Category: Press Releases

For Immediate Release
July 1, 2014
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Mike Tidwell, 240-460-5838, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org

CCAN Applauds Gov. McAuliffe for Re-Launching State Climate Change Commission

VIRGINIA BEACH—Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, had the following statement in response to Governor Terry McAuliffe’s announcement today that he is re-starting the Governor’s Climate Change Commission:
“By signing this executive order, Governor McAuliffe is re-dedicating Virginia to addressing the costly and increasingly dangerous impacts of climate change. We applaud Governor McAuliffe for taking this step forward just six months into his term. Indeed, we don’t have a moment to lose.
“Given our coast could face over five feet of sea-level rise by century’s end, we need immediate action not only to adapt to the impacts we’re locked into, but to reduce the combustion of oil, coal and natural gas that is driving climate change. Hampton Roads has the potential to be ground zero for clean energy solutions that will protect our coast while growing our economy.
“We look forward to working with the McAuliffe administration and this newly announced commission to put an ambitious plan into action. That’s why, on July 9, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and our partners in the region will release a bold solutions plan outlining how Virginia can reduce pollution and address the very real impacts of climate change residents are already experiencing in the Hampton Roads region. We will be working with the commission to implement as many of these recommendations as possible as soon as possible.”
BACKGROUND: In 2007, former Governor Tim Kaine took an unprecedented step in Virginia by establishing the state’s first commission to deal with one of the greatest threats facing Virginians: climate change. Kaine’s Climate Change Commission met for several months and proposed dozens of recommendations for the commonwealth to implement. Unfortunately, the commission was dissolved and the recommendations were shelved during the McDonnell administration. Governor McAuliffe is demonstrating his dedication to dealing with the climate crisis by restarting this commission.
On Wednesday, July 9, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network will release a first-of-its-kind “Safe Coast” report detailing the most devastating effects of sea-level rise threatening the Tidewater region and presenting a concrete action plan to forestall or cope with the worst of them. The report will be released during a press conference at 11:00 a.m. on July 9 at the Unitarian Church of Norfolk (739 Yarmouth Street), located in the city’s flood-prone Hague neighborhood.

###

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) is the oldest and largest nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to fighting global warming in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Our mission is to build and mobilize a powerful grassroots movement in this unique region that surrounds our nation’s capital to call for state, national and international policies that will put us on a path to climate stability.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 16, 2014
CONTACT:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Mike Tidwell, 240-460-5838, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org

‘Stop Cove Point’ Coalition Collects Over 150,000 Public Comments Urging Federal Regulators to Reject LNG Export Plan

Groups warn that FERC is violating federal law by ignoring the project’s significant fracking, climate change and human safety dangers

Recent DOE data illustrates that LNG exports to Asia could help cook the planet, revealing major blind spot in Obama administration climate policy

WASHINGTON, DC — The backlash to a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility at Cove Point in southern Maryland reached new levels today, as a coalition of national, regional and community-based groups together amassed more than 150,000 public comments urging federal regulators to reject the project.
Today marks the end of a contested 30-day public comment period on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s draft Environmental Assessment for the controversial $3.8 billion Cove Point plan, proposed by Virginia-based Dominion Resources. FERC’s study has been widely criticized for failing to credibly address the project’s role in speeding fracking across Appalachia, worsening the climate crisis, and threatening the safety of nearby residents in Calvert County with potential explosion and fire catastrophes. Unless FERC substantially revises its insufficient analysis, environmental groups will likely sue the agency for violating the National Environmental Policy Act.
A Department of Energy report released May 29 underlined calls for FERC to conduct a full lifecycle analysis of the greenhouse gas pollution involved in fracking, liquefying, and shipping gas from Cove Point to be burned in Asia. The DOE study, using highly conservative data, illustrates that LNG exports to Asia would almost certainly be worse for the climate than burning coal over the next 20 years.
In all, advocates pointed to the outpouring of citizen comments opposing the Cove Point project — the most FERC has received to date over an LNG export facility — as part of a growing swell of public opposition to the Obama administration’s rubber-stamping of fracking and fracked gas export projects. On July 13, thousands are expected to rally in Washington, D.C. to protest FERC policies that routinely put gas industry interests before the health and safety of people and the climate.
Click here to view the detailed technical comments submitted today by Earthjustice on behalf of groups that have officially intervened in the FERC proceeding.
Statements from groups contributing to the delivery of over 150,000 citizen comments include:
Jocelyn D’Ambrosio, Associate Attorney at Earthjustice: “Dominion’s Cove Point massive fracked gas export project will have a significant impact on the environment and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has not adequately addressed these impacts in its environmental review, as required by federal law. FERC was required to address the project’s significant impacts on public health and safety, air quality, the Chesapeake Bay, and on communities that will be subjected to increased gas production in an Environmental Impact Statement. An Environmental Assessment just won’t do. It’s as simple as that.”
Zack Malitz, Campaign Manager at CREDO: “FERC’s logic that we should go ahead and build Cove Point without knowing how much damage it will do to the climate is tantamount to coming upon a poisonous mushroom in a forest, and deciding to eat it because you don’t know exactly how poisonous it is.”
Tracey Eno, founding member of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community: “Calvert County residents spoke up in large numbers on this inadequate Environmental Assessment because we don’t trust that Dominion is telling us the truth about the danger to our lives and livelihoods. Dominion omitted the 39,732 people who live in Lusby in its FERC application. They revealed plans to build vapor barrier walls for flammable gas clouds only after FERC required them to be disclosed to the public. As the residents whose lives would be most at risk if there was any sort of accident, we want to be assured that we are safe. We feel it is our right to live in a place that is safe; the proposed project is anything but.”
Deb Nardone, director the Sierra Club’s Beyond Natural Gas campaign: “FERC has the legal obligation to evaluate whether the environmental impacts of an LNG export facility at Cove Point are consistent with the public interest. It is inexcusable for FERC to make that type of determination without first conducting a full environmental review, especially in light of the administration’s position that failure to address the climate crisis amounts to the betrayal of our children and future generations.
Exporting LNG to foreign buyers means more drilling, and more drilling means more fracking, more air and water pollution, and more climate-fueled weather disasters like record fires, droughts, and superstorms. FERC needs to understand the full impact of LNG exports, from drilling and fracking in the US to the potential displacement of clean energy in importing countries. It will then be clear that for the sake of our climate and public health, we need to keep natural gas in the ground and move as quickly as we can to clean energy like wind and solar.”
Jorge Aguilar, southern region director for Food & Water Watch: “FERC’s Environmental Assessment of the Cove Point LNG export facility is a flawed and grossly inadequate review of the potential health and safety threats the facility will pose to Maryland residents and the environment. FERC’s unwillingness to conduct a complete safety risk assessment for the nearby community, its failure to consider the cumulative effects of increased drilling and fracking, and its efforts to curtail public comment reveal that the agency is yielding to pressure from an oil and gas industry desperate to profit from exporting fracked gas to Asia while it can.”
Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network: “If FERC commissioners put their blinders on yet again, and fail to account for the alarming new data on the climate harm of exporting fracked gas, they will all but prove themselves a broken agency. It’s time for President Obama to shake up FERC, and to stop this routine of rubber-stamping project after project without regard to the health and safety of people or the climate. In the case of Cove Point, the fight is sure to land in the courts, just as it will continue in the streets.”
Kate DeAngelis, Climate and Energy Campaigner at Friends of the Earth: “Exporting liquefied natural gas from Cove Point will be worse for climate change than exporting coal. Allowing this facility to go forward will put the profits of the gas industry above the good of Marylanders.”
Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity: “We cannot solve the global warming problem with more natural gas fracking, more natural gas exports and more natural gas pollution. The proposed Cove Point export terminal takes us backward at the very moment we need positive progress on climate.”
Jesse Bacon, Field Organizer at Environmental Action: “12,600 Environmental Action members know that pipelines anywhere are a bad idea. Many of our members live in states that the pipeline serving Cove Point would run through, and that it would lead to increased fracking that destroy land, water, and air. The only clean energy solution is to leave all dirty fossil fuels in the ground, not ship them overseas.”
Ann Nau, vice president of Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community: “The rush to export natural gas will require a significant amount of new infrastructure, like the toxin-spewing gas compressor that Dominion is now building in Myersville. FERC has a track record of rubber-stamping dangerous projects despite overwhelming opposition from communities and local government. We hope FERC and our elected officials listen to the community concerns this time around and reject the Cove Point facility.”
Fran Teplitz Director, Director of Social Investing & Policy at Green America: “Having conducted only a weak Environmental Assessment of the proposed Cove Point LNG facility, FERC has no grounds for moving forward with this dangerous project. Our nation’s energy future depends on renewable energy and energy efficiency, not gas exports that fuel the climate crisis. Businesses in the Chesapeake region oppose the proposed Cove Point LNG plant and urge FERC to reject this dangerous facility that will not serve our economic interests.”
Joelle Novey, Director of Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVA): “Maryland’s religious communities are heartbroken by the harm climate change is already causing to our neighbors, close to home and around the world, and we’re not going to let a Goliath corporation stomp into Maryland and make a mockery of our good work to protect our air, our water, and our climate. We know the comments to FERC we gathered from hundreds of congregations are each small by themselves, but we’re trying to faithfully do what David did: we’re giving this our best shot.”
Betsy Nicholas, director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake: “The water quality impacts to groundwater and the Chesapeake Bay could be disastrous, particularly due to the threats caused by fracking upstream. FERC’s has neglected its duty to protect the public by ignoring these risks.”
Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., Executive Director of the Clean Air Council: “If constructed, Dominion Resources’ proposed Cove Point export facility would ensure the continued expansion of polluting natural gas infrastructure throughout Pennsylvania, further impacting communities that are already struggling for a clean and healthy environment. Now is the time to halt harmful air pollution in our communities at the points of extraction, transportation, and processing of natural gas.”
Rebecca Ruggles, Director of the Maryland Environmental Health Network: “The health impacts for the surrounding Cove Point population are not sufficiently addressed by the EA. We are concerned about the health impact of air emissions from the compressors in the liquefaction process, the possibility of radiation exposure, and the safety risks related to fire and explosion.”
Elisabeth Hoffman of Howard County Climate Change: “FERC’s decisions regarding Dominion’s Cove Point facility threaten to upend all that our members, our state and so many regional groups do to promote clean energy. To approve this facility is to require the fracking, pipelines and compressor stations. The result will be fractured communities, more air and water pollution, and climate-wrecking methane emissions.”
Dr. Gina Angiola, Board Member, Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility: “This is a bad deal for the health of Maryland’s citizens. It is bad for the quality of our air and our water, and it will hurt consumers by causing energy prices to rise. We are especially concerned about locating a natural gas export facility within three miles of a nuclear power plant. The effects of an explosion at Cove Point could potentially be catastrophic.”
Sarah Arnold, Activism Campaign Manager at The Nation: “At The Nation, our readers have often told us that they finish our articles eager to take action on the critical political and social issues that we cover. When our environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard reported that the Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility could lead to a surge of new fracking and had the potential to ‘unleash massive greenhouse gas emissions,’ we knew our readers would want to act. We were right. Thousands of them joined the campaigns, demonstrating that they saw the clear connection between Cove Point and the destructive policies fueling climate change.”

###

Organizations submitting comments to FERC include: Berks Gas Truth, Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizen Shale, Clean Air Council, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Chesapeake Sustainable Business Council, CREDO, Earthjustice, Environmental Action, Food & Water Watch, Forecast the Facts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Green America, Howard County Climate Change, Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake, Interfaith Power & Light, Maryland Environmental Health Network, Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, the Sierra Club, The Nation, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, 350.org.

For Immediate Release
June 12, 2014
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Mike Tidwell, 240-396-2022, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org

CCAN Condemns Federal Failure to Extend Cove Point Public Comment Period

WASHINGTON, DC–Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, issued the following statement in response to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s refusal to extend the public comment period on its Environmental Assessment for the proposed Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility:
“The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Wednesday failed the Maryland public and the nation by refusing to grant more time for the public to comment on the controversial Cove Point proposal to export fracked gas to Asia through the Chesapeake Bay. FERC blatantly ignored pleas from the Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland’s two U.S. senators and two Congressional House Members, to give the public 30 more days to digest the complex and legally controversial ‘Environmental Assessment’ that FERC issued for Cove Point on May 15th. Environmental and community groups had been asking for a 60-day extension of the comment period. That period will now end June 16th after barely a month for public review.
“This action is yet another example of FERC’s unresponsive and detached culture of lax regulation that — at every step — is designed to minimize public involvement in massive and often dangerous fossil fuel projects. Failing to grant just 30 additional days of comment on the Cove Point assessment — despite direct appeals from the nation’s leading environmental agency and Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin — is a further sign that FERC is an alarmingly non-responsive commission in desperate need of reform.
“The FERC decision this week was also a rebuff of Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer, who has supported the huge fracked gas export plant in his district while assuring concerned citizens there would be maximum public input. Congressman Hoyer, along with Congressman Chris Van Hollen, had also formally requested a 30-day extension of the comment period from FERC. Opponents of the Cove Point proposal continue to call on FERC to finally reject this project, and legal remedy will likely be sought if the commission approves the project based on their limited environmental review process.”

###

U.S. Department of Energy report confirms:

U.S. LNG exports to Asia would likely be WORSE than coal for the atmosphere for decades to come

Separately, records show as much as 75% of U.S.
LNG exports are likely destined for Asian buyers

A summary from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network

On May 29, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a preliminary environmental report for public comment analyzing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions resulting from liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.[1] DOE’s results show that US LNG would likely be nearly as bad as coal when exported to Europe and worse than coal when exported to Asia when the climate impacts of methane leakage are measured over a 20-year timeframe.
Moreover, separate records show that as much as 75 percent of the contracts for LNG exports from DOE-approved US facilities are likely headed to Asian buyers.[2] Thus a large majority of anticipated US gas exports, according to the DOE, will apparently be worse than coal for global warming over the next two decades even as President Obama announced on June 2nd a new carbon rule intended to reduce coal’s impacts here in America.
The DOE greenhouse gas study last week found that U.S. LNG exports offer a climate advantage over coal only when the climate-warming impacts of methane are measured over a 100-year timeframe.[3] But given the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned in their latest report that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to fall between 40 to 70 percent within the first half of this century to avoid irreversible climate “tipping points,” there is a compelling scientific rationale for using the 20-year instead of 100-year timeframe when measuring methane emissions.[4] When the 20-year timeframe is used, the DOE found that the lifecycle leakage rate would need to stay below 1.9% and 1.4% when exporting U.S. LNG to Europe and Asia respectively.[5] The assumed LNG lifecycle leakage rate modeled in the report when comparing U.S. LNG and foreign natural gas to coal was 1.6%.[6] So according to DOE, LNG exported to Europe could be about 84% as bad as coal over 20 years, while LNG exported to Asia could be about 114% as bad as coal.
What’s more, there were major limitations in this analysis that make its conclusions very conservative. The most obvious shortfall is their conclusion that U.S. LNG exports would be a net benefit to the climate when compared to coal. That conclusion is based solely on the 100-year timeframe for methane’s climate impacts.³ As stated above, however, their results also show that LNG could easily be worse for the climate than coal over 20 years when exported to Asia. Given what we know about climate “tipping points”, the default timeframe for LNG climate impacts should be 20 years, and their conclusion should certainly address net climate impacts over the 20-year timeframe.
The report also severely underestimates methane leakage for two reasons.
First, their “lifecycle” does not include transmission and distribution (T&D) leakage from pipelines abroad. When describing their methodology, they say “For this analysis, it was assumed that the natural gas power plant in each of the import destinations is existing and located close to the LNG port, so no additional pipeline transport of natural gas is modeled in the destination country.”[7] That assumption could lead to vast underestimates of potential leakage. In the U.S., EPA estimates that natural gas T&D accounts for just over half of natural gas-sector methane leakage.[8] This is particularly worrying for exports to a country like India where natural gas is needed all across the country, not just next to ports, and the IPCC warns that pipeline leakage in “developing countries and countries with economies in transition” could be higher than in the U.S. by “an order of magnitude or more.”[9]
Second, their 1.6% leakage estimate for U.S. gas production, processing, and liquefaction is almost certainly too low. The body of science to-date shows that methane leakage rates can vary greatly depending on the specifics of each domestic gas operation. But absent the use of proven, cost-effective technologies and practices to reduce methane emissions, those leakage rates can be very high. Several studies have measured methane concentrations near U.S. well sites that estimate leakage rates well in excess of the threshold that makes domestic natural gas safer for the climate than coal.[10]
In summary, DOE’s report shows that LNG would likely be worse for the climate than coal when exported to Asia over a 20-year time frame, even when they underestimate methane leakage. If their analysis is overlaid with more realistic foreign and domestic leakage estimates, it becomes clear that the immediate climate impacts of LNG would be much worse for the climate than coal if exports began today.
Click here to view and download a PDF of the CCAN analysis.
For more information, contact James McGarry, Chief Policy Analyst, at james@chesapeakeclimate.org or 914-563-2256 or Mike Tidwell, Director, at mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org or 240-460-5838.

---

[1] U.S. Department of Energy: National Energy Technology Laboratory. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States. Rep. no. DOE/NETL-2014/1649. Office of Fossil Energy, 29 May 2014. <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f16/Life%20Cycle%20GHG%20Perspective%20Report.pdf>
[2] CCAN’s analysis of DOE-approved LNG contracts: http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Known-LNG-export-contracts.pdf
[3] Page 2 of DOE report: “The default Global Warming Potential (GWP) used is the 100-year time frame but, in some cases, results for the 20-year time frame are presented as well.” This is described in their approach to running a lifecycle analysis. This methodological approach limits the lens through which they make their conclusions to the 100-year timeframe.
[4] “Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 13 Apr. 2014. Page13. <http://templatelab.com/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved/>
[5] Table 6-1 on page 14 of the DOE report, the column titled “20-yr GWP” under “Breakeven Leakage” shows that lifecycle methane leakage would have to stay below 1.9% when exporting to Rotterdam, Netherlands and below 1.4% when exporting to Shanghai, China to breakeven with regional coal in terms of climate impacts over a 20-year timeframe.
[6] Table 6-1 on page 14 of the DOE report, the column titled “Modeled Leakage” shows that DOE assumed a 1.6% lifecycle leakage rate for U.S. LNG when comparing coal and natural gas breakeven thresholds for U.S. LNG and Russian natural gas scenarios.
[7] Page 3 of DOE report.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012. Rep. no. EPA 430-R-14-003. N.p., 15 Apr. 2014. Web. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Main-Text.pdf>. Table 3-43 on page 3-63 shows the EPA’s estimates for greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. natural gas system in 2012. EPA estimates that the transmission & storage and distribution (T&D) stages emitted 69.4 Teragrams of CO2-equivalent (Tg CO2e) out of the total 129.9 Tg CO2e emitted system-wide in 2012. This means that the EPA estimates that T&D account for 53% of total U.S. natural gas system emissions.
[9] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4 – Fugitive Emissions. <http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf> Page 4.46 explains that pipelines in developing countries and countries with economies in transition may leak more due to “less stringent design standards, use of lower quality components, restricted access to natural gas markets, and, in some cases, artificially low energy pricing resulting in reduced energy conservation.”
[10] CCAN’s methane white paper that includes a review of recent scientific literature measuring domestic methane leakage: http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Dominion-Lifecycle-Methane-Leakage.pdf

For Immediate Release
June 2, 2014
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Mike Tidwell, 240-460-5838, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org

Federal Carbon Rules Mark Crucial Step Forward on Climate in the Chesapeake Region, But Must Be Strengthened

To work for people and the climate, state-level goals must be met with truly carbon-free wind and solar power, not harmful fracked gas
WASHINGTON, DC — Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, had the following statement in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s unveiling of long-awaited federal regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants:

“In the face of the record heat, storms and flooding already harming families across our region, CCAN welcomes these rules as a long overdue, necessary step forward. For the first time, the federal government is proposing mandatory reductions in carbon emissions from power plants. CCAN and our regional clean energy partners have been advocating for state and national caps on power plant pollution for the past decade, and we have been cautioning utilities throughout the region that this day would come. With this step, investments in new coal-fired power plants will be essentially over in the U.S.

“All the same, these regulations must be strengthened. Given the abundant availability and affordability of clean energy and energy efficiency solutions, and the rapidly escalating climate crisis, we can and must go further and faster in reducing pollution.

“Particularly troubling, the draft proposal leaves the door open for a significant possible expansion of reliance on fracked gas as a substitute for coal. In reality, this is no solution at all. Recent and accumulating studies show fracked gas production, use, and possible export are likely worse than coal for the climate over the next several decades. We have to make sure that leaders in Maryland and Virginia respond to the carbon rules with investments in greater energy efficiency and truly carbon-free wind and solar development.”

###

For Immediate Release
Friday, May 30, 2014
Contact:
Mike Tidwell, 240-460-5838, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org

Cove Point Opponents Call on O’Malley to Act After PSC Fails to Require Safety Study for Gas Export Proposal

Commission confirms plant would cause net economic harm, requiring Dominion to pay $48 million in compensation for economic and climate pollution impacts
Groups denounce decision to grant conditional permit, especially given lack of federal or state human risk assessment
BALTIMORE — Maryland opponents of the controversial proposed Cove Point liquefied natural gas export proposal announced Friday that they would appeal to Governor Martin O’Malley and the Department of Natural Resources to conduct a human safety study in response to the Maryland Public Service Commission’s ruling to grant a conditional permit for the project. In its permit ruling, the PSC openly acknowledges that the gas liquefaction plant would be a net economic negative for the state and requires Dominion to pay $48 million for expected economic and environmental harm. Yet, the PSC failed to require a basic study of human safety risks for the thousands of people living in close vicinity.
The PSC confirmed that the “LNG facility will not provide net economic benefit to Maryland citizens” (p. 4) and acknowledged numerous risks to consumers and to the quality of life of residents living near the facility in southern Calvert County. In particular, the PSC is requiring the applicant — Virginia-based Dominion Resources — to pay $400,000 annually over 20 years to the Maryland Energy Assistance Program to partially compensate for impacts to low-income ratepayers. To “mitigate” the project’s harm to the climate, the commission is mandating that Dominion pay a total of $40 million over five years to the state’s Strategic Energy Investment Fund to be used for the development of renewable and clean energy resources in Maryland.
Opponents say these conditions are insufficient and they were especially disappointed that the PSC did not require an independent “Quantitative Risk Assessment” as a basic condition of the permit granted Friday. To date, neither federal nor state regulators have agreed to conduct a basic assessment showing the actual, measurable risk this plant could bring to nearby residents in the form of explosions and fire. In 2006, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources did conduct such a study for previous LNG import installations at Cove Point, and that study showed that 360 homes within a 4,265-foot “consequence zone” could already be affected by a catastrophic accident.
Calvert residents and their allies have simply asked that a similar assessment be done for Dominion’s current proposal, which would dramatically increase potential hazards by adding a large-scale gas liquefaction train utilizing highly explosive liquefied propane gas and requiring new stores of volatile chemicals. The PSC today failed to mandate such a study, even though the LNG export facility would be the first ever located within close proximity to so many homes.
The PSC’s permit ruling only pertains to 130-megawatt gas-fired power plant that Dominion needs to build as part of the liquefaction facility. The PSC explicitly conditioned its permit upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s final decision, meaning Dominion cannot start construction now.
Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said:
“Today the PSC expressed concern for the safety of people living closest to the proposed plant, but failed to actually protect these people. Bottom line: this export facility should not be built. The PSC confirmed it’s a harm to consumers and the environment. We now look to Governor O’Malley as the final back stop to bring a basic safety assessment to light. While the final decision here is a federal one, we’re convinced that a basic, quantitative risk study of major explosion or other safety threats will influence any final federal permitting of this plant. The threat to Marylanders’ lives and livelihoods is simply too great to have our elected leaders simply stand on the sidelines.”
Josh Tulkin, director of the Sierra Club, Maryland Chapter, said:
“While we understand the constraints of their jurisdiction, we’re are very disappointed in the PSC decision. We appreciate the PSC highlighting the need for Dominion to improve their safety considerations, and for the contribution to low-income ratepayers. But these will be little consolation to the communities impacted by the health and environmental damage expected from this project.”

###

For Immediate Release
May 16, 2014
Contact:
Tommy Landers, 301-442-0134, tommy@chesapeakeclimate.org
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org

Gov. O’Malley’s Veto of ‘Anti-Wind Bill’ Will Clear Path for Billion Dollar Wind Industry on Maryland’s Eastern Shore

Governor earns praise from national and state environmental leaders for today’s announced veto of HB 1168

ANNAPOLIS—Today, Governor Martin O’Malley officially vetoed HB 1168, a Maryland bill that would have stymied the development of clean energy in the state. With his veto, the governor will effectively unlock the construction of a $200 million wind farm on Maryland’s lower Eastern Shore. He will also clear the path for development of a wind power industry on the Eastern Shore worth an estimated $1 billion.
The bill Governor O’Malley vetoed would have unnecessarily established a 13-month moratorium on land-based wind power in all or part of 12 counties across much of Maryland, chilling clean energy investment and impeding the state’s ability to reach a goal of obtaining 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2022.
Today’s veto was hailed by national and state environmental leaders as a significant act of leadership on climate change:
Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org: “Governor O’Malley is standing up for climate solutions with his veto of this ‘anti-wind power’ bill. Governor O’Malley has shown the nation that wind power can co-exist with military bases and that, indeed, climate change is our number one ‘national security’ threat.”
Michael Brune, executive director, Sierra Club: “The Sierra Club applauds Governor O’Malley’s defense of clean energy solutions. His action today will accelerate the development of East Coast wind farms that will bring new jobs to Maryland while helping to slow sea-level rise in the Chesapeake Bay.”
Mike Tidwell, director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network: “Today will be remembered as a pivotal turning point in Maryland’s march toward a clean energy economy. The governor’s veto of this unnecessary anti-wind power bill will open the door to a billion dollar wind industry on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. This will create a clean-energy foundation that Maryland families, farmers, workers and businesses so urgently need in the face of intensifying climate change.”
Background:
The Maryland General Assembly — despite passing many strong bills on climate change in recent years — voted earlier this spring to effectively stop development of an entire modern wind farm on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The same bad bill — HB 1168 — would have effectively delayed and perhaps stopped land-based wind power development in all or part of 12 Maryland counties in the eastern and southern parts of the state. Why? Because of military radar concerns that experts have believed all along can be totally resolved without harmful new state legislation.
Governor Martin O’Malley vigorously opposed this “anti-wind power” bill during the legislative session of 2014. The governor, a nationally recognized supporter of clean energy, explicitly urged the General Assembly not to stymie wind power development this way. But with ferocious lobbying from special-interest defense contractors and their political supporters, the bill passed. Now the governor is pulling out his veto pen.
The governor’s forthcoming veto sends the message that Maryland really is serious about clean energy development that helps rural farmers and creates good-paying union jobs while remaining utterly compatible with national security needs. Indeed, stopping climate change is America’s TOP national security need.
The ranking officer at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station was already in agreement with a wind farm developer on the Eastern Shore over how radar needs and wind power can co-exist. The key — confirmed by an MIT study — is simply to turn the windmills off when the Navy is using a key radar system. The wind company — Pioneer Green — has agreed to do this. But exaggerated concerns by private defense contractors led to passage of HB 1168 nonetheless.
Now Governor O’Malley — whose eight-year stint as governor ends this year — can leave office having achieved one of his most important actions yet on climate change: vetoing a truly harmful bill so Marylanders can benefit from good, clean energy.
The Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) has conservatively estimated the value of the land-based wind industry on the state’s Eastern Shore at $1 billion. That’s in large part because, along with mountainous western Maryland, the shore is one of the best areas in the state for wind power development. In February testimony against HB 1168, MEA told Maryland lawmakers: “Based on MEA analysis of available resource, we feel a conservative estimate of the potential total value of projects on the Eastern Shore is well over $1 billion, with hundreds of millions of dollars of local economic impact.”
Concerns from military contractors led to the bill, but experts have explained that those concerns are misplaced. Retired Air Force Col. David Belote submitted testimony to a state committee in April saying as much. Mr. Belote wrote of the ADAMS radar testing capability at the Patuxent River or “Pax River” Naval Air Station in southern Maryland: “I’m confident that the Pax River mission is safe, and I’m equally confident that no base commander or Pentagon official would sign an agreement that would endanger a unique, critical capability like ADAMS.”

###