Archive
Subscribe Place Ad Buy Trib Photos Readers' Choice Contests
Jobs Homes Autos Classifieds
Trib Total Media Contact Us
ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania rejects bid to reverse flow on Laurel Pipeline | TribLIVE.com
Regional

Pennsylvania rejects bid to reverse flow on Laurel Pipeline

Tribune-Review
Tribune-Review | Thursday, July 12, 2018 12:33 p.m
15420gtrpumpstation060218
Patrick Varine | Tribune-REview
Crew begin site-prep work for a pump station that will aid in the proposed reversal of the Laurel Pipeline, which runs across Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania utility regulators are rejecting an application by a Houston-based pipeline operator to reverse the flow of refined fuels on a portion of the Laurel Pipeline.

The Public Utility Commission voted 5-0 Thursday to uphold an administrative law judge’s recommendation that it reject Buckeye Partners’ application to reverse the flow to go west to east on the Altoona-to-Pittsburgh section of the 350-mile pipeline.

Buckeye had sought permission to reverse the flow on that section to bring fuels from Midwest refiners to customers farther east in Pennsylvania.

“While we are waiting to review the commission’s formal order, we respectfully disagree with the decision regarding our market-driven proposal aimed at providing Pennsylvania consumers with expanded access to more affordable fuels, but we will abide by the decision and continue to move forward with our current plans to provide bi-directional service on Laurel PipeLine,” the company said in an emailed statement. “Bi-directional service will enhance competition and provide shippers and suppliers with more options while still increasing access to lower-cost North American-produced fuels for Pennsylvania consumers.”

But Philadelphia-area refiners and in-state distributors had warned that reversing the flow would mean higher prices and less competition that benefits out-of-state refiners and hurts in-state consumers.

Members of the Deny Buckeye coalition, which includes Giant Eagle Get Go, Guttman Energy, Monroe Energy, Philadelphia Energy Solutions, Sheetz and Gulf/Lucknow Highspire Terminals, commended the PUC’s decision.

“Midwest refineries already have access to Pennsylvania markets, but they didn’t want competition,” coalition members said in a press statement. “Pennsylvania refineries have supplied fuel to our commonwealth through the Laurel Pipeline for over a half-century. It is stunning to think a company tried to block our own refineries from serving Pennsylvania.”

Buckeye is seeking federal permission to make service bi-directional along the section.

Categories: Regional
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.