Is Kinder Morgan the Right

Choice For New England?

Heres What Kinder Morgan Wants:
! A 400+ mile major new pipeline infrastructure project stretching across 5 states.
! At 1460 psi, this would be one of highest pressure gas lines in USA. The 30-inch

diameter pipe could transport up to 1.3 billion cubic feet of gas daily. An accident
or rupture of the high pressure pipeline could cause a blast zone with a diameter
of 1800 feet.
! The proposal would increase the natural gas pipeline capacity used in New

England dramatically at a time when the MA Global Warming Solutions Act and
the Federal Clean Power Plan call for a drastic reduction in our reliance on fossil
fuels by 2030.
! If approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Kinder

Morgan/Tennessee Gas Pipeline can take any land it wants by eminent

domain. But, it will take and pay only for right-of-way easement for the pipeline,
not for the permanent damage it will cause homeowners, protected conservation
land, wildlife management areas, and state park land. State and local
governments are powerless to overrule FERC.
! New England electric consumers to pay for capacity on the pipeline in a

questionable scheme that will likely lead to long term legal challenges.

Why Kinder Morgan Wants It:

At 3-4 times the size required to serve New England's average needs for 2029, Kinder
Morgans overbuild will allow it to provide pipeline transportation capacity for overseas
export of gas via LNG facilities in New Brunswick, Canada.
Kinder Morgan would rather build brand new and major expansions of rights of way
rather than upgrading 50-year old pipelines in their existing and poorly maintained rights
of way that are at greater risk for leaks and explosions.
Rates of return allowed by FERC for pipelines are typically in the 10-12% per year
range. With a $4 billion pipeline investment, Kinder Morgan could earn a guaranteed
return of $400 million annually. No wonder Kinder Morgan has spent $300,000 on
lobbying on Beacon Hill already this year. One of Kinder Morgan's corporate lobbyist
is behind the Coalition to Lower Energy Costs, a non-profit organization pushing for a
large scale gas infrastructure project.

We Don't Need This Gigantic Pipeline

We have plenty of capacity already - even during peak demand periods - if we make use of all of our
current resources including existing underutilized LNG facilities. In their August 2013 report to
NESCOE, the organization representing the collective energy interests of the six New England states,
Black & Veatch estimated that a daily average of 360 million more cubic feet per day of gas could be
needed by 2029 to meet the demands of a moderate growth scenario. At 1.3 billion cubic feet per day,
Kinder Morgan's proposal is 3-4 times larger than that!

Pipeline capacity problems do exist during peak periods but other pipeline companies are offering to
help relieve bottlenecks in less intrusive ways. There is not a gas capacity problem if LNG facilities are
factored into the planning even if an additional .33 billion cubic feet per day of gas is needed to fuel
gas-fired plants to replace the Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim nuclear and Brayton Point coal plants.

Kinder Morgan positions the proposed pipeline as way to lower energy cost yet when pressed they
admit there is no guarantee energy costs will go down. Increased regulation of shale gas extraction is
likely to increase future gas cost. Expected connection to LNG export terminals in Canada does
nothing to reduce rates in New England. In fact, expanding exports is likely to dramatically increase
gas prices here. A 2014 study by Energy Information Administration projected a cost increase of up to
45% in a high export scenario.

We Can Have A Clean Energy Future

We can do better --- for our communities --- for our region --- for our world.
We should not be deepening our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when we need
to be transitioning to a cleaner energy future.
Let's stop the current government handouts to oil and natural gas corporations and increase tax
incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Let's support the Massachusetts Global
Warming Solution Act and the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan.

Let's make Energy Efficiency as our foremost priority. Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the US
Economy , a 2009 McKinsey Company report identified energy efficiency as a vast, low-cost energy
resource for the U.S. economy. Massachusetts has been the nationwide leader in energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency programs save consumers money NOW. According to a UMASS study, every $1
spent on efficiency saves consumers up to $4. Investments in renewables and efficiencies are fueling
the rapid growth of good local jobs across many sectors.
Clean energy job growth in Massachusetts has grown by double digits in recent years, with over
100,000 people currently employed. Contrast that with about 3000 temporary jobs, many for out-of
state residents with specialized skills for pipeline construction, that Kinder Morgan projects for its
project.

Gas distribution companies need to fix leaks in their current system before contracting for new
pipeline capacity. According to CLF, 1,725 million cubic feet of gas was lost through leaks in 2010 in
Massachusetts - enough to supply 18,000 homes annually. And gas consumers pay for this wasted gas
- $38.8 million annually. Let's insist gas distribution companies pay for improvements now.

Kinder Morgan is Not the Only Game in Town

Kinder Morgan admits that there are other projects that can help meet any gas supply needs:
"...without the proposed Project, other natural gas transmission companies will be required to
increase their capacity and construct new facilities to meet the existing and growing demand
for the additional transportation capacity. Such action will only result in the transference of
environmental impacts from one project to another but will not eliminate such impacts in their
entirety." (Kinder Morgan, NED Resource Report 10 - Alternatives, July 2015, p. 10-2 )
The MA Attorney General's office listed specific projects in October 16th comments to the FERC:

In addition, LNG import and storage facilities can play a key role on the few days per winter when
pipelines are near capacity and can be a much cheaper option compared to the take or pay
requirements of pipeline capacity agreements. A recent study estimated that effective use of LNG
facilities rather than contracting for new pipeline capacity could save New England ratepayers $70
million annually and up to $4.4 billion over 20 years.

Let's Take A Closer Look at All Our Options

What Can You Do Next?
Add your voice to the growing numbers calling on FERC to undertake a comprehensive review of all
the pipeline projects proposed for New England to determine the true need and what is the least cost,
lowest impact solution. U.S. Rep. Tsongas (MA), U.S. Rep. Kuster (NH), Attorney General Healey's
office, MA Senate President Rosenberg, and the Conservation Law Foundation are among the
individuals and groups already asking for this review.
Work with interest groups across the region to
Position North Central MA at the forefront of the rapidly expanding Clean Energy Industry.
Secure an affordable, safe and reliable clean energy future for our businesses and residents.

Questions? Want to learn more about how you can help?

Email: saneenergy4MA@gmail.com