Pipeline proposal affects all Ohioans

Duke Energy’s Jim Henning omitted many important facts from his Sept. 23 op-ed “Project would serve Duke Energy Ohio customers,” in which he argued for a massive new natural-gas transmission pipeline in southwest Ohio. I represent Neighbors Opposing the Pipeline Extension (NOPE), a group that’s been fighting Duke’s plans for more than a year.

Henning claimed this pipeline will bring “tremendous benefits to consumers and businesses across southwest Ohio.” Lower energy bills, however, are not among those supposed benefits, since customers will be asked to cover the project’s $100 million cost through rate hikes.

Nonetheless, Henning argued that this project is necessary to meet the area’s energy needs, but the area’s population is in decline, and that existing pipeline infrastructure already meets the area’s needs on all but a handful of cold winter days. On those days, Duke uses propane air peaking plants to provide extra energy, and Henning said those plants are now “functionally obsolete.” He didn’t note that Duke recently spent $28 million to upgrade them, nor that Duke will be upgrading other transmission lines in the area to supply more natural gas, raising further questions about why his company needs an entirely new pipeline as well.

Henning did allude to the safety concerns of residents who will live in this pipeline’s path, describing several safety features, maintenance plans, and other rules that Duke Energy is required to follow. But he did not acknowledge that third-party damage to natural gas pipelines increased by 36 percent in Ohio last year, for a total of 4,756 reported cases. Almost half of those cases were caused by improper excavation procedures, which are precisely what residents are worried about when a major new transmission line gets placed in a densely populated area.

These errors of omission may not matter much to Duke Energy. The Ohio Power Siting Board staff already has recommended that the state approve the project, and siting board members could not be bothered to attend their own public hearing on the matter over the summer. The OPSB staff has accepted Duke’s arguments about “need” at face value, and has not investigated cheaper, less-intrusive options. The project is on hold only due to a major oversight on the part of both Duke and the siting board: One of Duke’s proposed routes crosses within 150 feet of a toxic chemical Superfund environmentalremediation site. Somehow neither Duke nor the siting board recognized this when Duke first filed its application a year ago.

But while Duke may be looking forward to a rubber stamp, Ohio residents should be paying attention. They might be forced to defend themselves against an energy company with monopoly privileges, overseen by a state government that only provides the most cursory level of regulation.

This will not be the last time Ohio residents are asked to shoulder the burden of excessive and unnecessary pipeline infrastructure, incentivized by a glut of fracked natural gas. But good luck getting Henning or anyone else at Duke Energy to acknowledge that.

Elizabeth Rueve-Miller Blue Ash