DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC. New Market Project RESOURCE ...

DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC. New Market Project

RESOURCE REPORT NO. 10 Alternatives

FERC Docket No. CP14-____-000

Filed June 2, 2014

Prepared By:

Resource Report 10 – Alternatives Dominion Transmission, Inc. New Market Project

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FERC REPORT INFORMATION

Topic FERC Reference Report Reference or Not Applicable

1. Address the "no action" alternative. • Discuss the costs and benefits associated with the alternative.

§380.12(l)(1)

Section 10.2

2. For large Projects, address the effect of energy conservation or energy alternatives to the Project.

§380.12(l)(1)

Section 10.2

3. Identify system alternatives considered during the identification of the Project and provide the rationale for rejecting each alternative. • Discuss the costs and benefits associated with each alternative

§380.12(l)(1)

Section 10.3

4. Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid impact on sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, or residences) and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed route. • For onshore projects near to offshore areas, be sure to address

alternatives using offshore routings.

§380.12(l)(3) Not applicable.

5. Identify alternative sites considered for the location of major new aboveground facilities and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed site.

§380.12(l)(3) Section 10.4


10-i

RESOURCE REPORT 10 – ALTERNATIVES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

10.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 10.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................2 10.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................2 10.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................4 10.4 COMPRESSOR STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................5 10.5 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................15

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE Figure 10-1 Project Overview Map .............................................................................................7 Figure 10-2 Site Location of Proposed Horseheads Compressor Station, Chemung County .....8 Figure 10-3 Site Location of Proposed Sheds Compressor Station, Madison County ..............11 Figure 10-4 Horseheads Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site ................................13 Figure 10-5 Sheds Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site .........................................14

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE Table 10-1 Horseheads Compressor Station Site Alternatives Comparison ..................................9 Table 10-2 Sheds Compressor Station Site Alternatives Comparison ..........................................12


10-ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS EIA Energy Information Administration DOE U.S. Department of Energy Mdt/day thousand dekatherms per day DTI Dominion Transmission, Inc. FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hp horsepower LOD limits of disturbance NSA noise sensitive area NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Project New Market Project USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey


10-1

RESOURCE REPORT 10 – ALTERNATIVES 10.0 INTRODUCTION

Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) is planning to install both new facilities and make changes to existing natural gas transmission facilities, called the New Market Project (Project). The Project consists of various new facilities and changes to existing gas transmission facilities in Chemung, Tompkins, Madison, Herkimer, Montgomery and Schenectady Counties, New York. Specifically, DTI proposes to construct the following new facilities:

• Horseheads Compressor Station (Chemung County) – a new 11,010 horsepower (hp) compressor station;

• Sheds Compressor Station (Madison County) – a new 10,880 hp compressor station.

In addition, DTI proposes to make changes to the following existing facilities:

• Brookman Corners Compressor Station (Montgomery County) – additional compression of approximately 11,133 hp; installation of additional coolers and other equipment, replacement of certain equipment.

• Borger Compressor Station (Tompkins County) – installation of additional coolers, and pipe crossover work.

• Utica Compressor Station (Herkimer County) – installation of additional coolers. • West Schenectady Meter Station (Schenectady County) - meter station upgrades.

A list and mapping of Project components and their locations is provided in Resource Report 1 - Project Description. An analysis was performed to determine whether there are any reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project. The following criteria were utilized in the alternatives analysis:

• Does the alternative meet the purpose and need of the Project? • Is the alternative technically and/or economically feasible and practicable? • Does the alternative offer significant environmental advantages?

This Resource Report summarizes the alternatives analysis for the proposed Project. Section 10.1 describes the Project’s purpose and need. Section 10.2 describes the No-Action Alternative. Section 10.3 discusses system alternatives that were considered. Section 10.4 discusses compressor station site alternatives. Lastly, Section 10.5 lists the references used in the preparation of this Resource Report.


10-2

10.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

DTI’s purpose and need for the Project is to provide additional natural gas supplies to customers along DTI’s existing system in the State of New York. The proposed Project is designed to flow an additional 112,000 thousand dekatherms per day (Mdt/d) for delivery at the Brookman Corners Station and at the West Schenectady Meter Station (see map of Project components and locations in Resource Report 1 – Project Description). DTI anticipates construction to commence by September 1, 2015, and an in-service date of November 1, 2016.

10.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No-Action Alternative would result in not implementing the proposed Project and would avoid the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the Project; however, the Project objectives (purpose and need) would not be met. Under this scenario, the volumes of gas requested for transfer into the recipient pipeline systems would not be accommodated. The No-Action Alternative would likely require the use of other energy sources to meet the portion of the growing demand that would not be met by the Project. DTI evaluated the feasibility of using alternative sources of energy to satisfy the need intended to be served by the Project, such as the use of other fossil fuels (i.e., fuel oil and coal), hydroelectric power, wind, geothermal, wood and other biomass, solar, and nuclear. Because energy demand is projected to increase (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2014) through 2040, the use of these energy alternatives, whether alone or in combination, is not anticipated to provide a commercially viable and environmentally preferable alternative to the Project in the near term. The use or increased use of alternative fossil fuel sources (i.e., fuel oil and coal) would have their own environmental impacts associated with their extraction, refinement, transportation, and end use. Natural gas has many attributes that make its use more attractive than other fossil fuel sources. Overall, natural gas is the most readily available, dependable, economically viable, and environmentally acceptable fuel for residential, commercial, and industrial markets. Relative to natural gas, reliance on liquid fuels or coal to generate electricity would result in higher emissions of air pollutants, such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, leading to reductions in air quality and increases in global warming. Coal is a readily available alternative energy source to natural gas in the Project area. However, coal extraction results in increased environmental impacts compared to natural gas. Coal extraction sites are also subject to potential land subsidence and require long-term and expensive land reclamation. The burning of coal also requires disposal of the resulting ash, whereas this by-product is not created through the use of natural gas. The use of coal as an energy alternative is not preferred because of the increased long-term environmental impacts associated with the extraction and combustion of coal compared to natural gas.


10-3

Hydroelectric power generation is also not considered to be viable as an alternative energy source to natural gas. The Project region does not have a high potential for hydroelectric power generation, even using low head/low power technologies. Although efficiency upgrades at existing hydroelectric power generation facilities are expected to produce incremental additions of electric power in the coming years, environmental concerns and a scarcity of new large-scale sites will limit conventional hydroelectric power production. Therefore, it is unlikely that new and/or significant hydroelectric power generation facilities will be developed in the region or available as a reliable alternative to natural gas. Other renewable energy sources, such as wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar are not considered viable alternative energy sources to natural gas, as they are not widely available in the region, are not available in sufficient quantities to support market requirements, and are not always reliable. Renewable energy sources are expected to play an increasingly prominent role in meeting United States energy demands in the coming years. Federal, state, and local incentives and continuing research will likely contribute to an increase in the availability and cost effectiveness of these renewable energy sources. Despite the growing support for renewable energy, significant long-term investment and advances in technology and development are necessary before these sources could potentially offset a substantial portion of the projected national energy demand. Therefore, renewable energy sources will not provide sufficient energy supplies in the near future to eliminate the need for the Project. Nuclear power is not considered to be viable as an alternative energy source to natural gas. Although existing nuclear power plants are expected to continue operating through 2040, the EIA predicts that the total share of generation from nuclear plants would fall from 19 percent in 2010 to 16 percent in 2040 (EIA 2014). Because of the prohibitive costs associated with development of new nuclear facilities, it is unlikely that new nuclear power plants would be sited and developed to serve the targeted markets within a timeframe that would meet Project objectives. Accordingly, the possible use of nuclear energy as a replacement for natural gas is not readily available at this time. In conclusion, the use of alternative energy sources is not considered a viable, cost-effective, or environmentally-preferred alternative to meet Project objectives, and therefore was not selected. DTI evaluated the feasibility of using energy conservation measures as an alternative to the proposed Project. However, energy conservation alone would not fully obviate the need for the Project. According to the EIA, although conservation measures aid in reducing current demand for natural gas, the reductions possible through conservation measures alone are not anticipated to meet total current or future demand for natural gas (EIA 2014). Conservation methods are neither uniformly mandated nor followed. Current energy conservation efforts, including the ENERGY STAR program (the joint effort between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) that identifies cost-effective, energy-efficient products


10-4

that are designed to save consumers money, reduce energy consumption and help protect the environment), will aid in reducing the amount of natural gas used in the production of a dollar’s worth of economic output. In addition, local natural gas distribution companies typically provide its customers with information and incentives for energy conservation, including programs that promote the benefits of conservation through education, rebate offers, and targeted low-income initiatives. However, conservation does not negate the need for the Project. Therefore, energy conservation is not considered a viable Project alternative solely by itself, in consideration of the Project objectives.

10.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES As defined by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) guidance manual for environmental report preparation (FERC 2002), system alternatives are those alternatives that could meet the objectives of the Project, but would use a different (often existing) system or a different configuration of facilities that would obviate the need to construct all or part of the project. FERC requires that system alternatives be analyzed for large projects and for projects where there are significant concerns about the disturbance of particular resources.

The point of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine if the potential environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of the proposed facilities could be avoided or minimized by using an existing pipeline system. Environmental considerations with system alternatives include, but are not limited to, new right-of-way requirements, land use effects, and stream and wetland disturbances. A system alternative could make it unnecessary to construct DTI’s Project; although changes or additions to its system or another system may be required. While modifications or additions to existing systems could result in environmental impact, this impact may be less, the same, or more than the impact associated with the proposed project.

The only other interstate natural gas pipelines in the vicinity of DTI’s system are operated by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.P., and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. However, these pipeline systems operate near full capacity and are fully subscribed. As such, these pipeline systems could not transport the proposed volumes without constructing new facilities, which would include compression and new pipeline. Consequently, these system alternatives would likely have a similar if not greater impact than the proposed Project. DTI performed hydraulic modeling of its system to identify various configurations that might be capable of supplying the additional transportation services. DTI determined that the Project’s objectives could be met by looping1 or replacing segments of its existing pipeline, along with adding compression at the existing Brookman Corners

1 A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.


10-5

Compressor Station. It should be noted that the environmental impacts of looping versus replacing segments is essentially the same. This is because DTI’s contractual service obligations to its customers preclude taking the existing pipeline out of service for any significant period of time. Consequently, the replacement pipeline would need to be constructed adjacent to the existing pipeline (similar to a loop) and readied for service before the existing pipeline is taken out of service. This alternative would require looping of approximately 75.8 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline and 11.8 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline. Building this length of pipeline loop would have more environmental impact than the proposed Project. Specifically, constructing 87.6 miles of new pipeline loop would likely impact at least 796 acres of land, assuming a 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way is used. Additionally, only a portion of this land would comprise existing right-of-way or areas that were disturbed by construction of the original pipeline. Potential impacts could occur on forest land, wildlife habitat, wetlands, and stream crossings. It would also have considerably higher air pollutant emissions during construction than the proposed Project. Consequently, it was determined that looping was not environmentally preferable compared to the Project. Additionally, the cost of the looping alternative (estimated at approximately $464 million) was prohibitive compared to the proposed Project (estimated at $159 million).

10.4 COMPRESSOR STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES

DTI conducted hydraulic modeling to determine where the new compressor stations should be located to meet the Project’s objectives. This modeling determined that two compressor stations were required: a western station in Chemung County (the “Horseheads Compressor Station”) and an eastern station in Madison County (the “Sheds Compressor Station”). DTI then narrowed the range of possible site locations by applying site selection criteria with the goal of identifying compressor station sites that would meet the Project’s technical and commercial requirements while minimizing environmental impacts. For example, a site of at least 30 acres was desired in order to reduce potential visual and aesthetic impacts, increase the distance of the station from noise sensitive receptors, and provide a buffer against outside development and future encroachment, compared to a site smaller than 30 acres. Figure 10-1 provides an overview map of the proposed Horseheads Compressor Station, the Sheds Compressor Station, and alternative sites that were considered. After several potential sites for each compressor station were identified, DTI narrowed the list by conducting desktop reviews, and where appropriate contacting landowners and conducting field evaluations by engineers, surveyors, and environmental personnel. The desktop analyses included a review of aerial photography, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, property maps, National Wetlands Inventory maps, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) maps. The following subsections provide details regarding the site selection process and criteria that were employed to determine the proposed sites for each compressor station.


10-6

10.4.1 Horseheads Compressor Station Site Alternatives Figure 10-2 shows the proposed site and the four (4) alternative sites that were considered for the Horseheads Compressor Station. Table 10-1 presents the comparison of the proposed site to the alternate sites specific to the criteria that were employed to determine the best location to meet the Project’s technical and commercial requirements while minimizing environmental impacts. For a site to be selected, DTI believed there should be some indication that the property could be reasonably obtained from the current landowners. Although section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act grants the Certificate holder the right to exercise eminent domain, it would be desirable for the site to be available (such as by purchase, lease, or restrictive easement), to minimize the use of eminent domain to secure land for aboveground Project facilities. Various environmental issues that were considered in site selection included: land use compatibility, wetland or waterbody impacts, presence of endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat, and proximity to noise sensitive areas (NSAs) and residential housing. Technical considerations included potential for flooding, suitable topography, distance to the DTI pipeline, access to roads, and distance to electrical power. The proposed site was determined to be the site that best met the Project objectives. For the reasons stated below, DTI determined that the four alternative sites should be eliminated from consideration for the Horseheads Compressor Station. Alternative 1 (Vargo Road): Compared to the proposed location, this site has a higher potential for wetland impacts, is nearly three times further from the DTI pipeline, has several large, expensive houses nearby, and DTI was not able to make contact with the property owner concerning the availability of the site. Because this site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site, it was eliminated. Alternative 2 (Airstrip): This property is located in a floodplain and therefore was eliminated. Alternative 3 (Hickory Grove Road): This site is within 0.5 miles of an elementary school, within 0.5 miles of the Village of Horseheads, is nearly three times further from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site, and has wetland concerns. Therefore, it was eliminated.

Alternative 4 (Mallory Hill Road): This site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site. Moreover, the owner of the site was not interested in selling the property and therefore it was eliminated.


10-7


10-8


10-9

Table 10-1. Horseheads Compressor Station Site Alternatives Comparison Site Selection Criteria

Site Alternatives

Proposed Site Alternative 1 (Vargo Road)

Alternative 2 (Airstrip)

Alternative 3 (Hickory

Grove Road)

Alternative 4 (Mallory Hill

Road)

Current land use Agriculture Forested

Agriculture Scrub Shrub

Airport, Agriculture, Forested, Residential

Forested Scrub Shrub

Agricultural Forested

Land ownership issues None identified

Unknown Unknown Unknown Owner not willing to sell

Wetland or waterbody impacts

0.256 acres 0.768 acres Depends on limits of disturbance (LOD)

Depends on LOD

Unlikely depending on LOD

Potential for flooding

Low. Station site 0.44 miles from Bulkley Creek

Low. Station Site about 0.40 miles from Bulkley Creek

High. Located in floodplain

Unlikely High. Located in floodplain

Access driveway length 50 feet 650 feet 400 feet 40 feet 275 feet

Distance from DTI existing pipeline

0.27 miles 0.62 miles 0.28 miles 0.70 miles 0.02 miles

Distance to nearest Noise Sensitive Area (NSA)

792 feet from station site

655 feet from estimated station site




Number of surrounding residences (within 0.5 mile)

9 houses 15 houses 42 houses 100+ houses 27 houses

Topography Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Potential to affect endangered or threatened species, or other sensitive wildlife or fisheries

None identified

None identified

None identified

Near Reflexed Sedge (Endangered) known area

None identified

Access to public roads and availability of electrical power

Good Good Good Good

Good


10-10

10.4.2 Sheds Compressor Station Site Alternatives Figure 10-3 shows the proposed site and the four (4) alternative sites that were considered for the Sheds Compressor Station. Table 10-2 presents the comparison of the proposed site to the alternate sites specific to the criteria that were employed to determine the best location to meet the Project’s technical and commercial requirements while minimizing environmental impacts. The same criteria that were employed for the Horseheads Compressor Station site selection were utilized for the Sheds Compressor Station. The proposed site was determined to be the site that best met the Project objectives. For the reasons stated below, DTI determined that the four alternative sites should be eliminating from consideration for the Sheds Compressor Station. Alternative 1 (Fire Tower Road [Site #1 on Figure 10-3]): Compared to the proposed location, this site has uneven terrain and issues with access roads and electric power. It is also approximately twice as far from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. The site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated. Alternative 2 (Morrisville [Site #3 on Figure 10-3]): This property is located within approximately 0.1 miles of the City of Morrisville. It is also approximately seven times further from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. Additionally, this site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated. Alternative 3 (West Wilcox Road, West Eaton [Site #4 on Figure 10-3]): Compared to the proposed location, this site had uneven terrain and issues with access roads and electric power. It is also approximately three times further from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. The site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated.

Alternative 4 (DeRuyter [Site #5 on Figure 10-3]): This property is located within approximately 0.4 miles of the City of DeRuyter and is also approximately twice as far from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. Additionally, this site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated.


10-11


10-12

Table 10-2. Sheds Compressor Station Site Alternatives

Site Selection Criteria

Site Alternatives

Proposed Site

Alternative 1 (Fire Tower

Road) [Site #1 on

Figure 10-3]

Alternative 2 (Morrisville) [Site #3 on

Figure 10-3]

Alternative 3 (West Wilcox Road, West

Eaton) [Site #4 on

Figure 10-3]

Alternative 4 (DeRuyter) [Site #5 on

Figure 10-3]

Current land use Agriculture Forested

Agriculture Forested Agriculture

Forested Agriculture Forested

Land ownership issues None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

Wetland or waterbody impacts

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

Potential for flooding

Possibility; Adjacent to Tioughnioga Creek

Possibly in a floodplain

Very Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Access driveway length 60 feet 500 feet 600 feet 1,400 feet 2,000 feet

Distance from DTI existing pipeline

250 feet 500 feet 1,830 ft 670 feet 470 feet

Distance to nearest NSA

1,000 feet 1,200 feet 700 feet; Very close to City of Morrisville

1,700 feet 2,000 feet; Close to Town of DeRuyter

Number of surrounding residences (within 0.5 mile)

13 2 15 3 1

Topography Suitable Uneven Terrain

Suitable Uneven Terrain

Suitable

Potential to affect endangered or threatened species, or other sensitive wildlife or fisheries

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

None identified

Access to public roads and distance to electrical power

Good Access roads too small; no power nearby

Good Access road needed; no power nearby

Good


10-13

10.4.3 Horseheads Compressor Station Location on Proposed Site. Figure 10-4 shows the general location (footprint) of the Horseheads Compressor Station on the proposed site. DTI evaluated other potential locations within the proposed site in an effort to minimize any potential environmental impacts. Although other locations within the proposed site would be suitable, they would require greater tree clearing, decrease the proximity to potential wetlands, or be located on terrain that is lower and more susceptible to flooding. Consequently, the location shown on Figure 10-4 was determined to be the optimum location.

Figure 10-4. Horseheads Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site

(Note: DTI will purchase the existing house on the property, so no residents will be present and that house will be vacant or removed.)


10-14

10.4.4 Sheds Compressor Location on Proposed Site. Figure 10-5 shows the general location (footprint) of the Sheds Compressor Station on the proposed site. DTI evaluated other potential locations within the proposed site in an effort to minimize any potential environmental impacts. Although other locations within the proposed site would be suitable, they would have a greater potential to impact farmlands of state significance and would be closer to the existing residence on Wilcox Road. Consequently, the location shown on Figure 10-5 was determined to be the optimum location. Figure 10-5. Sheds Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site

(Note: Landowner selling the property wants to keep and retain residence across the street/Wilcox Road. DTI moved the proposed compressor station footprint further west from the initial concept, for additional distance between the station and the residence. Residence will remain occupied at landowner decision and will be the nearest NSA.)


10-15

10.5 REFERENCES Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. “Annual Energy Outlook” (Early

Release). March 2014. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. Accessed March 26, 2014.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2002. “Guidance Manual for

Environmental Report Preparation.” Office of Energy Projects. August 2002.

DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC. New Market Project RESOURCE ...

Documents

Transcript of DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC. New Market Project RESOURCE ...