Rep.

Kuster: Kinder Morgan Pipeline is a bad deal for New Hampshire

As the Representative for New Hampshires Second District, it is my responsibility to look out for
the best interests of my constituents. This is a responsibility that I do not take lightly. Over the
past year and a half, I have been engaging in a deliberative process regarding the Northeast Energy
Direct Pipeline (NED), a natural gas project that proposes to build a 70-mile pipeline that would
cut through 17 New Hampshire towns.
As I have assessed the project, I have met and spoken on countless occasions with Kinder Morgan
officials, representatives from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), local business
and community leaders, energy policy experts, constituent stakeholders, and residents from
affected communities. It is important to me that I hear directly from my constituents, and that is
why I chose to visit many of the critical sites along the proposed route of the NED Pipeline.
Based on what I have seen, heard and learned about the proposed pipeline, I do not believe this
project serves the best interests of the Granite State and its residents.
My extensive research on NED has led me to find ways to leverage the voices of my constituents
to impact Kinder Morgans pre-filing process with FERC. I have signed onto eight letters with the
full New Hampshire delegation to extend the comment period, hold additional open houses in the
impacted communities, and voice other concerns from our constituents.
Additionally, I have sent several letters of my own to express my concerns about the proposed
NED route. Most recently, I led colleagues representing four New England states in signing a
letter to FERC requesting a regional assessment of energy projects to analyze regional need and
prevent overbuild given other proposed energy infrastructure projects currently under
consideration in New England.
This regional assessment has been important to me because New England shares an electricity
grid, and we all feel the impact of losing energy sources and adding new ones. Furthermore, the
cost of these projects is typically borne by all New England ratepayers.
Throughout this process, I have made it clear that I am in favor of bringing additional clean energy
sources to our region while preserving the rural character and safety of our communities.
However, it is critical that we are intentional and thoughtful about every project that is proposed
and how it impacts our states future.
NED crosses crucial public water supplies, cuts across rivers, puts at risk the many private wells
that are ubiquitous across southern New Hampshire, and impacts pristine conservation lands and
state parks. In addition to these concerns, the NED project creates a safety and security burden on
small towns along the proposed route - many of which possess limited emergency response
resources in the event of an incident with the pipeline or compressor station. Furthermore, Granite
Staters understand that the overwhelming majority of gas moved through the pipeline will go to
other states.
Recently, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, filed a certificate of
public convenience and necessity with FERC that will trigger a year-long environmental review

by the agency. As the sole agency in charge of citing natural gas pipelines in the United States, it
is the FERC Commissioners who will ultimately decide if the NED project is in the best interest of
the public.
As the Federal representative for 15 of the 17 New Hampshire towns located along the route of the
NED pipeline, I have concluded that this project does not provide sufficient benefits to New
Hampshire families and businesses to justify the disruption and long-term negative impacts to our
communities. In the coming weeks, I will be filing my opposition to the project with FERC, and I
will urge the agency to deny the issuance of a permit for the NED project.
Throughout the evaluation process, I have aimed to be fair, open and accessible when listening to
both supporters and opponents of the NED project. However, without tangible evidence of
substantial economic gains to the communities that are affected, I have not seen enough evidence
to justify the potential damage. Given that there are less invasive projects being proposed in New
England, I believe that the NED Pipeline, as it is proposed, is the wrong vehicle for bringing
meaningful reductions in wholesale electricity costs in New Hampshire.
I am adding my voice to the thousands of citizens who have filed their opposition to the NED
Pipeline with FERC. I implore FERC to take into account the potential damage to our water
resources, our conservation lands and our environment when making a final decision on this
project. I believe that when taking these factors into consideration, FERC should see that the
NED project is not in the best interest of New Hampshire families.