[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 75 (Thursday, May 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Page H2291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NEW YORK STATE'S REJECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION PIPELINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Bridenstine) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, during the winter months, natural gas 
demand in New York City outstrips the ability of existing pipelines to 
deliver natural gas from the nearby Marcellus gas field in 
Pennsylvania. This capacity limitation can cause gas prices to spike 
during cold weather. For example, on January 22, 2014, when the price 
in the Marcellus was $3.50 per thousand cubic feet, the New York City 
price was $123. I want to repeat that; $3.50 in the Marcellus, and in 
New York City the price was $123.
  Constraints on natural gas make electricity more expensive. High 
energy prices are especially hard on the poor. Businesses suffer and 
jobs are lost when they lack abundant supply of affordable, clean 
energy. However, there is a shovel-ready solution: build the 
Constitution pipeline to bring more of Pennsylvania's Marcellus gas to 
New York.
  You would think that New York would welcome a new supply of clean, 
economical natural gas to lower consumer costs. However, on April 22, 
New York's State Department of Environmental Conservation denied the 
construction of the Constitution pipeline needed to deliver more 
Pennsylvania gas.
  For several years, the Constitution Pipeline Company, a group led by 
Williams Partners, located in my district, has been developing an $875 
million privately funded project to build a pipeline from Pennsylvania 
to Albany to deliver gas to the Iroquois pipeline and to consumers in 
New York State and in New England.

                              {time}  1100

  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a certificate of 
public convenience and necessity for the Constitution pipeline in 2014. 
I want to repeat that. FERC approves of the pipeline. According to the 
company, FERC's final environmental review of the proposed pipeline 
concluded that environmental impacts would be reduced to ``less than 
significant levels.'' A year and a half later, the State of New York 
decided to deny certification necessary to issue construction permits.
  The Williams Group worked with the State for 3 years, including two 
1-year extensions requested by the State, and yet the State asserted 
that information provided by the company concerning the 250 or so 
stream crossings was incomplete.
  The company refuted the State of New York's assertions, saying: 
``Completely contrary to the New York DEC's assertion, we provided 
detailed drawings and profiles for every stream crossing in New York, 
including showing depth of pipe. In fact, all stream crossings were 
fully vetted with the DEC throughout the review process. We are 
appalled . . .''
  Amazingly, Federal regulations provide no recourse to challenge a 
State's rejection of a section 401 certification, so Constitution 
Pipeline may need to initiate legal action to contest the decision. The 
decision has every appearance of political motivation. The Wall Street 
Journal called it ``Cuomo's Energy Jobs Veto.''
  One has to wonder if the Governor of New York really wants to help 
the poor and if he can recognize a shovel-ready job when he sees one. 
This pipeline project would create 2,400 construction jobs and infuse 
$130 million of labor income into the region, in addition to providing 
a reliable supply of clean energy. The real victims in this matter, Mr. 
Speaker, are the people of New York.
  Hopefully, political agendas that threaten to deny New Yorkers the 
benefits of the Constitution pipeline will be confounded. In the 
meantime, the message from New York's executive branch is that would-be 
energy suppliers to New York State need not apply. It appears to be 
time for consumers and their representatives to make their views known 
in Albany and for Congress--that is us--to revisit the pipeline 
permitting process.

                          ____________________