DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC.
New Market Project
RESOURCE REPORT NO. 10
Alternatives
FERC Docket No. CP14-____-000
Filed June 2, 2014
Prepared By:
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FERC REPORT INFORMATION
Address the "no action" alternative.
•
Discuss the costs and benefits associated with the alternative.
For large Projects, address the effect of energy conservation or energy
alternatives to the Project.
§380.12(l)(1)
Report Reference or
Not Applicable
Section 10.2
§380.12(l)(1)
Section 10.2
Identify system alternatives considered during the identification of the
Project and provide the rationale for rejecting each alternative.
•
Discuss the costs and benefits associated with each alternative
Identify major and minor route alternatives considered to avoid impact on
sensitive environmental areas (e.g., wetlands, parks, or residences) and
provide sufficient comparative data to justify the selection of the proposed
route.
•
For onshore projects near to offshore areas, be sure to address
alternatives using offshore routings.
Identify alternative sites considered for the location of major new
aboveground facilities and provide sufficient comparative data to justify the
selection of the proposed site.
§380.12(l)(1)
Section 10.3
§380.12(l)(3)
Not applicable.
§380.12(l)(3)
Section 10.4
Topic
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FERC Reference
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
RESOURCE REPORT 10 – ALTERNATIVES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
10.0
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
10.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................2
10.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................2
10.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................4
10.4 COMPRESSOR STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................5
10.5 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................15
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Figure 10-1
Figure 10-2
Figure 10-3
Figure 10-4
Figure 10-5
PAGE
Project Overview Map .............................................................................................7
Site Location of Proposed Horseheads Compressor Station, Chemung County .....8
Site Location of Proposed Sheds Compressor Station, Madison County ..............11
Horseheads Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site ................................13
Sheds Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site .........................................14
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
Table 10-1 Horseheads Compressor Station Site Alternatives Comparison ..................................9
Table 10-2 Sheds Compressor Station Site Alternatives Comparison..........................................12
10-i
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
LIST OF ACRONYMS
EIA
DOE
Mdt/day
DTI
FERC
hp
LOD
NSA
NYSDEC
Project
USEPA
USGS
Energy Information Administration
U.S. Department of Energy
thousand dekatherms per day
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
horsepower
limits of disturbance
noise sensitive area
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New Market Project
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Geological Survey
10-ii
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
RESOURCE REPORT 10 – ALTERNATIVES
10.0
INTRODUCTION
Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) is planning to install both new facilities and make
changes to existing natural gas transmission facilities, called the New Market Project
(Project). The Project consists of various new facilities and changes to existing gas
transmission facilities in Chemung, Tompkins, Madison, Herkimer, Montgomery and
Schenectady Counties, New York.
Specifically, DTI proposes to construct the following new facilities:
•
•
Horseheads Compressor Station (Chemung County) – a new 11,010 horsepower
(hp) compressor station;
Sheds Compressor Station (Madison County) – a new 10,880 hp compressor
station.
In addition, DTI proposes to make changes to the following existing facilities:
•
•
•
•
Brookman Corners Compressor Station (Montgomery County) – additional
compression of approximately 11,133 hp; installation of additional coolers and
other equipment, replacement of certain equipment.
Borger Compressor Station (Tompkins County) – installation of additional
coolers, and pipe crossover work.
Utica Compressor Station (Herkimer County) – installation of additional coolers.
West Schenectady Meter Station (Schenectady County) - meter station upgrades.
A list and mapping of Project components and their locations is provided in Resource
Report 1 - Project Description.
An analysis was performed to determine whether there are any reasonable alternatives to
the proposed Project. The following criteria were utilized in the alternatives analysis:
•
•
•
Does the alternative meet the purpose and need of the Project?
Is the alternative technically and/or economically feasible and practicable?
Does the alternative offer significant environmental advantages?
This Resource Report summarizes the alternatives analysis for the proposed Project.
Section 10.1 describes the Project’s purpose and need. Section 10.2 describes the NoAction Alternative. Section 10.3 discusses system alternatives that were considered.
Section 10.4 discusses compressor station site alternatives. Lastly, Section 10.5 lists the
references used in the preparation of this Resource Report.
10-1
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
10.1
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
PURPOSE AND NEED
DTI’s purpose and need for the Project is to provide additional natural gas supplies to
customers along DTI’s existing system in the State of New York. The proposed Project
is designed to flow an additional 112,000 thousand dekatherms per day (Mdt/d) for
delivery at the Brookman Corners Station and at the West Schenectady Meter Station
(see map of Project components and locations in Resource Report 1 – Project
Description). DTI anticipates construction to commence by September 1, 2015, and an
in-service date of November 1, 2016.
10.2
NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The No-Action Alternative would result in not implementing the proposed Project and
would avoid the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the
Project; however, the Project objectives (purpose and need) would not be met. Under this
scenario, the volumes of gas requested for transfer into the recipient pipeline systems
would not be accommodated.
The No-Action Alternative would likely require the use of other energy sources to meet
the portion of the growing demand that would not be met by the Project. DTI evaluated
the feasibility of using alternative sources of energy to satisfy the need intended to be
served by the Project, such as the use of other fossil fuels (i.e., fuel oil and coal),
hydroelectric power, wind, geothermal, wood and other biomass, solar, and nuclear.
Because energy demand is projected to increase (Energy Information Administration
[EIA] 2014) through 2040, the use of these energy alternatives, whether alone or in
combination, is not anticipated to provide a commercially viable and environmentally
preferable alternative to the Project in the near term.
The use or increased use of alternative fossil fuel sources (i.e., fuel oil and coal) would
have their own environmental impacts associated with their extraction, refinement,
transportation, and end use. Natural gas has many attributes that make its use more
attractive than other fossil fuel sources. Overall, natural gas is the most readily available,
dependable, economically viable, and environmentally acceptable fuel for residential,
commercial, and industrial markets. Relative to natural gas, reliance on liquid fuels or
coal to generate electricity would result in higher emissions of air pollutants, such as
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide, as well as carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases, leading to reductions in air quality and increases in global
warming.
Coal is a readily available alternative energy source to natural gas in the Project area.
However, coal extraction results in increased environmental impacts compared to natural
gas. Coal extraction sites are also subject to potential land subsidence and require longterm and expensive land reclamation. The burning of coal also requires disposal of the
resulting ash, whereas this by-product is not created through the use of natural gas. The
use of coal as an energy alternative is not preferred because of the increased long-term
environmental impacts associated with the extraction and combustion of coal compared
to natural gas.
10-2
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
Hydroelectric power generation is also not considered to be viable as an alternative
energy source to natural gas. The Project region does not have a high potential for
hydroelectric power generation, even using low head/low power technologies. Although
efficiency upgrades at existing hydroelectric power generation facilities are expected to
produce incremental additions of electric power in the coming years, environmental
concerns and a scarcity of new large-scale sites will limit conventional hydroelectric
power production. Therefore, it is unlikely that new and/or significant hydroelectric
power generation facilities will be developed in the region or available as a reliable
alternative to natural gas.
Other renewable energy sources, such as wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar are not
considered viable alternative energy sources to natural gas, as they are not widely
available in the region, are not available in sufficient quantities to support market
requirements, and are not always reliable. Renewable energy sources are expected to
play an increasingly prominent role in meeting United States energy demands in the
coming years. Federal, state, and local incentives and continuing research will likely
contribute to an increase in the availability and cost effectiveness of these renewable
energy sources. Despite the growing support for renewable energy, significant long-term
investment and advances in technology and development are necessary before these
sources could potentially offset a substantial portion of the projected national energy
demand. Therefore, renewable energy sources will not provide sufficient energy supplies
in the near future to eliminate the need for the Project.
Nuclear power is not considered to be viable as an alternative energy source to natural
gas. Although existing nuclear power plants are expected to continue operating through
2040, the EIA predicts that the total share of generation from nuclear plants would fall
from 19 percent in 2010 to 16 percent in 2040 (EIA 2014). Because of the prohibitive
costs associated with development of new nuclear facilities, it is unlikely that new
nuclear power plants would be sited and developed to serve the targeted markets within a
timeframe that would meet Project objectives. Accordingly, the possible use of nuclear
energy as a replacement for natural gas is not readily available at this time.
In conclusion, the use of alternative energy sources is not considered a viable, costeffective, or environmentally-preferred alternative to meet Project objectives, and
therefore was not selected.
DTI evaluated the feasibility of using energy conservation measures as an alternative to
the proposed Project. However, energy conservation alone would not fully obviate the
need for the Project. According to the EIA, although conservation measures aid in
reducing current demand for natural gas, the reductions possible through conservation
measures alone are not anticipated to meet total current or future demand for natural gas
(EIA 2014). Conservation methods are neither uniformly mandated nor followed.
Current energy conservation efforts, including the ENERGY STAR program (the joint
effort between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S.
Department of Energy (USDOE) that identifies cost-effective, energy-efficient products
10-3
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
that are designed to save consumers money, reduce energy consumption and help protect
the environment), will aid in reducing the amount of natural gas used in the production of
a dollar’s worth of economic output. In addition, local natural gas distribution companies
typically provide its customers with information and incentives for energy conservation,
including programs that promote the benefits of conservation through education, rebate
offers, and targeted low-income initiatives. However, conservation does not negate the
need for the Project. Therefore, energy conservation is not considered a viable Project
alternative solely by itself, in consideration of the Project objectives.
10.3
SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
As defined by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) guidance manual for
environmental report preparation (FERC 2002), system alternatives are those alternatives
that could meet the objectives of the Project, but would use a different (often existing)
system or a different configuration of facilities that would obviate the need to construct
all or part of the project. FERC requires that system alternatives be analyzed for large
projects and for projects where there are significant concerns about the disturbance of
particular resources.
The point of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine if the potential
environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of the proposed
facilities could be avoided or minimized by using an existing pipeline system.
Environmental considerations with system alternatives include, but are not limited to,
new right-of-way requirements, land use effects, and stream and wetland disturbances. A
system alternative could make it unnecessary to construct DTI’s Project; although
changes or additions to its system or another system may be required. While
modifications or additions to existing systems could result in environmental impact, this
impact may be less, the same, or more than the impact associated with the proposed
project.
The only other interstate natural gas pipelines in the vicinity of DTI’s system are operated
by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, Millennium Pipeline Company, L.P., and
Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. However, these pipeline systems operate near
full capacity and are fully subscribed. As such, these pipeline systems could not transport
the proposed volumes without constructing new facilities, which would include
compression and new pipeline. Consequently, these system alternatives would likely have
a similar if not greater impact than the proposed Project.
DTI performed hydraulic modeling of its system to identify various configurations that
might be capable of supplying the additional transportation services. DTI determined
that the Project’s objectives could be met by looping 1 or replacing segments of its
existing pipeline, along with adding compression at the existing Brookman Corners
1
A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows
more gas to be moved through the system.
10-4
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
Compressor Station. It should be noted that the environmental impacts of looping versus
replacing segments is essentially the same. This is because DTI’s contractual service
obligations to its customers preclude taking the existing pipeline out of service for any
significant period of time. Consequently, the replacement pipeline would need to be
constructed adjacent to the existing pipeline (similar to a loop) and readied for service
before the existing pipeline is taken out of service. This alternative would require
looping of approximately 75.8 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline and 11.8 miles of 30inch-diameter pipeline. Building this length of pipeline loop would have more
environmental impact than the proposed Project. Specifically, constructing 87.6 miles of
new pipeline loop would likely impact at least 796 acres of land, assuming a 75-footwide construction right-of-way is used. Additionally, only a portion of this land would
comprise existing right-of-way or areas that were disturbed by construction of the
original pipeline. Potential impacts could occur on forest land, wildlife habitat, wetlands,
and stream crossings. It would also have considerably higher air pollutant emissions
during construction than the proposed Project. Consequently, it was determined that
looping was not environmentally preferable compared to the Project. Additionally, the
cost of the looping alternative (estimated at approximately $464 million) was prohibitive
compared to the proposed Project (estimated at $159 million).
10.4
COMPRESSOR STATION SITE ALTERNATIVES
DTI conducted hydraulic modeling to determine where the new compressor stations
should be located to meet the Project’s objectives. This modeling determined that two
compressor stations were required: a western station in Chemung County (the
“Horseheads Compressor Station”) and an eastern station in Madison County (the “Sheds
Compressor Station”). DTI then narrowed the range of possible site locations by
applying site selection criteria with the goal of identifying compressor station sites that
would meet the Project’s technical and commercial requirements while minimizing
environmental impacts. For example, a site of at least 30 acres was desired in order to
reduce potential visual and aesthetic impacts, increase the distance of the station from
noise sensitive receptors, and provide a buffer against outside development and future
encroachment, compared to a site smaller than 30 acres. Figure 10-1 provides an
overview map of the proposed Horseheads Compressor Station, the Sheds Compressor
Station, and alternative sites that were considered.
After several potential sites for each compressor station were identified, DTI narrowed
the list by conducting desktop reviews, and where appropriate contacting landowners and
conducting field evaluations by engineers, surveyors, and environmental personnel. The
desktop analyses included a review of aerial photography, United States Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic maps, property maps, National Wetlands Inventory maps,
and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) maps. The
following subsections provide details regarding the site selection process and criteria that
were employed to determine the proposed sites for each compressor station.
10-5
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10.4.1 Horseheads Compressor Station Site Alternatives
Figure 10-2 shows the proposed site and the four (4) alternative sites that were considered
for the Horseheads Compressor Station. Table 10-1 presents the comparison of the
proposed site to the alternate sites specific to the criteria that were employed to determine
the best location to meet the Project’s technical and commercial requirements while
minimizing environmental impacts.
For a site to be selected, DTI believed there should be some indication that the property could be
reasonably obtained from the current landowners. Although section 7(h) of the Natural Gas Act
grants the Certificate holder the right to exercise eminent domain, it would be desirable
for the site to be available (such as by purchase, lease, or restrictive easement), to
minimize the use of eminent domain to secure land for aboveground Project facilities.
Various environmental issues that were considered in site selection included: land use
compatibility, wetland or waterbody impacts, presence of endangered or threatened
species or their critical habitat, and proximity to noise sensitive areas (NSAs) and
residential housing. Technical considerations included potential for flooding, suitable
topography, distance to the DTI pipeline, access to roads, and distance to electrical
power. The proposed site was determined to be the site that best met the Project
objectives. For the reasons stated below, DTI determined that the four alternative sites
should be eliminated from consideration for the Horseheads Compressor Station.
Alternative 1 (Vargo Road): Compared to the proposed location, this site has a higher
potential for wetland impacts, is nearly three times further from the DTI pipeline, has
several large, expensive houses nearby, and DTI was not able to make contact with the
property owner concerning the availability of the site. Because this site offered no
notable advantages over the proposed site, it was eliminated.
Alternative 2 (Airstrip): This property is located in a floodplain and therefore was
eliminated.
Alternative 3 (Hickory Grove Road): This site is within 0.5 miles of an elementary
school, within 0.5 miles of the Village of Horseheads, is nearly three times further from
the DTI pipeline than the proposed site, and has wetland concerns. Therefore, it was
eliminated.
Alternative 4 (Mallory Hill Road): This site offered no notable advantages over the
proposed site. Moreover, the owner of the site was not interested in selling the property
and therefore it was eliminated.
10-6
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10-7
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10-8
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
Table 10-1. Horseheads Compressor Station Site Alternatives Comparison
Site Alternatives
Site Selection Criteria
Current land use
Land ownership issues
Wetland or waterbody
impacts
Potential for flooding
Access driveway length
Distance from DTI
existing pipeline
Distance to nearest
Noise Sensitive Area
(NSA)
Number of surrounding
residences (within 0.5
mile)
Topography
Potential to affect
endangered or
threatened species, or
other sensitive wildlife
or fisheries
Access to public roads
and availability of
electrical power
Proposed Site
Agriculture
Forested
Alternative 1
(Vargo Road)
Agriculture
Scrub Shrub
None
identified
0.256 acres
Unknown
Low. Station
site 0.44 miles
from Bulkley
Creek
50 feet
Low. Station
Site about 0.40
miles from
Bulkley Creek
650 feet
0.27 miles
0.768 acres
Alternative 2
(Airstrip)
Airport,
Agriculture,
Forested,
Residential
Unknown
Alternative 3
(Hickory
Grove Road)
Forested
Scrub Shrub
Alternative 4
(Mallory Hill
Road)
Agricultural
Forested
Unknown
Owner not
willing to sell
Unlikely
depending on
LOD
Depends on
limits of
disturbance
(LOD)
High. Located
in floodplain
Depends on
LOD
Unlikely
High. Located
in floodplain
400 feet
40 feet
275 feet
0.62 miles
0.28 miles
0.70 miles
0.02 miles
792 feet from
station site
655 feet from
estimated
station site
530 feet from
estimated
station site
130 feet from
estimated
station site
986 feet from
estimated
station site
9 houses
15 houses
42 houses
100+ houses
27 houses
Suitable
Suitable
Suitable
Suitable
Suitable
None
identified
None
identified
None
identified
Near Reflexed
Sedge
(Endangered)
known area
None
identified
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
10-9
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10.4.2 Sheds Compressor Station Site Alternatives
Figure 10-3 shows the proposed site and the four (4) alternative sites that were considered
for the Sheds Compressor Station. Table 10-2 presents the comparison of the proposed
site to the alternate sites specific to the criteria that were employed to determine the best
location to meet the Project’s technical and commercial requirements while minimizing
environmental impacts. The same criteria that were employed for the Horseheads
Compressor Station site selection were utilized for the Sheds Compressor Station. The
proposed site was determined to be the site that best met the Project objectives. For the
reasons stated below, DTI determined that the four alternative sites should be eliminating
from consideration for the Sheds Compressor Station.
Alternative 1 (Fire Tower Road [Site #1 on Figure 10-3]): Compared to the proposed
location, this site has uneven terrain and issues with access roads and electric power. It is
also approximately twice as far from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. The site
offered no notable advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated.
Alternative 2 (Morrisville [Site #3 on Figure 10-3]): This property is located within
approximately 0.1 miles of the City of Morrisville. It is also approximately seven times
further from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. Additionally, this site offered no
notable advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated.
Alternative 3 (West Wilcox Road, West Eaton [Site #4 on Figure 10-3]): Compared to
the proposed location, this site had uneven terrain and issues with access roads and
electric power. It is also approximately three times further from the DTI pipeline than the
proposed site. The site offered no notable advantages over the proposed site and
therefore was eliminated.
Alternative 4 (DeRuyter [Site #5 on Figure 10-3]): This property is located within
approximately 0.4 miles of the City of DeRuyter and is also approximately twice as far
from the DTI pipeline than the proposed site. Additionally, this site offered no notable
advantages over the proposed site and therefore was eliminated.
10-10
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10-11
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
Table 10-2. Sheds Compressor Station Site Alternatives
Site Alternatives
Site Selection Criteria
Current land use
Land ownership issues
Wetland or waterbody
impacts
Potential for flooding
Access driveway length
Distance from DTI
existing pipeline
Distance to nearest
NSA
Number of surrounding
residences (within 0.5
mile)
Topography
Potential to affect
endangered or
threatened species, or
other sensitive wildlife
or fisheries
Access to public roads
and distance to
electrical power
Proposed Site
Agriculture
Forested
None
identified
None
identified
Alternative 1
(Fire Tower
Road)
[Site #1 on
Figure 10-3]
Agriculture
None
identified
None
identified
Alternative 2
(Morrisville)
[Site #3 on
Figure 10-3]
Forested
Agriculture
None
identified
None
identified
Alternative 3
(West Wilcox
Road, West
Eaton)
[Site #4 on
Figure 10-3]
Forested
None
identified
None
identified
Alternative 4
(DeRuyter)
[Site #5 on
Figure 10-3]
Agriculture
Forested
None
identified
None
identified
Possibility;
Adjacent to
Tioughnioga
Creek
60 feet
Possibly in a
floodplain
Very Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
500 feet
600 feet
1,400 feet
2,000 feet
250 feet
500 feet
1,830 ft
670 feet
470 feet
1,000 feet
1,200 feet
1,700 feet
13
2
700 feet;
Very close to
City of
Morrisville
15
2,000 feet;
Close to
Town of
DeRuyter
1
Suitable
Uneven
Terrain
None
identified
Suitable
Uneven
Terrain
None
identified
Suitable
Access roads
too small; no
power nearby
Good
Access road
needed; no
power nearby
Good
None
identified
Good
10-12
None
identified
3
None
identified
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10.4.3 Horseheads Compressor Station Location on Proposed Site.
Figure 10-4 shows the general location (footprint) of the Horseheads Compressor Station
on the proposed site. DTI evaluated other potential locations within the proposed site in
an effort to minimize any potential environmental impacts. Although other locations
within the proposed site would be suitable, they would require greater tree clearing,
decrease the proximity to potential wetlands, or be located on terrain that is lower and
more susceptible to flooding. Consequently, the location shown on Figure 10-4 was
determined to be the optimum location.
Figure 10-4. Horseheads Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site
(Note: DTI will purchase the existing house on the property, so no residents will be present and that house will be vacant or
removed.)
10-13
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
10.4.4 Sheds Compressor Location on Proposed Site.
Figure 10-5 shows the general location (footprint) of the Sheds Compressor Station on
the proposed site. DTI evaluated other potential locations within the proposed site in an
effort to minimize any potential environmental impacts. Although other locations within
the proposed site would be suitable, they would have a greater potential to impact
farmlands of state significance and would be closer to the existing residence on Wilcox
Road. Consequently, the location shown on Figure 10-5 was determined to be the
optimum location.
Figure 10-5. Sheds Compressor Station Footprint on Proposed Site
(Note: Landowner selling the property wants to keep and retain residence across the street/Wilcox Road. DTI moved the
proposed compressor station footprint further west from the initial concept, for additional distance between the station and the
residence. Residence will remain occupied at landowner decision and will be the nearest NSA.)
10-14
Resource Report 10 – Alternatives
10.5
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
New Market Project
REFERENCES
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. “Annual Energy Outlook” (Early
Release). March 2014. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html. Accessed
March 26, 2014.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2002. “Guidance Manual for
Environmental Report Preparation.” Office of Energy Projects. August 2002.
10-15