HEARING REMARKS

08/11/2015
Good evening:
My name is Michael Payette, and I appreciate this opportunity to voice my concerns about the
proposed pipeline, which are as follows.
One of the alleged benefits of this project is that the added supply the pipeline will provide
will cover any shortfalls currently experienced. The truth is that our current supply of Natural
Gas meets our needs on all but a few of the coldest days of the winter, which can be offset in
many ways.
We should continue using LNG as we already do during the winter months. We can
continue to liquefy pipeline gas at facilities in Boston, Hopkinton, and Connecticut for
winter use. In fact, the gas companies have plans to update all of these facilities!
We can access stored LNG from imports at ports along the Maritimes Northeast pipeline
that flows into Dracut from Canaport in New Brunswick, the largest import terminal
now in use.
We can access compressed gas storage now being built right along the Halifax Lateral in
Nova Scotia & Northeast pipeline that is under-utilized, and that already feeds from
Canada into Dracut.
If our gas companies contract for this storage, it will be available some time in 2018 at
a cost that could be even lower, with less overall environmental impact, than building a
400 mile greenfield pipeline across three states that would remove thousands of acres of
trees and put compression stations right next to the homes of many of my East Dracut
neighbors.
One of the allegations made by Kinder Morgan was that we should not be using LNG to meet
peak demand, citing scarcity of space to dock the tankers. A report funded by Kinder Morgan
released in June stated, Siting new port facilities to receive tankers has long been a
contentious issue. [1]
This argument doesnt hold up. There is no siting problem because we have two mostly unused
terminals, built in 2008, located off the coast of Gloucester.
[1] http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_28379094/beacon-hill-institutesees-economic-benefit-building-kinder
Kinder Morgan is also telling law makers that LNG is 5x as expensive as other fuels. Not true.
On peak days when it is really needed, LNG has often been less expensive than the natural gas
prices in all of New England.
It would also seem that the case for this pipeline has been built on questionable demand
forecasts. The ISO NE has issued predictions that power demand will go up. In reality, thanks to

the switch to energy efficient bulbs and appliances, and the proliferation of Solar Panels on
many homes in the area, power demand has gone down by 6% since 2005 and the need for
power generation has declined by over 15%, and continues to decline.
So why do we need a pipeline again?
I would respectfully request that FERC use the more realistic estimates for both power
generation demand and heating demand for natural gas, which were incorporated into the
recent Maine PUC study, conducted by London Economics. This study validates our contention
that this pipeline has been proposed to serve a need that simply does not exist.
Finally I ask that FERC use all due diligence reviewing statements made by Kinder Morgan on
projected future gas prices. Current Winter Gas futures prices are down over 40% from last
year, which is contrary to the message they have been spreading via the media.
FERC should view the high cost of LNG as a temporary occurrence driven by events in Japan
like the shutdown if their nuclear reactors in 2013, not as an indication that the usefulness of
LNG as a bridge fuel to the future has ended.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address the Commission."