New Hampshire's Granite Bridge Gas Pipeline, United States

Fracking companies produce demand for natural gas in order to expand infrastructure. New Hampshire residents do not fall for the ruse.


Description

The 40-year Granite Brige Pipeline would cost $340 million and transport liquid natural gas (LNG) across the state of New Hampshire. Presumably to meet increasing energy demands, local residents have raised their voices against the pipeline, in favor of renewable energy, energy conservation, and keeping fossil fuels and natural gas in the soil.  The pipeline, if approved, is slated to be built along the picturesque and historic Route 101, within a right of way, from Manchester to Exeter. It was cross through 5 towns including Auburn, Brentwood, Candia, Epping, Exeter, Manchester, and Raymond. A 170-foot tank that would store 2 billion cubic feet of liquid natural gas (methane) is slated to be built in Epping, NH, not far from a daycare center and other public facilities and homes. 

See more...
Basic Data
NameNew Hampshire's Granite Bridge Gas Pipeline, United States
CountryUnited States of America
ProvinceNew Hampshire
SiteStratham to Manchester, NH (with 2 billion cubic-feet liquid nat gas storage tank in Epping)
Accuracy of LocationMEDIUM regional level
Source of Conflict
Type of Conflict (1st level)Fossil Fuels and Climate Justice/Energy
Type of Conflict (2nd level)Shale gas fracking
Transport infrastructure networks (roads, railways, hydroways, canals and pipelines)
Specific CommoditiesWater
Electricity
Natural Gas
Project Details and Actors
Project DetailsThe proposed pipeline would stretch 26 miles from Manchester to Exeter. The NH government claims that the energy infrastructure from the pipeline is essential to meet the growing energy demands of the state. The gas being transported is sourced from fracked gas reserves throughout the country. Pipeline approval has remained within the jurisdiction of the state, and local residents abutting the proposed site have not been able to comment on the pipeline development due to laws ensuring eminent domain. Despite the promise of tax revenues to the towns along the pipeline, there have not been sufficient evaluations of losses to property value for those impacted by the pipeline's insertion.
Project Area (in hectares)3,800
Level of Investment (in USD)340,000,000
Type of PopulationRural
Potential Affected Population156000
Start Date01/03/2018
Company Names or State EnterprisesLiberty Utilities from United States of America
Energy North Natural Gas from United States of America
Relevant government actorsNH Public Utilities Commission (NHPUC)

US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Rockingham Planning Commission
Environmental justice organisations and other supportersPipeline Awareness Network for the Northeast Inc (PLAN)

Conservation Law Foundation

Office of Consumer Advocates

350.org
The Conflict and the Mobilization
Intensity of Conflict (at highest level)LOW (some local organising)
When did the mobilization beginPREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase)
Groups MobilizingFarmers
International ejos
Local ejos
Neighbours/citizens/communities
Women
Recreational users
Local scientists/professionals
Forms of MobilizationDevelopment of a network/collective action
Development of alternative proposals
Involvement of national and international NGOs
Public campaigns
Referendum other local consultations
Impacts
Environmental ImpactsPotential: Air pollution, Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Fires, Global warming, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Noise pollution, Soil contamination, Waste overflow, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Groundwater pollution or depletion
Health ImpactsPotential: Other environmental related diseases, Other Health impacts
Otherasthma due to methane
Socio-economic ImpactsPotential: Land dispossession, Other socio-economic impacts
Outcome
Project StatusProposed (exploration phase)
Pathways for conflict outcome / responseNew legislation
Strengthening of participation
New Environmental Impact Assessment/Study
Development of AlternativesEJOs, local citizens, and scholars from UNH are proposing that the state of New Hampshire reduce its energy demand and transition to 100% renewable energy.
Do you consider this as a success?Not Sure
Why? Explain briefly.While the citizenry have erected one road block - by requiring the population of Epping to vote on the placement of the LNG storage in their town - this does not preclude the installation of the pipeline. More will be seen towards the end of 2019.
Sources and Materials
Legislations

PUC Schedule of Events for Pipeline APproval
[click to view]

References

Utility Accommodation Manual - for right of way
[click to view]

Links

[1] Granite Bridge Pipeline Corporate Website
[click to view]

350NH
[click to view]

Rockinham Planning Commission Website
[click to view]

NH Environmental Justice Network
[click to view]

Other Documents

Stop Granite Bridge Pipeline Sign Stop Granite Bridge Pipeline Sign
[click to view]

Meta Information
ContributorJulie Snorek, [email protected], Environmental Justice Atlas Contributor
Last update12/06/2019
Comments