homeImg3.jpg

Memorandum in Opposition - A.6863-B/S.4921-B

Energy Coalition New York opposes the subject legislation which would amend the public health law and the public service law to require gas corporations to continuously monitor radon levels at each natural gas delivery point and to not distribute natural gas that exceeds required radon levels. The Commissioner of Health is empowered to shut off natural gas at any delivery point which is not in compliance with the requirements on levels of radon. ­

Energy Coalition New York consists of New York State's major gas and electric utility companies: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, National Grid, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation. Coalition companies collectively employ more than 32,000 people, service more than 8.5 million customers and pay more than $3 billion in state and local taxes, assessments and fees. The member companies annually invest billions of dollars to make capital improvements to the electric and natural gas infrastructure located in New York State.

Legislation is not necessary because the issue of radon levels in Marcellus gas traveling to New York was addressed when it was raised as part of the recent New Jersey-New York Expansion Project. During the proceeding for that project the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that radon levels in natural gas delivered by the expansion project from the Marcellus to New York City would be low and "not likely to be of concern to suppliers or customers."[1]

Actual samples collected from the pipeline delivering natural gas from the Marcellus to New York City by an independent environmental engineering company and analyzed by an independent commercial laboratory "clearly show that the radon levels in the natural gas are low and will cause no significant health risk." This sampling data supports FERC's conclusion in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the New Jersey-New York Expansion Project that radon in natural gas delivered to New York is low and is not likely to pose concerns for customers.[2]

This bill requires the gas distribution company to implement a radon mitigation response program to ensure radon levels required by the legislation. There are no specific requirements for a mitigation response program other than a prohibition on building storage facilities.

Radon mitigation, if an issue, should be addressed at the federal and transmission levels. The appropriate actions to mitigate the level of radon in natural gas should be accomplished at the point where the gas enters into the interstate pipeline for transport, not at distribution. There are no effective mitigation responses at the distribution level. Any problem, if existent, should be resolved upstream in the pipeline. This bill would authorize the Commissioner of the Department of Health to shut off gas delivery where a gas corporation is not in compliance with radon levels or monitoring requirements. This action would result in significant health, safety and economic consequences if enforced.

The cost for gas and combination electric and gas corporations to implement testing facilities at each entry point of natural gas into New York would be significant. These costs would result in considerable increases in monthly utility bills. Furthermore, the cost to the State to monitor testing practices would also be considerable. Actual independent sampling "clearly show that the radon levels in the natural gas are low and will cause no significant health risk."[3] Therefore, this legislation is unnecessary at this time without definitive research which finds a health risk to customers.

ECNY companies are concerned about the health of their customers but any action should be based on definitive conclusions about direct health impacts and a regulatory regime in response which prescribes a meaningful course of action.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that this bill not receive favorable action.


[1]
FERC Docket No. CP11-56, 17 (July 5, 2012) "Expert Testimony submitted by Lynn R. Anspaugh ("FERC")

[2]
FERC, supra at 26

[3]
FERC, supra at 26