Planning for Natural Gas Pipelines in Ohio: Governance and Other Complexities

Figures & data

Figure 1. NEXUS route through Ohio and Michigan (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 2016, p. 2–2)

Table 1. Involvement in the pipeline planning process

Questions	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
Involved early in the planning effort (n = 10)	9	0	0	0	1
Expertise fully utilized in planning process (n = 10)	9	0	0	0	1
Served as liaison between NEXUS and local landowners/residents (n = 10)	9	0	1	0	0
Served as a liaison between NEXUS and local council members/commissioners (n = 10)	9	0	0	1	0
Local comprehensive plan utilized during the planning process (n = 10)	7	1	2	0	0
Proposed pipeline will impact all cities/counties/townships along the route equally (n = 9)	4	3	1	1	0

Note. n’s range from 9 to 10 due to item non-response.

Table 2. Meeting frequency between respondents and pipeline company from 2013–2017

Meeting Frequency	Regularly	Ad Hoc	Never
2013 (n = 8)	0	1	7
2014 (n = 9)	0	2	7
2015 (n = 9)	0	3	6
2016 (n = 11)	0	4	7
2017 (n = 11)	0	4	7

Note. n’s range from 8 to 11 due to item non-response.

Table 3. Horizontal meeting frequency from 2013–2017

Meeting Frequency	Regularly	Ad Hoc	Never
2013 (n = 10)	0	0	10
2014 (n = 11)	0	2	9
2015 (n = 11)	0	2	9
2016 (n = 11)	0	2	9
2017 (n = 11)	0	2	9

Note. n’s range from 10 to 11 due to item non-response.

Figure 2. Potential challenges to future local planning efforts post-pipeline construction (n = 10)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). (2016) Final Environmental Impact Statement: NEXUS as Transmission Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Project (Washington, DC: Office of Energy Projects FERC/FEIS-270F).

 Google Scholar