through fracking.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose approval is needed for the pipeline’s construction, is receiving public comment through Monday.

At a raucous public meeting it held last week in Greenwich Village, more than 300 antidrilling and Occupy Wall Street protesters joined forces to assail the project.

“You’re about to mainline an ecological disaster for the rest of the state,” the actor Mark Ruffalo, the celebrity face of the antifracking movement, said to a standing ovation. “I’m begging you people to stand up for something that’s bigger than our bureaucratic system.”

Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy of Jersey City has steadily denounced the project, saying it would threaten some prime development areas and jeopardize the safety of many of the city’s nearly 250,000 residents. He also asks why six miles of the pipeline would run through Jersey City but only graze Manhattan, given that New York City has greater fuel needs and would be the main beneficiary.

“We run all the risk, and our friends to the east get all the benefit,” Mr. Healy said in an interview on Tuesday.

In the West Village, residents only recently began mobilizing against the pipeline, citing accidental gas line explosions elsewhere, like the one that killed eight people and burned down dozens of homes last year in San Bruno, Calif.

Many seem incredulous that such a project could even skirt their upscale neighborhood, where the meatpacking district was recently gentrified, lush green spaces have been added and ground has been broken on a new Whitney Museum of American Art.

“Why would you develop Hudson River Park if you were going to do this?” Christy Robb, who lives on West Fourth Street, asked in an interview.

Spectra points out that the project has undergone several revisions to meet safety concerns and that it now exceeds federal requirements for pipeline safety. “We’re committed to building one of the safest pipelines in the country,” Marylee Henley, a spokeswoman for the company, said.

The federal energy commission has already concluded in an environmental review that any adverse impacts could be reduced “to less than significant” levels and has recommended approval.

Mayor Bloomberg supports the pipeline as a cleaner and greener alternative to dirty heating oil, which thousands of buildings are expected to phase out under tightened city regulations over the next few years. While some will simply switch to a cleaner oil, others are expected eventually to make the transition to natural gas, which creates fewer emissions than oil and is now at historically low prices.

“In terms of cleaning up the city’s energy supply, this is a great investment,” Mr. Bloomberg’s deputy for operations, Caswell F. Holloway, said of the pipeline.

New York City officials call the need for additional natural gas supplies critical, with two other interstate pipelines connecting to the city’s underground distribution grid already operating at or near full capacity.

Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey expressed “serious concerns” about the pipeline early this year but has not taken a public position on the project, which is expected to create 1,400 new construction jobs but will also pass by some highly populated residential neighborhoods, particularly in Jersey City.

The Spectra pipeline, up to 42 inches in diameter, would cross the Hudson River from Hoboken to the West Village, connecting with Consolidated Edison’s distribution system beneath West Street via the Gansevoort Peninsula. It will range from 6 to 200 feet below ground.

Spectra says the pipeline will be built in segments of 200 feet each. Construction will rip up roads and disrupt traffic for weeks at a time, the company said, but over 60 percent of the pipeline will be laid in areas where industrial infrastructure, like other pipelines and railroad tracks, already exists above and below ground.

The pipeline would transport up to 800 million cubic feet of gas a day. The company says that 20 percent of the gas has already been reserved by Con Edison to meet the demand in New York City and that the rest will be available to the metropolitan region as demand rises.

Gusti Bogok, a West Village neighbor and a member of the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said that natural gas posed dangers, including radon contamination, and that New York should be moving toward renewable energy sources rather than creating more demand for a fossil fuel.

“We need a comprehensive plan with different options — biofuels, energy reduction programs, retrofitting,” she said. “That’s where the effort needs to go.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/nyregion/gas-pipeline-to-manhattan-stirs-debate-in-2-states.html?nl=nyregion&emc=ura1