The federal government isn\u2019t just encouraging New York to build a new pipeline that\u2019s already been ruled a threat \u2014 it’s also making you pay for it, and a new independent analysis claims the project will cost 17% more than estimates from the utility company.<\/p>\n
The once dead project was revived in July after the Trump administration announced its strong support for building new fossil fuel infrastructure. The pipeline is on a fast-tracked review after the Department of Environmental Conservation closed its 45-day public comment period last month despite rallies calling for more time as well as public hearings.<\/p>\n
Its backers say that the pipeline will bring more natural gas to the area, lower energy expenses over time and bring jobs to the region. But the construction of the pipeline and its associated infrastructure costs will fall to New Yorkers already reeling from sky-high utility bills that show no sign of getting cheaper.<\/p>\n
National Grid estimates that monthly residential bills would increase, on average, by $7.44 on Long Island and $7.61 in Brooklyn, Staten Island and parts of Queens. That is in addition to a rate hike<\/a> pending with the Public Service that would increase the average monthly residential Con Edison bill by $26.69, or over 13%.<\/p>\n Con Edison customers are already paying around $50<\/a> more per month than they did three years ago. Over the last two years, National Grid customers are paying over $40<\/a> more on monthly bills.<\/p>\n Rate increases in New York almost always are decided by the state\u2019s Public Service Commission. Given the interstate nature of the pipeline, the approval for this pipeline \u2014 and the new charges New Yorkers will have to pony up \u2014 rests solely with the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission.<\/p>\n A report released this week by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an energy research think tank, estimated the pipeline\u2019s price tag at least $1.25 billion. That\u2019s 17% more than National Grid\u2019s estimate.<\/p>\n The report claims that the projected benefits of the project will likely fall short.<\/p>\n \u201c\u200aThe arguments that they’re trying to come up with now are not convincing, and rate payers in New York are not going to benefit from this, but they’ll be forced to pay for it if this thing were approved, and I don’t think that that’s good policy,\u201d said Suzanne Mattei, energy policy analyst and report author.<\/p>\n The pipeline owner Williams Company and local natural gas provider National Grid say that New Yorkers will get 13% more gas supply to address winter reliability risks and cheaper natural gas. Williams estimates that the increased supply will lower prices by $6 billion over the next 15 years while also providing more jobs in the Northeast region.<\/p>\n The pipeline would install about 17 miles of 26-inch diameter pipes under the ocean floor near Staten Island and the Rockaways with about 10 miles of additional pipelines in New Jersey. The proposed pipeline would bring enough fracked gas from Pennsylvania to serve more than 2 million New York City households.<\/p>\n The report claims that not many of the jobs created for the Northeast region will actually be located in the state of New York. Only 9% of the temporary construction jobs would be in the Empire State because offshore pipeline installation requires special skills.. The compressor stations would be located in New Jersey, meaning the permanent jobs may not go to New Yorkers.<\/p>\n National Grid has determined that the pipeline is necessary as a way to meet winter demand for heating.<\/p>\n \u201cNESE will bolster reliability for our customers\u2019 essential energy needs, while also lowering costs and reducing emissions, and the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission has confirmed the project\u2019s critical need, public benefits, and environmental compliance,\u201d Alexander Starr, National Grid\u2019s spokesperson, wrote via email. \u201cEven with moderate demand growth, the NESE Project provides a prudent reserve margin and flexibility to manage future uncertainties, electrification, economic development, extreme weather.\u201d<\/p>\n The report refuted National Grid justification for the pipeline , stating that it isn\u2019t supported by available data. Further, state laws require the reduction of natural gas use and not the increase.<\/p>\n