Expresses to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opposition to proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement Project; urges consideration of certain alternative projects.
The NESE Project entails significant modifications to the local natural gas infrastructure, including the construction of a 32,000 horsepower compressor station and the extension of pipeline under the Raritan Bay. The resolution points out serious safety concerns associated with the existing pipeline condition, particularly given its approximate 50-year age, which raises doubts about its capability to handle the proposed changes. Furthermore, the resolution emphasizes the potential explosion risks from the compressor station, situated near an active quarry, along with ongoing air quality issues from emissions resulting from the proposed construction operations.
Assembly Resolution No. 32 (AR32) expresses opposition from the New Jersey General Assembly to the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) Project proposed by Transco, an interstate natural gas transmission company. The resolution urges the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider alternative energy projects that would meet New York's energy demands while safeguarding the health and safety of New Jersey residents and the environment. This resolution is particularly concerned about the implications of increased natural gas volumes due to the expansion of an aging pipeline system and a proposed new natural gas compressor station in Franklin Township, Somerset County.
Local residents have highlighted inadequate emergency preparedness and response measures related to the project, with concerns about low water pressure to combat possible gas-related emergencies and insufficient fire coverage in the area due to undefined emergency plans from Williams, the operator behind the NESE Project. Moreover, the resolution critiques the lack of a comprehensive health impact assessment regarding chemical exposures from operational emissions, which include known carcinogens. The FERC's previous evaluations, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, were marked as deficient in addressing critical concerns about air quality and potential ecological damage to the Raritan Bay and its submerged sediment, further compounding the opposition against the project.