This document summarizes three proposed natural gas pipeline projects in Virginia and issues related to them. It discusses the Spectra and Dominion pipeline proposals that would connect gas fields in West Virginia to North Carolina. It also notes a potential third proposal and safety concerns about Spectra's track record. The document outlines the pipeline approval and permitting process through FERC and reviews a recent court decision requiring FERC to consider cumulative impacts of related pipeline proposals.

1. VA Gas Pipeline Proposals
-July 2014-

2. Why Now?
• Cheap Natural Gas Supplies
• Interstate and Export
• Limited Transmission Capability – North and
South
• Duke Energy RFP

3. Shale Fields

4. US Pipeline Network

5. Spectra Gas Line
•Former Subsidiary of Duke Energy
•427- mile line connecting
Marcellus Shale gas fields in WV to
NC Duke facility.
•Impacting Rappahannock,
Fauquier, Culpeper, Madison,
Albemarle and Orange.
•Single or Primary Purpose
•Alignment appears hastily derived
•Conservation Easements, National
Landmarks and federally owned
lands.

6. Dominion SERP Line
•Multi purpose –
Dominion wants larger
control of SE
transmission
•Meeting Duke Energy
needs
•Trunk line to SE VA
•Does appear to be
ahead of Spectra in
some regards.

7. Dominion Cove Point LNG
EXPORT

8. Third Proposal? More to Follow?
• EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy Inc.
• 330-mile project
• Terminates on NC border.
• Desires to extend into NC
• Rumors of at least two additional lines
• Unknown alignments

9. Pipeline Inspectors
Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
– In 1999 there were 10 inspectors
– Increase of staff in response to series of pipeline
accidents - 2001 and 2005 Congressional Inquiries.
– After 2012 legislation, today there are 135
– Safety still an issue

10. Spectra Track Record?
• Spectra Energy has had twenty one incidents since 2006 for
their Texas Eastern Transmission Line (one project) resulting
in $8,564,246 in property damage, according to PHMSA
•
Damage (A) Value of Product Lost (B) 06/04/13 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $522,432
$22,432 03/27/13 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $552,580 $52,580 11/03/12 GT
OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $647,212 $47,212 10/24/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION
INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $269,974 $29,974 09/06/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0
$673,200 $73,200 09/01/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $444,913 $19,005 08/13/12 GT
OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $642,498 $42,498 04/19/12 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION
INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $339,188 $39,188 04/13/12 GT MARIETTA PA YORK MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE
PUMP/COMPRESSOR-RELATED EQUIPMENT 0 1 $251,170 $1,170 05/04/11 GT HALLETTSVILLE (15 MILES SOUTHE TX
LAVACA MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE MANUFACTURING-RELATED 0 0 $219,929 $43,490 12/19/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS
CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $661,268 $161,268 10/12/10 GT TOMPKINSVILLE KY MONROE OTHER OUTSIDE
FORCE DAMAGE VEHICLE NOT ENGAGED IN EXCAVATION 0 0 $131,004 $127,504 09/29/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS
CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $649,580 $49,580 09/16/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL
CORROSION 0 0 $302,400 $52,400 09/02/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $432,820
$32,820 06/20/10 GT OFFSHORE OCS CORROSION INTERNAL CORROSION 0 0 $861,268 $161,268 06/08/09 GT
OFFSHORE LA ALL OTHER CAUSES MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE 0 0 $130,000 $1,000 10/01/08 GT CLINTON MS HINDS
OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE VEHICLE NOT ENGAGED IN EXCAVATION 0 0 $120,010 $120,000 07/12/08 GT RED
LION OH WARREN MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE MALFUNCTION OF CONTROL/RELIEF EQUIPMENT 0 0 $55,100 $5,050
09/30/06 GT OFFSHORE N/A MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE JOINT/FITTING/COMPONENT 0 0 $255,000 $5,000 04/09/06
GT DELMONT PA WESTMORELAND MAT’L/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE NON-THREADED CONNECTION FAILURE 0 0 $402,700
$2,700 Totals 0 1 $8,564,246 $1,089,339terials Safety Administration.

11. VA Code
§ 56-49.01. Natural gas companies; right of entry upon property.
A. Any firm, corporation, company, or partnership, organized for the bona fide purpose of operating as a
natural gas company as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 717a, as amended, may make such examinations, tests,
hand auger borings, appraisals, and surveys for its proposed line or location of its works as are necessary
(i) to satisfy any regulatory requirements and (ii) for the selection of the most advantageous location or
route, the improvement or straightening of its line or works, changes of location or construction, or
providing additional facilities, and for such purposes, by its duly authorized officers, agents, or employees,
may enter upon any property without the written permission of its owner if (a) the natural gas company
has requested the owner's permission to inspect the property as provided in subsection B, (b) the
owner's written permission is not received prior to the date entry is proposed, and (c) the natural gas
company has given the owner notice of intent to enter as provided in subsection C. A natural gas
company may use motor vehicles, self-propelled machinery, and power equipment on property only after
receiving the permission of the landowner or his agent.
B. A request for permission to inspect shall (i) be sent to the owner by certified mail, (ii) set forth the date
such inspection is proposed to be made, and (iii) be made not less than 15 days prior to the date of the
proposed inspection.
C. Notice of intent to enter shall (i) be sent to the owner by certified mail, (ii) set forth the date of the
intended entry, and (iii) be made not less than 15 days prior to the date of mailing of the notice of intent
to enter.
D. Any entry authorized by this section shall not be deemed a trespass. The natural gas company shall make
reimbursement for any actual damages resulting from such entry. Nothing in this section shall impair or
limit any right of a natural gas company obtained by (i) the power of eminent domain, (ii) any easement
granted by the landowner or his predecessor in title, or (iii) any right-of-way agreement, lease or other
agreement by and between a natural gas company and a landowner or their predecessors in title or
interest.

14. FERC Process
• No applications or files at this time
• FERC could approve all lines that “meet the
bar”.
• NEPA and NHPA do apply
• Environmental groups question rigor of FERC
review
• Ultimately the banks/financiers will decide
which proposal gets built.

15. Duke Energy – Who Gets to Build?
• Likely to announce their preferred proposal in
early fall
• Stated desire to own part of the line
• Should influence loan decisions…

16. Other Considerations
• Environmental
• Transition Fuel or Major Setback
• Renewable Energy
• Future implications from
approvals/construction

17. Decision from DC Circuit
• June 6, 2014
• Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al., v. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
• Tennessee Gas Company proposed to upgrade a section of existing
natural gas pipeline.
• The FERC prepared an Environmental Assessment for that segment.
• At nearly the same time Tennessee Gas company proposed a series of
three other upgrades to portions of the same pipeline.
• The FERC recommended a "Finding of No Significant Impact" from the
segment before it.
• Delaware Riverkeeper Network argued at every stage of the
proceedings that there should be a consideration of all four projects
together.
• The DC Circuit Court agreed that the FERC had inappropriately
segmented its review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

18. PEC Planned Activities
• Community Meetings
• Organizing Partners
• Informational Resource
• Commonwealth’s Response on Easements and
Resources
• FERC Permitting Process
• Contacting Spectra and Duke Energy

19. Information as we get it:
www.pecva.org/gasline

20. Questions?