PennEast is accused of using a bait-and-switch method to have the request denied.
TRENTON -- The Eastern Environmental Law Center responded Wednesday to PennEast's request to federal regulators that the center's pleading for evidentiary hearing over the necessity of the pipeline be rejected.
The firm -- representing the New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJCF) and the Stonybrook Millstone Watershed Association -- submitted a response blasting PennEast's 24-page request for denial of the hearing.
"It's a procedural bait and switch," said Jennifer Danis, a senior staff attorney for EELC. "We used a combined form of pleading which is common."
On July 5, PennEast wrote a motion requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission deny the hearing request, calling the it "duplicative" and "nothing more than an extremely late protest."
The EELC has "styled its pleading as a complaint and motion filed pursuant to Rule 206 and Rule 212 requesting that (FERC) establish a hearing," the PennEast filing said. "The filing fails to meet the basic requirements of Rule 206 and at best must be treated as an untimely protest with a request for an evidentiary hearing."
Rule 206 is the FERC guideline for the filing of a complaint, whereas Rule 212 is guideline for the filing of a motion.
"The deadline for comments was October 29th -- this is not a comment," Danis said. "It's like if you're walking your dog and PennEast says you're walking a cat -- no cats allowed!"
"There is no time limit on the Rule 206 complaint and there is no time limit on the Rule 212 motion for the hearing," she said.
PennEast has submitted 34 public comments since the October 29 deadline.
The company's filing also says that separate complaint proceedings are not appropriate when it would be duplicative of an ongoing proceeding.
"The PennEast filing says everything they've submitted tells you everything you need to know and anything else would be duplicative," Danis said.
"An evidentiary hearing is for when there's conflicting data," she said. "Here there have been a number of reports that have raised red flags."
Group files complaint with feds
Some studies and market experts have agreed that PennEast's arrangement of the utility companies signing on as almost 75 percent of the pipeline's customer base -- rather than ratepayers -- paves the way for potential market abuse and may put customers on the hook for years of unnecessary cost increases.
PennEast's contract arrangement between parent companies and their own subsidiaries has even inspired a federal bill.
Tom Gilbert of the NJCF, fears that PennEast's arrangement could set the precedence for utility companies to use their own desire for natural gas as justification for sweeping land grabs via eminent domain.
"It is not a legitimate justification for them to have the power of Eminent Domain," Gilbert said. "Eminent Domain is for the purpose of meeting public needs for the greater public good."
"Sometimes there are needs to sacrifice public needs for the greater public good," he said. "This is subverting that process, there is not a legitimate public need here."
Danis says the EELC's request for a hearing clearly explains this point and many others.
"We go through each and every regulatory requirement for complaints and motions and identify them," Danis said. "It's almost like (PennEast is) ignoring the papers."
Some wonder that if the process is duplicative or unnecessary, why PennEast bothers to object so strongly.
"It's like a Wizard of Oz thing," Danis said. "They don't want someone to lift the curtain."
"I think PennEast is worried," she said.
When asked why the PennEast project is so opposed to the EELC's request spokeswoman Pat Kornick said, "The call for an evidentiary hearing when a comprehensive process is in place is nothing more than an attempted delay tactic on the part of those opposed to natural gas infrastructure development."
Greg Wright may be reached at gwright@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @GregTheWright. Find NJ.com on Facebook.