The initial start-up for Energy Transfer Partners LP's (ETP) Rover Pipeline could be pushed back to "late summer" due to recent regulatory setbacks, the company said Monday.
ETP/Rover spokeswoman Alexis Daniel told NGI’s Shale Daily that "as a result of our continued efforts to work with" the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), "we are anticipating that the Phase 1 section has the potential for an in-service date of late summer of 2017. At this time we do not anticipate any delays to the November 2017 in-service date on Phase 2."
Daniel was responding to a question about last week's letter from FERC Office of Energy Projects Director Terry Turpin, which outlined several clean-up and mitigation activities ETP/Rover would have to complete before receiving in-service authorization.Click here to read more.
Also from another NGI article:
Rover Pipeline LLC and parent Energy Transfer Partners LP violated the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and FERC regulations by not disclosing plans to acquire and demolish an historic home in Ohio that was located near a planned compressor station, Commission staff has alleged.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Enforcement issued a notice of alleged violations Thursday stating that it "has preliminarily determined" ETP/Rover failed to satisfy "a forthright obligation" that applicants for FERC certificates "set forth all information necessary to advise the Commission" in evaluating a project application.
"Staff has preliminarily determined that, between February 2015 and September 2016, Rover did not fully and forthrightly disclose all relevant information to the Commission in its Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and attendant filings" in the project docket [CP15-93], FERC wrote. "Specifically, in the Application and other docketed filings, Rover falsely promised it would avoid adverse effects to a historic resource that it was simultaneously working to purchase and destroy.
"Rover subsequently made several misstatements in its docketed response to the Commission's questions about why it had purchased and demolished the resource."Continue that article by clicking here.
Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!