1,500+ Marylanders to Hogan Administration: Reject the Eastern Shore Pipeline Project

On the Heels of Massive Fracked-Gas Pipeline Shutdowns Nationally, Hogan Administration Considering Approval for a New Pipeline down the Eastern Shore of Maryland

SALISBURY, MD — Today, environmental organizations announced that more than 1,500 public comments were submitted to the Maryland Department of Environment opposing the Del-Mar Pipeline project. As the department considers its recommendation to the Board of Public Works on the project’s application for a Wetlands License, the comments explain how this pipeline would threaten the Eastern Shore’s wetlands ecosystems and contribute to climate change. 

Anthony Field, Maryland Grassroots Coordinator for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, stated: “This proposed fracked-gas pipeline is a bad bet for Maryland. At a time when the climate crisis is imminent and the fracked-gas industry is failing, expanding fracked-gas expansion is financially and morally irresponsible. The state should invest in a truly clean and safe future for Marylanders, instead of pumping millions into near obsolete infrastructure that fuels the climate crisis while threatening local ecosystems.”

The Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (ESNG) — a subsidiary of Chesapeake Utilities — wants to build 19+ miles of new pipeline to carry fracked gas from Delaware through Maryland, to connect with another fracked-gas pipeline proposed by Chesapeake Utilities that would bring fracked gas to the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) and the Eastern Correctional Institution (ECI). These two proposed pipelines would threaten the region’s ecosystems and drinking water supplies, and could cause irreparable damage to the land and climate. 

These comments come just after two massive national fracked-gas pipelines were cancelled or ordered to shut down. Companies behind the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline cancelled the project due to ballooning costs and legal uncertainties. And the Dakota Access pipeline was ordered to shut down for an environmental review.  Meanwhile, in late June, the fracking giant Chesapeake Energy filed for bankruptcy. These setbacks for the industry demonstrate that fracking is a risky investment, for the climate, the environment, and the economy. 

Susan Olsen, Chair of the Sierra Club’s Lower Eastern Shore Group, stated: “We submitted these comments today to tell our leaders what we’ve been telling them for years: Marylanders don’t want fracking, we don’t want fracked gas, and we don’t want dirty, dangerous fracked gas pipelines. It makes no sense to build unnecessary fracked gas pipelines when we could be investing in the clean, renewable energy sources that are affordable and abundant right now. We banned fracking in 2017, we threw out the Potomac Pipeline in 2019, and we should reject the Eastern Shore Pipeline now.”

The pipeline is already under construction in Delaware to carry gas from that state into Maryland. The seven miles of pipeline proposed for Maryland would supply concentrated animal feeding operations, businesses, and residential areas. The two “anchor” customers for gas delivery are the Eastern Correctional Institute (ECI) and the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) in Somerset County. If built, the Del-Mar pipeline would trigger the second pipeline proposed by Chesapeake Utilities connecting the prison to the university. The installation of the Del-Mar pipeline will impact 1,239 square feet of streams and more than 30,000 square feet of wetlands and wetland buffers. It is anticipated to come online in late 2021. 

These two pipelines are part of the Hogan Administration’s plans to spend $103 million massively increasing fracked-gas pipelines and infrastructure in the state. This includes $30.3 million administered by the Maryland Energy Administration’s (MEA) new Maryland Gas Expansion Fund “for the expansion of natural gas infrastructure.” The remaining $70 million is recoverable from MD ratepayers. Read more about it here.

Contact: Denise Robbins, denise@chesapeakeclimate.org, 240-630-1889

###

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. For 17 years, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

Governor Hogan’s Plans to "Kick-Start" a Gas Expansion Across Maryland

While other states and cities are moving away from powering homes and buildings with gas—a potent climate pollutant—Maryland Governor Larry Hogan plans to spend $6.5 million this year in his effort to “kick-start” a gas expansion across Maryland. This $6.5 million is a portion of the $30 million his Administration can spend on expanding gas infrastructure after he negotiated the terms of a settlement allowing a Canadian company to acquire a local gas supplier.

Among the projects his Administration is backing: a new, 11-mile pipeline providing gas to two state-run facilities on the Eastern Shore. In repowering these state facilities, the Hogan Administration foreclosed the possibility of any other type of energy source by only requesting applications for gas. The government should be leading the way towards zero-emission buildings, especially when it comes to state facilities, not putting its thumb on the scale for gas.  

“Natural” gas is primarily made up of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. It’s 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Methane leaks during production and transportation and gas heaters themselves are inefficient. As a result, a leading scientist concludes that it may actually be better for the climate to heat your home with coal or oil than with gas. In an era of rapid climate change, we cannot wait to replace all of these polluting fossil fuels with electricity powered by clean sources like wind and solar.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, electric alternatives exist for all major energy end uses in buildings. Space heating, water heating, and cooking account for the vast majority of direct fuel usage. Electric technologies exist, and are in use today, that can supply all of these end uses.In 2017, Hogan signed a ban on fracking for gas in Maryland, saying that his administration had “concluded that possible environmental risks of fracking simply outweigh any potential benefits.” Since signing that ban, however, the Hogan Administration has continued to call gas “a bridge fuel” and has worked consistently to kick-start a gas expansion across the State.

Read the white paper here

Activists Rally Against Governor Hogan’s Fracked-Gas Plans Ahead of MEA Meeting

Groups Slam MEA Process for Public Input on Fracked-Gas Plans as “Broken”

BALTIMORE, MD — Today, dozens of concerned Maryland residents rallied to protest Governor Hogan’s plans to “kick-start” fracked-gas infrastructure in Maryland. The rally took place just before the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) held its fourth and final public meeting on Hogan’s plan to spend $30 million in state funds on expanding fracked-gas infrastructure across the state.

The coalition rallied before going inside to make public comments. They also delivered a letter signed by five advocacy organizations opposing Hogan’s gas plans and a letter of grievances about the MEA process, saying they were “deeply frustrated” with how the process was handled, as well as a petition signed by more than 300 residents urging the administration not to spend state money on new fracked-gas infrastructure.

Patrick Grenter, Associate Director for Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, stated: “Maryland’s own climate change website says that ‘Maryland is among the states most vulnerable to climate change.’ Given this, why would the state move forward with plans to invest millions in gas infrastructure? Marylanders don’t want this frack-fueled plan, which would lock us into decades of fossil fuel infrastructure while we’re in a climate crisis. Any investment in new fossil fuel infrastructure is incompatible with the State’s public commitment to fighting accelerated climate disruption.”

Months after Governor Larry Hogan signed a statewide fracking ban in 2017, he announced his intention to “kick-start” a fracked-gas expansion across Maryland. The Governor has launched his fracked-gas expansion even as scientists confirm that gas is essentially as harmful to the climate as coal. Despite this, he wants to spend $30 million in state money on this new fracked-gas infrastructure.

As part of AltaGas’s acquisition of local gas supplier Washington Gas, Hogan negotiated a settlement wherein AltaGas would place $30 million into the state’s Strategic Energy Investment Fund, which the state would then spend to assist gas companies in the construction of more fracked-gas pipelines all across Maryland. The agreement also opens the door for AltaGas passing $70 million onto ratepayers to do the same.

 “This plan is in direct contrast to one of SEIF’s main missions, which is to ‘address global climate change concerns,’” said Anthony Field, Maryland Grassroots Coordinator at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “Investing in fracked-gas is a bridge to climate disaster. If Hogan truly wanted to address climate change, he would focus on cleaning up our existing leaky pipelines as we move towards clean and sustainable sources of energy such as wind and solar.”

Under the terms of the agreement, “MEA shall use such funds in its discretion for the purpose of promoting the expansion of natural gas infrastructure . . . in Maryland.” Under Senate Bill 52, Hogan’s Maryland Energy Administration is required to develop a plan for spending the $30 million in state funds. In developing this plan, MEA was required to hold at least four separate public meetings across the state by the end of the year. More than 70 concerned Marylanders have turned out to the first three meetings, despite poor notice and planning.

The meetings were inaccessible, poorly advertised, and lacked transparency, environmental organizations argued in a letter delivered to MEA today. The letter continues:

“The process, as it is now, is broken. It seems geared at checking a box rather than giving the public a meaningful opportunity to weigh in and help inform MEA’s future plans. The meetings provided further evidence that this Administration is bent on expanding gas infrastructure, no matter the effect on the climate and no matter what the public wants.”

Annie Bristow of Frack-Free Frostburg stated: “The entire lifecycle of fracked gas must be considered from a public health perspective – from air and water pollution at extraction to end use air pollution in homes and businesses.  Expansion of fracked gas pipelines in Maryland would increase risks to the health and safety of Marylanders, financially incentivize fracking of our neighbors in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and fail to address the public health threat from climate change.”

Ruth Alice White stated: “Extending the use of gas in Maryland is counter to the Maryland’s commitment to move dramatically reduce Maryland Greenhouse gases, totally counter to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act’s purpose.  We can’t be implementing new gas infrastructure designed to last 30 years or more when we are striking desperately to reduce emissions.  We know fracked gas leaks at every stage in extraction and piping.  The gas is methane which is 84 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a 20 year period.  We need to move rapidly to clean and renewable wind and solar.”

Tracy Cannon of the Eastern Panhandle Green Coalition stated: “Citizen and environmental groups in the Eastern Panhandle of WV were thrilled to learn that Maryland’s Board of Public Works blocked the Potomac Pipeline, which would have carried fracked gas to polluting industrial development in our counties.  We find it contradictory that Maryland would now support spending $30 million on fracked-gas infrastructure.  We would like to look to Maryland as an example of what a green state can be.  This is disappointing.”

MEA has made access to these meetings extraordinarily difficult, giving the public very little notice, scheduling them during the workweek, even holding one at a location that required attendees to apply for a parking pass 48 hours in advance. Despite this, more than 70 concerned Marylanders have spoken out against Hogan’s fracked-gas expansion plans in person and more than 300 more have signed a letter in opposition.

CONTACT:
Denise Robbins, Communications Director, denise@chesapeakeclimate.org, 240-630-1889
Anthony Field, Maryland Grassroots Coordinator, anthony@chesapeakeclimate.org, 301-664-4068

###

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the oldest and largest grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. For 16 years, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit www.chesapeakeclimate.org

National Park Service Decision Clears a Hurdle for Potomac Pipeline Construction but Company Still Lacks Access to Complete Route

Environmental Groups Vow to Continue Fight

WASHINGTON, DC — This week, the National Park Service determined that the fracked-gas Potomac Pipeline would have no significant impact on the C&O Canal National Historical Park, despite the clear threat it poses to the region, the Potomac River, and the climate. This decision could clear the way for the pipeline company Columbia Gas to request permission from federal regulators to begin construction on its controversial pipeline, despite not having access to all the land along the route. A federal judge last month threw out a case brought by Columbia attempting to seize through eminent domain a Maryland-owned public park to build its pipeline. Columbia is appealing that decision but the company’s likelihood of success on appeal is highly uncertain.

In response, Anne Havemann, General Counsel, CCAN, stated: 

“Columbia Gas has taken risk after risk with this pipeline, starting with its proposal to run it through unstable terrain under the Potomac River — the source of drinking water for 6 million people. Not to mention the risk of investing in fracked-gas infrastructure at a time when the science and public opinion are clear that we need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels in order to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change. Columbia would be taking a further risk if it begins to build this pipeline without access to all the land along the route.

“We urge Columbia to listen to Maryland residents and elected officials and give up on this dangerous pipeline. At the same time, we will continue to pursue all legal avenues to stop the project.”

##

Patrick Grenter, Senior Campaign Representative in Maryland for the Sierra Club’s Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign, said:

“Not only has Maryland banned fracking, they have rejected an attempted land grab for this specific fracked gas pipeline. This is a dirty, dangerous project that threatens the health of Maryland’s water, people, and communities and we are going to fight it every step of the way. Columbia Gas should listen to Marylanders and put this zombie pipeline to rest once and for all.”

Brent Walls, Upper Potomac Riverkeeper, stated:

“Whether through pressure from the Trump administration or giving in to industry’s ‘it’s safe’ rhetoric, it is a shame that the National Park Service failed to recognize the potential environmental issues with this pipeline.”

##

CONTACT:

Denise Robbins, Communications Director, denise@chesapeakeclimate.org, 608-620-8819
Anne Havemann, General Counsel, anne@chesapeakeclimate.org, 202-997-2466

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the oldest and largest grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. For 16 years, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. For more information, visit www.chesapeakeclimate.org 

Offshore Wind Energy is a Breeze: Environmental & Wildlife Impacts

By Chloe Taylor, Katrina Vaitkus, Zachary Felch, Justin Stacey, Miranda Mlilo, Amanda Speciale, Katie DeVoss

Chloe Taylor, Katrina Vaitkus, Zachary Felch, Justin Stacey, Miranda Mlilo, Amanda Speciale, Katie DeVoss

Who we are:
We are a group of University of Maryland students majoring in Environmental Science and Policy. For our senior capstone project, we are researching the impact of offshore wind energy to help CCAN prepare for the upcoming public comment period for the proposed Ocean City US Wind Project. We will be creating a series of blog posts to provide information about different aspects of offshore wind and its impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the economy, and wildlife. This is the last of our three part series.


Although offshore wind is relatively new technology, there is significant evidence proving that offshore wind farms do have a positive impact on the local environment. The negative impacts caused by offshore wind farms are short-lived, as seen at multiple European offshore wind farms such as Horns Rev, Nysted, and Egmond aan Zee. Many scientists currently studying the environmental impacts of offshore wind have found that there is a net positive environmental effect resulting from the existence of these farms.

Environmental Impacts
The development of the offshore wind farm in Ocean City, Maryland will cause some immediate negative impacts from physical disturbance of the local habitat as well as noise pollution both above and below the surface of the water. However, multiple studies conducted on several active European offshore wind farms (Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee, Horns Rev) have shown that most, or all, of these negative side effects subside over time, eventually becoming negligible. These studies have also shown that there are many positive environmental impacts which occur as a result of the introduction of the wind farm into the ecosystem. These can include, but are not limited to, creation of habitat for wildlife species, increased total biomass, and increased biodiversity.
Although there will be significant modification of the local environment, this will create room for growth in both species richness and diversity. Sites typically chosen for wind farms have naturally occurring sandy sediments. In order to support the wind turbines, large rocks will be introduced to build up the foundation and to increase stability of the monopiles. These large substrates create new habitats for many species of fish and invertebrates. Thus, despite initial disturbance, operating wind farms are capable of supporting many organisms. Benthic communities and aquatic vegetation have found the large substrates around the monopiles to be particularly useful as sites for colonization.
Some images from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Observatory have shown sediment plumes resulting from the flow of water around the monopiles of wind turbines carrying disturbed fine-grained sediments with the current. These plumes can be up to 30 meters wide and several kilometers long. However, increased turbidity in the waters near operating wind farms has proven to subside and to have negligible impacts on local wildlife. After five full years of operation, Egmond aan Zee wind farm in the Netherlands showed zero negative impact on the benthic communities within the wind farm site resulting from increased sediment flow.

Marine Species Impacts
Marine organisms face several negative impacts from the creation of wind farms including increased noise pollution. However, the benefits that come from the creation of the wind farm outweigh the negative effects. The noise levels created by fully operational offshore wind farms have shown minimal long-term disturbance of organisms within the local area, however knowledge on this topic is lacking and requires further study over longer periods of time. However, the most dramatic noise pollution occurs during pile driving, but it is not a long-term impairment. One Dutch study showed an increase in the detection of dolphins inside the wind farm area as opposed to outside sampling sites. This same study also reported the return of seals to the area following completion of construction.
According to a study conducted by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the noise generated by an active turbine may be audible to marine mammals from just over 40 miles away. Ongoing research explains methods that can be used to significantly reduce the impact of noise on the surrounding environment.
Following the construction of wind farms, each turbine may support marine wildlife on a large scale. Each wind turbine is able to support up to four metric tons of shellfish that attracts other marine wildlife to the area, similarly to that of an artificial reef. The wind farm will then attract a wide range of organisms to the area due to the newly available habitat and resources. The higher abundance of smaller organisms will attract larger predatory organisms to the wind farm and create a healthy marine ecosystem that may not have been as abundant or productive pre-construction.
The increased biodiversity provides marine mammals with high food availability, encouraging them to return to the area in higher abundances than pre-construction. The increase in food availability resulting from the physical structures of the turbines will provide an overall benefit to marine organisms and their ecosystem.

Avian Species Impacts
The proposed wind farm in Ocean City will be positioned in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a major migration pattern for birds along the east coast of North America. Birds that fly along the Atlantic Flyway may include the bald eagle, golden-winged warbler, and piping plovers. This causes fear that there will be increased bird strikes during the annual migration. There have been several studies to quantify the estimated rate of impact of the proposed wind farm in Ocean City, which has proven to be minimal. In fact, wind farms cause fewer bird deaths than other anthropogenic factors. One of these studies found that, “wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh.” This data was collected from land based wind farms, where the abundance of birds and bats is much higher than on the coast. As such, the strikes from offshore wind farms would be much lower comparatively to the land farms and other types of energy production. Another study conducted at an offshore wind farm called Horns Rev located in the North Sea found minimal bird collisions with the turbines based on observation and modeling.
Furthermore, few species fly far enough off the coast for the wind farm to interfere with their normal flight pattern. Local bird species who do not necessarily use the Atlantic Flyway for their migration were found to be in higher abundance near the wind farms because of the higher localized biodiversity. Cormorant and seagull populations actually increased in the wind farm area. Additionally, the birds inhabited the area for longer periods of time than previously measured and would nest on the turbines. Birds that are migrating along the Atlantic Flyway are likely to have few strikes and perhaps even use the wind farm for an intermediate point for rest and a source of nutrition. The presence of a wind farm in this area would provide a beneficial site for resting, socialization, and foraging.

Conclusion
Based on findings and information from currently active wind farms, the overall environmental impact of offshore wind in Ocean City will be positive. The area will experience a decrease in carbon emissions resulting from increased biodiversity because of creation of new habitat and food sources, as well as increased total biomass. While wildlife may be negatively affected during construction and servicing of turbines, these effects tend to be short-lived and have shown minimal or no long-term negative impacts on behavior or physiology of species present. Current knowledge of offshore wind has provided a lot of insight into the potential issues which may be faced during construction and implementation, making it possible to anticipate and preemptively act to mitigate any negative effects. Thus, serious environmental harm can be avoided while taking advantage of the benefits of clean energy.

SIGN THIS PETITION TO THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT URGING THEM TO APPROVE OFFSHORE WIND IN MARYLAND!

Learn More: Bringing Offshore Wind to Maryland

Offshore Wind Energy is a Breeze: Economic Benefits

By Chloe Taylor, Katrina Vaitkus, Justin Stacey, Zachary Felch, Amanda Speciale, Katie DeVoss, and Miranda Mlilo
Who we are:

Left to right: Chloe Taylor, Katrina Vaitkus, Zachary Felch, Justin Stacey, Miranda Mlilo, Amanda Speciale, and Katie DeVoss

We are a group of University of Maryland students majoring in Environmental Science and Policy. For our senior capstone project, we are researching the impact of offshore wind energy  to help CCAN prepare for the upcoming public comment period for the proposed Ocean City US Wind Project. We will be creating a series of blog posts to provide information about different aspects of offshore wind and its impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the economy, and wildlife. This is the second of our three part series.


There seems to be a common misconception that offshore wind energy might hurt Ocean City’s economy. This could not be further from the truth! In fact, research suggests that an offshore wind farm may actually bolster very important sectors of the economy such as tourism, real estate, and job creation.
Tourism and Real Estate
Many polls have surveyed beachgoers and gathered data about their vacationing preferences after the theoretical construction of offshore wind turbines. The results were generally positive for offshore wind, and showed either no change in beach preferences, or an increased likelihood that tourists would visit the area. For example, one Goucher poll from fall 2017 surveyed Marylanders to find out how the proposed offshore wind project would impact whether they choose Ocean City as a vacation destination. Out of 671 Marylanders, 75% of people said that the offshore wind farm would make no difference about where they choose to vacation. Additionally, 12% said that the presence of a wind farm might make them more inclined to visit, out of curiosity and interest.
This sentiment was further emphasized by Jessica Willi, Executive Director of the Block Island Tourism Council who stated that after the construction of the Block Island offshore wind farm, “We’ve definitely seen more people on the island that have come just to see the wind farm; we’ve had businesses sprout up on the island, boats taking people out just to see the wind farm.”
Additionally, a French study found that turbines will bring an increase in biodiversity and wildlife. This will expand the tourism market, bolstered by the desire to view, learn about, and interact with wildlife through activities like observational boating and diving around turbine foundations!
Furthermore, it is unlikely that there will be any negative impacts on real estate prices. While there is no existing data regarding real estate impacts from offshore wind farms, there are studies from onshore facilities located close to homes indicating that real estate will not be affected. Since offshore wind farms are located several miles off of the coast and have negligible visibility, data showing no effect from turbines located close to homes onshore would likely support a lack of impact for offshore turbines far from homes and other properties.  In fact, benefits from tourism and lower electricity costs might even increase property values.
A 2013 study by Ben Hoen and colleagues found no statistical evidence that wind turbines affected nearby home prices in either the post-announcement/pre-construction or post-construction period. They found that while sale prices might temporarily decrease following the announcement of construction, labeled the “anticipation effect,” these decreases will wear off following construction.
Job Creation
US Wind plans to invest millions of dollars into Baltimore’s industrial and manufacturing sector. This substantial investment into the local economy is the root of the job opportunities for the city from the offshore wind project. Revitalization of the manufacturing industry could lead to the creation of hundreds of jobs in the greater Baltimore area, contributing to the 3,580 jobs the Public Service Commission of Maryland has required US Wind to create in the state. At every step of the process, employment opportunities abound. Skilled workers from numerous disciplines are essential to upgrade the facilities at Tradepoint Atlantic (at Sparrows Point) and other locations. An independent study for the Department of Energy forecasts the creation of up to 600 jobs and 33 million dollars in compensation during this stage alone. After the improvements are complete, over 150 tradespeople will likely be employed at the fabrication facility constructing steel jacket foundations — these jobs will continue even after the Maryland offshore wind project is complete as the East Coast’s offshore wind industry grows. Such professions can pay over 20 dollars an hour.
Not only does Baltimore stand to gain significant employment opportunities, so does Ocean City. As the closest city to the project, there is a unique chance to participate in the construction and upkeep of the wind turbines. Specialized workers from crane operators to electricians may be called on to help in the construction of the turbines while receiving payment upwards of 25 dollars an hour on average, if not more. Perhaps the most interesting job prospect is the chance to become employed as wind turbine service technicians. With a lifespan of 25 years, the turbines will require constant check ups and maintenance by locally-based technicians. Community colleges and technical schools are the key to getting a foot in the door with a 2-year degree or 1-year certification in the field. With a 96% job outlook in the coming years, the time is now to enter the profession.
Economic Benefits in Maryland
This project will also generate millions of dollars for Maryland’s economy, providing more jobs and emerging business investments. Maryland created the Maryland Offshore Wind Business Development Fund to encourage future project development. US Wind is required to contribute $6 million to this fund between 2017-2019, which will help other businesses emerge and profit within this novel industry. US Wind has pledged to invest 26.4 million dollars in upgrades to the Tradepoint Atlantic port facility, and an additional 51 million dollars in another steel facility, further solidifying their commitment to the local economy and job growth. US Wind is required to spend at least 19% of total development and construction costs within Maryland. Their studies estimate this in-state expenditure to be $610 million during development and construction, and another $744 million (valued in 2017 dollars) in the operation phase. This offshore wind farm will provide millions of dollars to the state’s economy and help advance business interests.
In addition to these state benefits, Marylanders do not need to fear exorbitant electricity costs. There may be some concern over how the state will offset the costs to build the project, such as raising the price of electricity. However, Maryland law prohibits residential rates from exceeding an additional $1.50 per month (valued in 2012 dollars) through 2040. For businesses and other non-residential payers, this increase is less than 1.4% annually. While this is a small increase, it is still advantageous to build the wind farm, as it helps the state comply with its renewable energy standards. Additionally, the cost of electricity should decrease over time as this project encourages future offshore wind projects in the pipeline. In one National Renewable Energy Laboratory study, they found the cost of electricity in the mid-Atlantic will decrease through 2027 with the installation of offshore wind projects currently in the pipeline. Compared to 2015 prices, the data reflect a 41-52% cost reduction in 2027 per megawatt hour to the mid-Atlantic! Thus, constructing this project will only have small rate increases to Maryland ratepayers, but will decrease future regional energy costs while meeting our renewable energy goals.
In conclusion, offshore wind has the potential to increase tourism and property values in Ocean City. The project will create jobs, stabilize electricity rates, and increase Maryland’s Taylor x revenue. Stay informed, get involved, and let our government know that you support offshore wind in the state of Maryland!
SIGN THIS PETITION TO THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT URGING THEM TO APPROVE OFFSHORE WIND IN MARYLAND!

Learn More: Bringing Offshore Wind to Maryland

Offshore Wind Energy is a Breeze: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Chloe Taylor, Katrina Vaitkus, Justin Stacey, Zachary Felch, Amanda Speciale, Katie DeVoss, and Miranda Mlilo
Who we are:
We are a group of University of Maryland students majoring in Environmental Science and Policy. For our senior capstone project, we are researching the impact of offshore wind energy for CCAN to help prepare for the upcoming public comment period for the proposed Ocean City US Wind Project. We will be creating a series of blog posts to provide information about different aspects of offshore wind and its impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, the economy, and wildlife. This is the first of our three part series.

Chloe Taylor, Katrina Vaitkus, Justin Stacey, Zachary Felch, Amanda Speciale, Katie DeVoss

Greenhouse gas emissions are the most significant driver of climate change. These emissions increase atmospheric temperature, correlating to climate change events such as sea level rise and increased frequency of extreme weather. Not only do these emissions create climate change, but they also pose serious public health risks, specifically to those with poor respiratory health, due to their contribution to air pollution and air quality.
Renewable energy is a solution to combat the problems from greenhouse gas emissions. Supporting renewable energy initiatives and projects can decrease greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons per year. Currently in the state of Maryland, we emit 59 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, and 17 million metric tons of these alone are from the energy sector. Despite this high number, only 10% of energy generated is renewable. The offshore wind project proposed off of the coast of Ocean City, Maryland may be the solution we are looking for. Not only will it help decrease Maryland’s total emissions by millions of metric tons per year, but it will encourage more renewable energy development.
Currently, wind energy accounts for 1.4% of renewable energy in Maryland, from 191 MW of onshore wind, providing for 49,000 homes. The offshore wind project proposes 250MW of wind power, therefore this could more than double the amount of wind power Maryland uses. American Wind Energy estimates that in 2017 wind energy avoided a total of 189 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the US , reducing 11% of all US power emissions. In addition to carbon dioxide emission displacement, wind also avoided 188,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 122,000 tons of nitrogen oxide emissions. This major cut alone prompted an estimated $8 billion in public health savings due to better air quality and less pollution.
The offshore wind project could bring many benefits to the state of Maryland and help to decrease emissions on both the state and global scale. Shifting towards renewable energy is important not only for protecting our environment, but also for protecting our own health. Stay informed, get involved, and let our government know that you support offshore wind in the state of Maryland!

Sign this petition to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management urging them to approve offshore wind in Maryland!


Pictures Retrieved From:
https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/hledej.php?hleda=pollution
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/5/25/17393156/offshore-wind-us-massachusetts-rhode-island-zinke
http://www.uswindinc.com/our-projects/

Learn More: Bringing Offshore Wind to Maryland

Creating a Clean Energy Future by Eliminating Trash Incineration

By Jackie Apel
Rockville, Maryland
In light of the Maryland Department of Energy’s new rule requiring waste incinerators in the state to reduce their harmful air pollution, this is an excellent time to consider ways for Baltimore and other cities to manage their waste disposal processes. The Baltimore City Council has issued a resolution to improve upon its Solid Waste Management Master Plan, asking consultants to bid on a contract to develop a new plan. These new resolutions and limits on emissions are important first steps towards reducing air pollution, but environmentalists have expressed concerns that these steps do not go far enough to adequately address our clean air problems.
Residents who live near incineration facilities are all too familiar with the dirty air that they breathe each day. Recently, I heard testimony from a resident of Baltimore who recounted how many of her neighbors had been exposed to dangerous chemicals as well as air from the BRESCO incinerator, and had developed lung cancer as a result. While it is encouraging that the incinerators are taking steps to lower their output of nitrogen oxides, it is also a known fact that incinerators tend to be placed near, and disproportionately impact, lower income communities of color. A recent scientific study by The American Chemical Society reported that nitrogen oxides directly contribute to respiratory diseases like asthma and COPD; lung cancers; heart disease; birth defects, and developmental problems in children, with impacts to the brain and nervous systems. Nitrogen dioxide is a hidden health hazard, and particulates can become airborne and travel long distances, with microscopic particles penetrating deeply into the lungs. During the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearing, we also heard testimony from a teenager who suffers with asthma about the dangers of air pollution, and its consequences for human health, and the importance of not revoking our environmental regulations. Many are rightfully concerned as we watch the Trump Administration move in a fateful direction, away from regulation of harmful toxins, to allowing companies to proliferate pollution of our air and water. Combined, there are many sources of air pollution that affect our health on a daily basis, as well as contribute to climate change.
What can we do to minimize our trash pollution and create a cleaner environment? Maryland can begin by passing the Clean Energy Jobs Initiative, which would phase out incineration as a Tier 1 source in the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. Improving our technology and limiting emissions will help, but we also need to look at the whole picture of waste management— from product design to disposal—and find ways to move towards a “zero waste” plan like Oakland, California has done, where 1,000 jobs were created. Pollution costs the U.S. billions in healthcare, and is adversely affecting our planet’s weather. We need to embrace new ways of thinking about waste disposal, and do everything we can to limit our toxic air. We can do this sooner rather than later, by following a zero waste and clean energy plan!
Submit a comment today! Urge the MDE to lower pollution from Baltimore’s incinerator.

Breaking: Lawmakers announce steps to combat Hogan’s fracking hypocrisy

Maryland Legislators Announce Steps to Combat Governor Hogan’s Efforts to Expand Fracked-Gas Pipelines and Combustion in Maryland

New documents show how Gov. Hogan is collaborating with TransCanada and others to ship large amounts of fracked gas into and across MD, violating the spirit of  the state’s fracking ban.
Maryland assembly members announce possible legislative steps and other plans to stop costly leaking gas pipelines instead of Hogan’s major buildout plan for fracked-gas infrastructure across the state.
 
ANNAPOLIS, MD– Environmental leaders and legislators today sharply criticized Governor Larry Hogan’s multi-pronged effort to build fracked-gas pipelines in Maryland at the expense of the environment and consumers. During a telephone press call, two state senators offered an alternative pathway that involves repairing existing leaky gas pipelines in Maryland in a way that would help consumers, create jobs, and protect the climate. Environmental leaders, meanwhile, specifically reiterated their strong opposition to efforts by Hogan and TransCanada to build a controversial fracked-gas pipeline across Maryland and under the Potomac River.

Click here for a downloadable version of the “Hogan’s Fracking Hypocrisy” factsheet

Today’s press conference took place two days before hundreds of concerned activists plan to take part in the first-ever “citizen encirclement” of Gov. Hogan’s mansion, in a show of solidarity and opposition to TransCanada’s Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project, better known as the “Potomac Pipeline.” This unprecedented protest Thursday will be the culmination of nearly a year of opposition to this pipeline across Maryland, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.

Since signing a ban on fracking in 2017, Governor Hogan has worked consistently to undermine the spirit — if not the letter — of the law. For months, his administration has been actively negotiating with controversial Canadian oil and gas companies to ship large amounts of fracked gas into and across Maryland. In December his Administration explicitly called this gas, produced in neighboring states using the dangerous fracking drilling method, a “valuable resource” with “environmental benefits” . The Administration also announced its ambitious plans to “kick-start a natural gas expansion…throughout Maryland.
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network and the Potomac Riverkeeper Network recently uncovered how Governor Hogan has been collaborating with Canadian companies to promote fracked-gas pipelines. This includes his proposal to use settlement money from the forthcoming merger between Washington Gas and Calgary-based AltaGas to construct fracked-gas pipelines at the expense of Maryland ratepayers.  Governor Hogan has proposed a virtually unprecedented settlement wherein the state of Maryland would spend $33 million in settlement money to assist gas companies in the construction of more fracked-gas pipelines all across Maryland. The settlement – which must be approved by the Maryland Public Service Commission later this year — also requires that AltaGas spend an additional $70 million (which could be charged to ratepayers) to promote pipeline construction and other fracked-gas infrastructure in the state.
During the call, Senator Richard Madaleno (D-18) and Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22) proposed taking the $100 million that Hogan wants to give to the fracked gas industry and instead investing it in workers to repair leaky pipes throughout the state, similar to legislation already passed in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
Senator Richard Madaleno (D-18) stated: “While Governor Hogan collaborates with Canadian companies to push dangerous fracked-gas pipelines where people don’t want them, Maryland’s existing pipelines are leaking climate-warming methane into our atmosphere. It’s clear we need to stop new fracked-gas infrastructure like the Potomac Pipeline from endangering the people of Maryland. We can bring jobs and environmental benefits to the state by instead focusing on rebuilding and repairing our current gas infrastructure and transitioning to renewable energy.”
Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22), who is a member of Governor Hogan’s Maryland Climate Commission stated: “Governor Hogan is putting all Marylanders at risk with his plan to aggressively expand fracked-gas infrastructure across the state. We need to work to protect the people of Maryland, not the bottom-line of Canadian gas companies.”
Documents also show that Governor Hogan collaborated with TransCanada to allow the Canadian gas company to carry out a dangerous drilling method called “Horizontal Directional Drilling” without oversight from the Maryland Department of Environment. And despite repeated pleas from groups ranging from the Potomac Riverkeeper Network to the Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Hogan administration refuses to follow a standard set by Virginia and other states when it comes to reviewing impacts to water quality from fracked-gas pipelines.
Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who is also a member of the Maryland Climate Commission, stated: “The Governor has launched this gas expansion effort while saying he supports the Paris Climate Agreements, even as scientists confirm that fracked gas is essentially as harmful to the climate as coal. As for clean-energy substitutes to gas, the Governor vetoed a 2016 General Assembly law expanding wind and solar power and other renewable energy sources to make up 25% of the state’s grid. Governor Hogan is trying to drag us back to the dark ages on climate.”
Brent Walls, Upper Potomac Riverkeeper, stated: “It’s hypocritical for Governor Hogan to take a stand against fracking and push so hard for fracking infrastructure — and it’s absurd for him to do so with such careless disregard for the safety of his constituents. The Potomac Pipeline was just the beginning. We need a new direction for the state of Maryland, one that leads us away from outdated gas infrastructure and towards a truly sustainable energy future.”
CCAN concluded that “Hogan’s commitment to gas infrastructure is a major threat to the state’s energy policy, a potential harm to consumers, and it creates serious legal uncertainty under NAFTA.”

CONTACT:
Denise Robbins; Chesapeake Climate Action Network; denise@chesapeakeclimate.org; 608-620-8819
Brooke Harper; Chesapeake Climate Action Network; brooke@chesapeakeclimate.org; 301-992-6875

What Will Accelerate US Solar Adoption?

Written by Kyle Pennell from PowerScout (a marketplace that lets you compare multiple quotes for home solar installations)


While the United States solar industry continues to grow, creating sustainable power and job opportunities nationwide, it has a long way to go before it is on par with European countries like Germany, where solar is cheaper and more widespread.
The United States can close the solar gap by examining the solar learning curve, increasing state-based government incentives, embracing community solar, and passing laws which will see an increased solar carve out applied to the Renewable Portfolio Standard of each state.

The Solar Learning Curve

Solar hardware has been falling in cost consistently since 1977. Back then, at the beginning of the Jimmy Carter presidential administration, solar panels sold at a rate of $76.67 per Watt. Fast forward to today, and you see panels selling for less than $1 per Watt. The price of panels has fallen more than 50% since 2008, and over 100% since 1977 (more on these costs at PowerScout)
By accurately predicting this ongoing decrease, the solar industry can focus advertising efforts and plan for increased production brought about by demand. But how does one predict such things? In the solar world, it’s actually quite easy.
The solar learning curve, or experience curve, is a trackable industry pattern in which for every cumulative doubling of production volume, solar PV hardware has seen an average decrease of 20%. This is a symbiotic relationship which perfectly explains solar cost trends. As more installations occur, the price falls. As the price falls, more people book installations.
Tracking the learning curve will help solar companies focus their marketing efforts and anticipate demand.

Import Tariffs Could Cause Solar Disruption

While states should be embracing laws that help the spread of solar adoption, they should also be fighting against those that would hinder it.
In January, a new situation arose which could threaten the spread of solar adoption and offset the industry’s steady price decrease. The International Trade Commission ruled last year that solar panels produced in China serve as a detriment to the American solar production industry. This ruling gave the White House authority to impose increased tariffs on imported panels, thus potentially causing the price of solar systems in the US to rise. US President Donald Trump passed those tariffs into law on January 22, 2018. Now, all imported solar panels will see a first year tariff of 30%, followed by 25% in the second year, 20% in the third year, and 15% in the fourth. This first year tariff will add 10-15 cents per watt onto every foreign panel, increasing the price of a 7 kW system by over $1,000.   
While this could, in theory, benefit domestic solar panel producers who struggle to compete with China’s low prices, it could stand to offset the nation’s renewable energy efforts. In fact, the SEIA estimates that the decision will actually cause the loss of 23,000 American jobs.
Affordability equates to adoption, and by placing roadblocks in the path of progress, the United States could start to see the European solar market widen the gap.

Pass Laws to Increase Solar Carve Outs

Many states have what is known as a Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires a set increase in the amount of their renewable energy production. Each RPS contains a solar carve out, which sets a percentage goal for power generated by solar panels.
In Maryland, where the RPS is 25% by 2020, the solar carve out is only 2.5%. Newly proposed legislation, spearheaded by local non-profit organizations is calling for an increase of the state’s solar carve out to 14.5%. They are also seeking to up the state’s RPS to 50% by 2030. Such a dramatic increase would do well to spread the adoption of solar throughout Maryland.
States who increase their solar carve out are helping to spread solar adoption to the masses. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network, who first called on the Maryland state government to enact these increases, stated that such a change would provide an investment in health, climate, jobs and equality.

Community Solar

Not everyone can install a solar system on their roof. Citizens with unsuitable roofs or rental properties can still take advantage of solar savings with a community solar program.
Community solar is popping up all over the country, wherein individuals can subscribe to energy generated by a large communal solar panel farm. The power generated by the panels you are renting is then applied to your electric bill. Community solar allows for the use of renewable energy, even for those who cannot afford installation costs.
Some states, like Maryland, have proposed pilot programs to bring community solar initiatives to its residents, with the goal of bringing the benefit of solar power to low and moderate income users. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network has also been working hard to increase community solar programs throughout Maryland, dubbing it “Solar for Everyone.”

More Incentives Nationwide

Government incentives help to make solar energy more attractive to homeowners. Unfortunately, incentives tend to vary state by state. Thus, even though many states have ideal conditions for solar power, because the state government has not embraced this technology, we see less rollout.
Take Michigan for example. Detroit sees average period of sunlight in excess of four hours per day. That, coupled with the state’s lower temperatures make for an ideal solar environment. But with virtually no government aid, Michigan homeowners see far less solar penetration than states such as New York and California.
Some common and helpful incentives that make solar more affordable for homeowners include property tax and sales tax exemption.
When solar is installed in a home, property values rise. Normally, this kind of upswing would be accompanied by a bill from your local tax assessor. But many states have decided to overlook this and free residents from an increased financial burden.
Sales tax exemptions are also helpful. For a state with a sales tax rate of 7.5%, a $20,000 PV solar system would come with an additional $1,500 tacked on. That’s a large amount of money, and its elimination could make or break a homeowner’s decision to install solar.
One way in which we can catch up to European nations would be to govern solar incentives on the federal level, rather than state, to ensure that all US residents are able to afford renewable energy. In Germany, for example, solar is overseen by a uniform national system, making adoption easier across the entire country.