ecological-economic context

​The boom in natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale region and the accompanying rush to deliver what is promised to be cheaper energy to domestic and international markets has raised important questions about the environmental, human health, and economic costs. These questions, however, have been ignored or dismissed by those promoting natural gas development and transmission. Moreover, and due to flaws of both policy and practice, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (or “FERC”) has not adequately addressed these questions in the course of its legally mandated review of pipeline application.

Commonly excluded in FERC's pipeline applications

• Reductions in private property value along the length of pipelines and extending outward through the right-of-way, the “high consequence area”, and the evacuation one​​
  • ​Read our blog post​ on private property value losses
• Lost natural benefits like water filtration, aesthetic quality, wildlife habitat, and food production.
• Forgone economic development opportunity as recreationists, tourists, retirees, entrepreneurs, and workers choose safer, more environmentally healthy, and more aesthetically pleasing locations
• The “social cost of carbon”, which is the economic harm that will befall people worldwide as the methane produced and transported is eventually burned, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere

outcomes​ 

Key-Log Economics has worked with several community groups and charitable organizations to provide the following:  

• Estimates of external economic costs of proposed natural gas transmission pipelines and unconventional natural gas development.
• A system for assessing citizens’ comments submitted to FERC as part of the project review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
• Comment inputs to FERC regarding the economic costs of several proposed pipelines

the Setting

FERC relies almost exclusively on cost and benefit information supplied by applicants and their consultants, who have–and act upon–their self-interest by presenting inflated estimates of benefits and greatly discounted estimates of costs.

In the cases we have reviewed (Atlantic Coast Pipeline, Mountain Valley Pipeline, PennEast Pipeline, Millennium Eastern System Upgrade Project, Atlantic Sunrise), the applicants provide no serious consideration of any costs at all.

• Read our blog post on flaws in FERC's certification process

pipeline projects

Click through projects below to find links to technical reports, benefit claim studies, and more. 

Atlantic coast Pipeline

Technical Report showing that even a subset of the costs of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to the public would likely exceed its promised benefits​
Comment Letter detailing the type and scope of economic analysis that should be considered by FERC in their review for the Atlantic Coast pipeline
Review of Citizen Input to FERC on issues like environmental impacts, safety concerns, property value and other economic effects of the proposed pipeline

For individual county summaries, please visit our library

Atlantic sunrise pipeline

Technical Report showing that even a subset of the costs of the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline to the public would likely exceed its promised benefits​

MILLENNIUM EASTERN SYSTEM UPGRADE

Technical Report ​showing that even a subset of the costs of the Eastern System Upgrade to the public would likely exceed its promised benefits​
Comment Letter detailing how studies commissioned by the applicant overestimate benefits and downplay costs 
Review of Citizen Input to FERC on issues like environmental impacts, safety concerns, and other effects of the proposed pipeline

Mountain VAlley Pipeline

Technical Report showing that even a subset of the costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to the public would likely exceed its promised benefits​
Comment Letter detailing FERC's Failure in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement to adequately address the Mountain Valley pipeline's external costs 
Benefit Claims Review detailing how studies commissioned by the applicant overestimate benefits and downplay costs

For individual county summaries, please visit our library

PennEast Pipeline

Technical Report showing that even a subset of the costs of the PennEast Pipeline to the public would likely exceed its promised benefits
Comment Letter detailing FERC’s failure to adequately address the external costs of the proposed pipeline in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Review of Citizen Input to FERC on issues like environmental impacts, health & safety, property values, and other economic effects of the proposed pipeline​

see also

Marcellus Shale Region | FERC Policy Review

Maryland | Costs of Natural Gas Development