Why I Missed the Big March This Sunday

I pulled into camp after 70 miles of riding my bike today, and the first thing I did was to call people who I knew were at the big march in New York City. It was so great to hear how big — how really big — a success this was.
It felt a little strange to be peddling my bike literally away from New York City this morning, going west into Pennsylvania from New Jersey. But that is the route of this year’s Climate Ride from New York to DC, and I am on it for the third year in a row.
I decided to honor my commitment to do this ride, and to raise the money to do it, even after I heard of the conflict between the People’s Climate March and this climate ride, and I don’t regret it. There are over 100 serious people doing this bike ride or helping to make it happen, and there is no question some of these people are in, and others will be in, the leadership of the climate movement for many years to come. It is good to be here making connections with them and telling them about the work of CCAN, along with my three other CCAN team members pictured with me above.
The climate ride also has a message to those marching today, a message just in the nature of what the ride is: 5 days riding 300 miles to support groups acting on climate and as a show of commitment to this critical civilizational struggle.
We have 185 miles to go over the next three days, arriving in a city — Washington, DC — that’s essentially in denial about the seriousness of this crisis and the need for consistent, across-the-board action to get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It’s time for the people to make this happen using whatever means that we have in our nonviolent arsenal.
You can chip in to support my ride and all of the work CCAN does by clicking here.

New Report: How Will Climate-Driven Flooding Impact the Mid-Atlantic?

On September 16th, Climate Central released an updated version of its Surging Seas report, which maps out the impacts our coasts could face from storm-driven flooding as sea levels continue to rise.
The report shows that, in our region, Norfolk, Ocean City, Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, Annapolis and many communities along the Potomac are especially vulnerable.
As the Baltimore Sun reported, the Climate Central analysis estimates that sea level rise has already increased the likelihood of extreme floods by around 20 percent in areas in and around Baltimore and Annapolis. Looking ahead, more than $19.6 billion in property value in Maryland lies within five feet of the high tide line, putting it risk of storm-driven flooding under intermediate sea-level rise projections. As reported by the Washington Post, Washington, D.C. could be at risk of an 8-foot flood every ten years by 2100, when Atlantic Coast sea levels are projected to have risen by at least 2 to 4 feet. In that scenario, storm surges would put upwards of $7 billion in property at risk, including much of the National Mall and three military bases.
The report comes with an interactive map tool (see below), which you can use to see how different amounts of sea level rise and storm surges will impact coastal areas, on a neighborhood-level scale, matched with timelines of risk. This map also provides statistics of population, homes and land affected by sea level rise at the city, county and state level, plus links to fact sheets, data downloads, action plans, and more.

The same day that the Climate Central report was released, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction with George Mason University and the Climate Communication Consortium of Maryland released a survey on Marylanders’ views of climate adaptation and sea level rise.
With the survey results, comes hope for action. Seventy-three percent of Marylanders want state and local governments to protect their communities from the impacts of climate change, and the majority said shielding coastal areas from sea-level rise should be a high or very high priority.
As lawmakers across the region debate fracking, the EPA’s proposed carbon rules, and other measures to shape our energy future, these reports should sway our decision-makers to make clean energy solutions a priority across the Mid-Atlantic. While we need to adapt to the sea level rise already locked in from the burning of fossil fuels, we also need a rapid transition to clean energy and energy efficiency technologies to prevent worst-case flooding scenarios.
Check out the reports here:
Climate Communications Consortium of Maryland: Adapting to Climate Change & Sea Level Rise
Climate Central: Surging Seas
For news coverage:
Washington Post: Flooding from storm surge would threaten D.C. infrastructure, report says
Baltimore Sun: Maryland faces worse climate-driven flooding, report warns

Everything you need to know: People's Climate March this Sunday!

Less than 100 hours remain until the People’s Climate March — the biggest climate march in history.
Here’s what you need to know to join CCAN as we make history together in New York City:
1. CCAN Meet-Up: On Sunday, September 21st, marchers will assemble on Central Park West between 65th and 86th Streets. The march will be made up of contingents coming together around shared themes. CCAN will be marching with the Anti-Fracking group, within the “We Know Who Is Responsible” bloc.
Meet up with CCANers on the corner of 81st Street and Central Park West. We’ll be with the giant Stop Cove Point Pipeline!  Sign up here to march with CCAN, and we’ll send you any last-minute updates on the meet-up location. For a map of the line-up, closest subway stops and more, check out the march logistics page here.
2. Flow of the Day: The march begins at 11:30 AM — but we suggest showing up early, especially if you want to be in one of the specific contingents. CCAN staff will be at the corner of 81st Street and Central Park West beginning at 8:00AM, so come early to hang out and check out our new CCAN t-shirts for sale. (Again, sign up here for updates). The march will end on 11th Avenue, where there will be beautiful art, music, and a closing ceremony for all who can stick around.
3. Transportation: There are over 400 buses and trains heading to the march. Click here to find one from your region. Buses will be dropping off at 86th Street and Central Park West. Please check in with your bus captain about departure times and locations.
4. Housing is still available: New Yorkers, despite their reputation, are very nice, and are opening their homes and churches to folks like you coming to town for the march. Click here to find housing for the People’s Climate March.
5. All weekend long amazing events are happening: The Youth Convergence will be a space for students to come together and share campaign knowledge. Divestment groups are meeting up to compare strategies. On Monday, thousands will “flood” Wall Street for a major sit-in. There’s a lot you won’t want to miss, so check out all the events here.

This isn’t a moment to miss: With the major United Nations climate summit following just two days after our march, every major news outlet across the world will be watching. And if we make this march bigger than any climate mobilization ever before, we, the people demanding bold action will be in every single one of those stories.
Join CCAN at the People’s Climate March. It’s going to be amazing.

Report Warns Investors: AVOID Dominion’s Cove Point LNG Export Project

For Immediate Release
September 10, 2014

Report Warns Investors: AVOID Dominion’s Cove Point LNG Export Project

Analysis details serious financial, governance and sustainability risks of controversial Dominion Midstream master limited partnership to export fracked gas

NEW YORK—A report released today warns investors of serious financial, corporate governance, and sustainability risks associated with Dominion Resources’ new gas export subsidiary, Dominion Midstream, which would own a controversial $3.8 billion liquefied natural gas export facility at Cove Point in southern Maryland. The report, prepared by the financial research firm Profundo, recommends that investors avoid buying units in Dominion Midstream (DM.). The company is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to make an initial public offering (IPO) on the New York Stock Exchange.
“Investors buying the common units of Dominion Midstream Partners (DM.) should realize that this company’s cash-flow is purely dependent on the Cove Point Liquefaction Project, for which further delays are expected,” said Jan Willem van Gelder, director of Profundo, the research firm that prepared the investor risk report. “In combination with the limited voting power of the unitholders and the dominant position of parent company Dominion Resources, investors are likely to face very uncertain returns.”
Key performance risks highlighted in the report include:

  • Sustainability: The Cove Point project has already faced significant public protests and is likely to face mounting legal challenges because it threatens to cause significant air and water pollution, including impacts to the sensitive ecology of the Chesapeake Bay, to trigger more climate pollution than all seven of Maryland’s existing coal-fired power plants combined, and to drive the expansion of environmentally damaging fracking.
  • Market volatility: The volatile and unpredictable prices of natural gas overseas could make export projects from the United States unprofitable, thus rendering Dominion’s Cove Point facility a stranded asset.
  • Financial: Dominion Midstream’s undiversified cash flow and sole reliance on two customers increases the risks to investors from likely legal challenges or other delays, which could cause cost overruns or lead to missed contract deadlines for exporting gas overseas.
  • Governance: Dominion Midstream unitholders would be last in line to receive cash distributions from the project. Meanwhile, no agreement requires parent company Dominion Resources to pursue a business strategy favoring Dominion Midstream, and the underwriters of the IPO are also investors in the parent company—constituting clear conflicts of interest.

“Dominion Midstream is concentrating significant financial risk on the success of Cove Point. The project faces continued delays in a business environment in which carbon pollution regulations are becoming stricter and the feasibility of the tax-free, master limited partnership structure is uncertain,” said Matt Patsky, CEO of Trillium Asset Management. “Long-term, I believe that investment in renewable energy infrastructure is a much smarter decision.”
Dominion Midstream filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in March 2014 to proceed with an IPO estimated to be worth approximately $400 million. In May, a Dominion shareholder and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network filed an official complaint with the SEC over Dominion’s failure to adequately disclose significant risks associated with the project.
“The Cove Point facility is already behind its original schedule. Even if Dominion receives the regulatory approvals it needs to begin construction, public interest groups are preparing for significant legal challenges that could cause further delay,” said Diana Dascalu-Joffe, senior general counsel at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “The project depends on an environmentally toxic and economically volatile fracking bubble, is vulnerable to the same climate change impacts it would worsen, and could be subject to increasingly costly regulations because of its large pollution footprint. This report warns investors of the full array of financial and reputational risks that come with Dominion’s massive fossil fuel bet.”
The $3.8 billion Cove Point gas export terminal, proposed on the Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland, continues to face steep public opposition and protests because of its potential role in speeding hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” The proposal would also create global warming pollution on par with coal, and expose hundreds of nearby residents to potential explosion, flammable vapor cloud, and other liquefied gas catastrophes. Dominion is awaiting permit approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which received an unprecedented number of public comments—more than 150,000—gathered by dozens of community, state and national groups that oppose the project.
The Profundo risk report was commissioned by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
The full report is available at: http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Dominion-Midstream-IPO-Risk-Report-9-10-2014.pdf
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Diana Dascalu-Joffe, 240-396-1984, diana@chesapeakeclimate.org

###

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots, nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to fighting global warming in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Our mission is to build and mobilize a powerful grassroots movement to call for state, national and international policies that will put us on a path to climate stability. Learn more at www.chesapeakeclimate.org.

Climate Advocates Denounce McAuliffe Decision on Dominion Gas Pipeline

For Immediate Release
September 2, 2014

Climate Advocates Denounce McAuliffe Support for Dominion’s Massive ‘Atlantic Coast’ Fracked Gas Pipeline Project

Mega-project, which already faces stiff resistance from Va. landowners, counteracts the governor’s commitment to tackling climate change

RICHMOND—Today, Governor Terry McAuliffe stood next to Dominion Resources CEO Thomas Farrell to announce his support for a major expansion of Dominion’s proposal to build a pipeline to carry fracked natural gas from West Virginia, across central Virginia, to North Carolina. Once called the “Reliability Project,” the new 550-mile, $5 billion proposal is now the joint-venture “Atlantic Coast” pipeline.
Mike Tidwell, executive director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, had the following statement in response:
“Today Governor McAuliffe has made a huge mistake that harms the environment. Barely two months after re-launching the state’s climate change commission, the governor has regretfully embraced a Dominion gas pipeline project that threatens to contribute significantly to the climate crisis. Tom Farrell’s 550-mile, $5 billion pipeline system would incentivize more fracking across the region and contribute to emissions of methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas which, according to growing scientific data, could disrupt the climate on par with coal.
“In supporting this project, Governor McAuliffe is now complicit with Tom Farrell in locking Virginia into a multi-billion-dollar investment in more fossil fuels at a moment when scientists say we must be investing in truly carbon-free wind, solar, and energy efficiency technologies. We’ve come to expect this type of move from Dominion, the state’s top climate polluter and a company that has continually held Virginia back from serious commitments to clean energy. But we’re downright disappointed to see this from Governor McAuliffe.
“In making his announcement, Governor McAuliffe failed to mention the scientific data showing that methane, which leaks from fracking wells and pipelines, is as much as 87 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in heating the atmosphere over a 20-year period. The governor is lining up on the wrong side of farmers and landowners who live along Dominion’s proposed pipeline route and who see this project as a direct threat to their safety and livelihoods. The groundswell of grassroots resistance that Dominion is already facing will surely only grow in response to today’s news.
“Given the urgency of tackling climate change, this is the wrong project at the wrong time. Instead of touting a massive investment in more communities destroyed by fracking wells, divided by pipelines, and wrecked by runaway climate change, Tom Farrell and Gov. McAuliffe should be announcing a full-scale investment in Virginia’s vast and barely tapped clean energy resources.”
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Mike Tidwell, 240-460-5838, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org

###

Appalachian Power Company Targets Two Solar Customers

On September 16th, Appalachian Power Company will ask the State Corporation Commission for permission to tax residential customers whose solar systems exceed 10kw in size. Some of you might be wondering how many APCo customers would be affected by the new tax. The answer? Two. That’s right, there are TWO people in APCo’s service territory who have solar systems larger than 10kw on their homes and the utility wants them to pay.
Prepare yourself as you try to follow their train of thought:
 

  • Solar customers lower their utility bills by powering their homes with the sun
  • However, these customers are still using the utility’s services when the sun isn’t shining and the solar panels aren’t generating electricity
  • The burden to provide power to these customers on a part-time basis is onerous and forces them to pass costs to other customers
  • The rest of APCo’s customers are unfairly subsidizing the “free-riders” who rely on the utility for power
  • Thus, to be fair to everyone else, APCo must tax the “free-riders” to recover the costs

To put it another way: APCo is trying to make the argument that the only two customers with significant solar installations in their Virginia service territory are increasing the utility bills of APCo’s other 447,426 Virginia residential customers so much that the utility has no choice but to slap a tax on these two moochers in order to cover the cost.
Allow me to share a few facts. APCo’s rates have more than doubled since 2005 and it has nothing to do with solar energy. In fact, solar owners actually provide a benefit to utilities by providing excess grid power during times of high demand. And speaking of benefits, the CEO of APCo’s parent company, American Electric Power, earned more than $10 million in salary and benefits in 2013. And yet, APCo is spending an untold amount of money in staff time and legal fees to petition the SCC for the right to tax their two customers who have solar panels in excess of 10kw in size.
Head-scratching for sure.
Let’s take a dive into a few details of APCo’s request.

  • The standby charges would apply to residential customers with solar installations between 10kw and 20kw in size (state law restricts residential customers from installing solar systems larger than 20kw)
  • According to the filing, APCo will ask for distribution standby charges of $1.94/kw and transmission standby charges of $1.83/kw, totaling $3.77/kw
  • Thus, homeowners with solar systems of 10kw would be taxed $37.70/mo in new standby charges, or $452.40/yr, with the potential for homeowners with the maximum-allowed 20kw solar systems of being taxed $75.40/mo or $904.80/yr

It goes without saying that taxing the sun is a silly idea. However, APCo is simply following the playbook first-written by Virginia’s utility behemoth Dominion Virginia Power. They’ve already successfully convinced the SCC to apply distribution and transmission standby charges to its customers who have similar-sized systems. Seeing this opportunity, APCo is seizing its moment to take advantage of its climate-conscious customers by imposing punishing taxes upon them.
Standby charges aren’t just a matter of economic fairness. They set a dangerous precedent that have the intention of suppressing the solar market. The state of Virginia is creating an environment that encourages the development of only the smallest of customer-owned solar systems. Homeowners who may wish to install large systems on their homes or property may think twice about crossing the 10kw threshold out of fear of being hit with taxes.
Standby charges send the wrong message during a time when the state needs to aggressively ramp up its solar energy mix. Solar prices are falling dramatically across the nation and as more citizens are educated about the benefits of solar, they are more encouraged than ever to make the switch from fossil-fuels to clean energy. Utilities everywhere are in a full-blown panic about the growth of customer-owned solar and are pulling out all the stops in order to stagnate its growth as much as possible.
The public comment deadline for APCo’s rate case is September 9th and the hearing is September 16th. Hopefully you will join CCAN in urging the SCC to not tax the sun and reject APCo’s proposed new standby charges.

Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends Policy Update: August 2014

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network supports efforts to advance legislation to put a price on carbon and return all or most of the proceeds to American families. We are pleased to support HR 5271, the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, “cap and dividend” legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in the House of Representatives on July 30, 2014.
We will be producing and distributing this occasional newsletter to keep others informed about developments with this bill and with other efforts to put a price on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.
More information on the Van Hollen bill can be found at http://climateandprosperity.org.

In This Issue:

1. A Video Message from Rep. Chris Van Hollen
2. New York Times, July 30, 2014: The Carbon Dividend, by James K. Boyce
3. The Baltimore Sun, August 4, 2014: Cap and Dividend
4. The Washington Post, August 28, 2014: A climate for change: a solution conservatives could accept
5. The Santa Fe New Mexican: A smart strategy for fighting carbon pollution
6. Bloomberg Businessweek: Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?
7. CCL Legislative Update: Rep. Van Hollen introduces cap-and-dividend bill
8. With Liberty and Dividends For All book review: Use Common Wealth to Reduce Inequality

#1: A Video Message from Rep. Chris Van Hollen (2 ½ minutes)

#2: New York Times, July 30, 2014: The Carbon Dividend, by James K. Boyce

“From the scorched earth of climate debates a bold idea is rising — one that just might succeed in breaking the nation’s current political impasse on reducing carbon emissions. That’s because it would bring tangible gains for American families here and now.”
Read the New York Times op-ed.

#3: The Baltimore Sun, August 4, 2014: Cap and Dividend

“In short, the concept makes a lot of sense — in terms of promoting conservation, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases and supporting renewable energy — with the added benefit of making such a transition a bit easier for anyone with a valid Social Security number. It is the ultimate consumer-friendly approach to a rational U.S. energy policy with the chief shortcoming being that it doesn’t serve the agenda of any deep-pocketed special interest group and so may have trouble finding broad support in Congress.”
Read the Baltimore Sun editorial.

#4: The Washington Post, August 28, 2014: A climate for change: a solution conservatives could accept

“This is not the first time that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a House Democratic leader, has made the point that the best climate-change policy is not complicated. He introduced a similar plan in 2009. The underlying logic is older still: Since the beginning of the climate debate, mainstream economists, left and right, have argued that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to use simple market economics, putting a price on emissions that reflects the environmental damage they cause.”
Read the Washington Post editorial.

#5: The Santa Fe New Mexican: A smart strategy for fighting carbon pollution

“I’m a University of New Mexico student who works full time to make ends meet. I support this bill because I think we need to make the price of carbon-polluting energy sources reflect their true costs — in terms of the environment and our children’s futures, so we shift away from these sources to cleaner energy supplies. Secondly, I think regular people like me and my working-class family need to have help making the transition.”
Read the op-ed.

#6: Bloomberg Businessweek: Is This How to Sell Americans on Fighting Global Warming?

“The bill would require companies to have permits to produce or import carbon-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The permits, instead of being allocated politically, would be auctioned off by the government, so they would get into the hands of the emitters who need them the most. A similar auction system drastically reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide—which causes acid rain—quicker and cheaper than experts expected.”
Read the full Bloomberg story.

#7: CCL Legislative Update: Rep. Van Hollen introduces cap-and-dividend bill

“The introduction of this legislation shows that we have moved legislators — especially Democrats — a long way toward revenue-neutrality in carbon pricing, as well the concept of returning revenue to households as dividends. This is an important step forward as we seek bi-partisan legislation, and we’re thrilled with Van Hollen’s bill from that standpoint.”
Read the CCL update.

#8: With Liberty and Dividends For All book review: Use Common Wealth to Reduce Inequality

“One beauty of his proposal is that the income everyone receives would come with­out poli­tical or psychological stigma. The dividends couldn’t be criticized as reck­less govern­ment spending or money taken through taxation. Nor could they be called a handout to the ‘unde­­serv­ing poor.’ Dividends from common wealth would be a universal birthright, and that is a big part of their appeal. Chase down a copy of With Liberty and Dividends for All. It will challenge many of your assump­tions about what we can accomplish within a market economy and within the framework of the commons. The reverberations from this short, readable and profoundly original book will be heard for years to come.”
Read the full review.
CCAN encourages readers of Pricing Carbon, Paying Dividends to distribute it to others who might be interested. We welcome input on the contents of this publication and ideas for what could be included.
Send to Ted Glick at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.

A 40% Clean Electricity Standard Would Put Maryland on the Cutting Edge

CCAN and our partners will be fighting over the next year to double Maryland’s commitment to clean electricity. Burning dirty coal, oil and gas for electricity remains the single largest source of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and so it’s essential that Maryland transitions as quickly as possible to clean, non-polluting sources. Our state’s current requirement is 20% clean electricity by 2022, and we want to double that to 40% by 2025. This 40% clean electricity standard would put Maryland on the cutting edge of renewable energy policy, and it would go a long way toward increasing national momentum behind a clean energy economy.
A 40% clean electricity standard for Maryland would incentivize enough clean energy capacity to offset about 10 coal-fired power plants, and it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over 9.7 million metric tons per year. That’s the carbon equivalent of taking 2 million passenger vehicles off the road every year, which will deliver improved public health outcomes, cleaner air and cleaner water for Maryland and our region.
This 40% clean electricity standard for Maryland is ambitious, and in fact it is eminently achievable. The operators of our regional electricity grid recently released a study that examined the grid impacts of doubling current clean electricity levels in states in our region over the next decade. They included the cost of coping with the intermittency of wind and solar as well as the costs of major transmission upgrades that would likely be needed. The very good news is that the study concluded that grid “will not have any significant issues” if each state doubled its own clean electricity standards. In fact, the study found that we would reap significant benefits by accelerating our clean electricity generation, including maintenance of reliability, reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and lower energy costs.
So, Maryland can and should get to 40% clean electricity as soon as we can, and that’s what we’ll be pushing for in the coming months. Stay tuned for updates and ways to get involved, and check out more on the campaign here: http://chesapeakeclimate.org/maryland/40-percent-rps/

Natural Gas in Virginia: Dominion’s proposed pipeline and how we can stand together to fight back

Update as of November 13th, 2014:On October 31st, Dominion Resources submitted a pre-filing request to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, which asks them to begin the environmental review of the pipeline. Landowners, community members, and activists around the state are continuing to mobilize and fight Dominion’s FERC requests at every step of the process. CCAN has partnered with local groups on the ground to launch a petition to Governor McAuliffe asking him to renounce his support of the pipeline. Our goal is 10,000 signatures–help us reach our goal and stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline by signing here! 

As of November 12th, Dominion gave final notice and threat to sue the 189 landowners along the path of pipeline who have not issued permission for Dominion to survey their land. If you have received a letter from Dominion and need more information, please contact: info@augustacountyalliance.org.
 
As Virginians, we’ve been fortunate enough so far to be free of fracking—the dangerous process of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.
But just because we aren’t on top of the Marcellus Shale or Utica Shale basins, doesn’t mean we’re not connected with our neighbors battling fracking wells in their backyards, or that the dangers of our nation’s natural gas boom aren’t already threatening Virginia.
Dominion Resources recently partnered with Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, and AGL proposed a $5 billion, 550-mile pipeline that would cross through Virginia to connect natural gas production in West Virginia to consumption in North Carolina.
Starting in West Virginia, Dominion’s Atlantic-Coast Pipeline (previously known as the Reliability Pipeline) would enter through Highland County, heading into Nelson County and across the Shenandoah Valley on its way to North Carolina. The pipeline would also have an extension connecting to Hampton Roads. The  proposed route would go through the George Washington National Forest and the backyards of Virginian families.
Leaks, explosions, and other accidents are not unlikely for a project of this scale, and hundreds of Nelson County residents raised their safety and environmental concerns last week at Dominion’s first public meeting in Nelson County.

Here’s a close up of the contested route, provided by groups helping to organize local residents to fight back:

The proposed route of Dominion’s Reliability Pipeline, a $2 billion, 450-mile pipeline that would cut through Virginia on its way from West Virginia to North Carolina.

I think a more reliable project wouldn’t include the risk of gas leaks and explosions. A smarter investment would be putting that $2 billion into energy efficiency, wind, and solar energy for our region.
Instead, it’s very clear that Dominion is moving too far, too fast towards natural gas, yet another dangerous fossil fuel — and one comprised mostly of methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas known to leak at high levels during the fracking process.
In fact, Dominion Virginia Power’s Integrated Resource Plan proposes 6-7 new fossil fuel plants in Virginia over the next 15 years, and Dominion Resources (DVP’s parent company) is fighting hard for a $3.8 billion liquefied natural gas export facility in Cove Point, Maryland. It’s clear that this pipeline is one major piece of Dominion’s region-wide push to keep us locked into climate-harming fracked gas for decades to come.
Unless we stop it.
Groups of concerned citizens across the Commonwealth are banding together to resist this pipeline—and to resist all dangerous, new natural gas pipelines and infrastructure that are a threat to our state.
Please check out the following organizations that are coordinating regional resistance to the pipeline and supporting homeowners along the proposed routes. Join their mailing lists for immediate updates on the pipeline routes as they continue to unfold:
Friends of Nelson County

Shenandoah Valley Network

  • Serves Augusta County, Frederick County, Page County, Rockingham County, Shenandoah County, Warren County
  • Working to protect and sustain the rural landscapes, communities, and ecosystems of the Shenandoah Valley by working with strong local citizens’ groups, promoting smart local land use, and effective land protection strategies
  • http://www.svnva.org/

Augusta County Alliance

Highlanders for Responsible Development

  • Highland County, VA
  • Highlanders for Responsible Development is a citizens’ group that promotes stewardship of Highland County’s unspoiled landscape, natural resources and exceptional quality of life. We support policies and activities that are based upon informed community discourse, democratic decision making, prudent land use and sustainable economic development.
  • http://www.protecthighland.org

Visit us back here for more updates as they unfold. CCAN will be keeping all eyes on the pipeline route and the proposal process to make sure we inform supporters with the first opportunity for public comments and other actions we can take statewide to stop the pipeline.
For updates on the pipeline project: http://www.nelsoncounty-va.gov/pipeline-information-and-updates/

Maryland Study Shows that Protecting Our Health Requires Keeping Fracking Out

Children with unexplained nose bleeds. Babies born with birth defects. Workers sickened by exposure to toxic, tiny silica particles. These are just some of the health impacts linked to the fracking already happening in states from Texas to Colorado to neighboring Pennsylvania.
On Monday, the O’Malley administration released a study, prepared by researchers at the University of Maryland, aimed at assessing the potential public health impacts of allowing fracking in Maryland. The findings are alarming and, health experts are saying, only scratch the surface of the harm our communities could face if this volatile, toxic form of drilling were allowed in Maryland.
I’ve summarized below three main things every Marylander should know about this report.
The O’Malley administration is taking public comments on the report through October 3rd, so click here to take action today.

#1 Fracking is likely to cause serious harm to the health of Maryland residents and workers.

The table on the left summarizes the overall “hazard” rating that the UMD researchers assigned to each impact category they considered. Air pollution is one of the major health concerns, along with workers’ safety, the burden on local health care infrastructure, and negative impacts on the mental and social health of communities, for instance through increases in sexually transmitted diseases, crime, traffic injuries, and substance abuse.
Dr. Gina Angiola, a retired obstetrician and board member of Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, summarized in response, “This report confirms that unconventional natural gas development has the potential to cause both short-term and long-term health impacts, some of which may be irreversible.”
Air pollution is of particular concern because fracking operations emit a variety of toxins linked to cancer, birth defects, and respiratory illnesses. The study underlines that peer-reviewed research is beginning to emerge linking air pollution associated with fracking to “increased risk of subchronic health effects, adverse birth outcomes including congenital heart defects and neural tube defects, as well as higher prevalence of symptoms such as throat & nasal irritation, sinus problems, eye burning, severe headaches, persistent cough, skin rashes, and frequent nose bleeds” (p. xx) among people living within 1,500 feet of gas drilling facilities.
Or, as the Think Progress news headline on the Maryland study summed up, “Fracking in Maryland Would Threaten the Health of Anyone Who Breathes Nearby.”

#2 The Maryland health study only scratches the surface of the risks we could face, leaving more questions than answers.

To add important context, the health study was released as part of a fracking review process initiated by Governor O’Malley in 2011. Through an executive order, the governor placed a defacto moratorium on fracking in Maryland and ordered a series of studies aimed at determining whether or not fracking would pose unacceptable risks to the state’s public health, safety, environment and natural resources. The 2011 executive order originally set a deadline of August 1, 2014 to complete this review; after much delay, a final report is now expected from state agencies this fall. From the start, the process has been compromised by insufficient funding, rushed timelines, and incomplete or flawed studies.
The health study falls clearly into the rushed and incomplete category. Rebecca Ruggles, director of the Maryland Environmental Health Network (MdEHN), said following the report’s release, “Marylanders should not become the next guinea pigs for testing the gas industry’s impact on people. This report should be viewed as Maryland’s first, not last, inquiry into health impacts. The work is not complete.”
For one, the study’s scope was highly limited by insufficient funding and a rushed timeline. For example:

  • The study looked only at potential health impacts in Western Maryland — even though gas basins lie underneath 19 Maryland counties statewide, and the impacts of gas compressor stations and other fracking-related infrastructure could extend statewide.
  • The study didn’t look at the costs of lost work and school days due to illness, or of the increased demand for emergency and other healthcare services.
  • The study didn’t adequately address how our farms, food and livestock would be impacted by potential soil and water contamination.
  • The study didn’t consider the health impacts of worsening climate change – the #1 long-term health threat we all face – due to emissions of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas.

Second, and perhaps even more importantly, health experts, including the study’s authors, caution that medical knowledge on the health outcomes related to fracking is still “extremely limited” (see the summary of limitations on p. 100 of the report).
Comprehensive epidemiological studies of fracking’s health impacts are few and far between, or only in the beginning stages in places where drilling already occurs. Aaron Bernstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University warned in February that scientists “really haven’t the foggiest idea” how fracking impacts public health, primarily because of inadequate research and monitoring to date.
While the University of Maryland study includes 52 recommendations for minimizing the potential health risks of fracking, these recommendations fail to address all of the safety concerns raised by the report. Furthermore, there is little to no scientific evidence proving that recommended steps — such as setting drilling wells back from homes by only 2,000 feet — would be sufficient to protect our health.
Underscoring this point, Dr. Jerome Paulson, MD, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health & the Environment and a professor of pediatrics at George Washington University wrote in a June letter to Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Environmental Protection, “There is no information in the medical or public health literature to indicate that [unconventional gas extraction] can be implemented with a minimum of risk to human health.”

#3 To protect Marylanders’ health, Governor O’Malley must keep our state’s fracking moratorium in place.

Healthstudyemail“First, do no harm.” It’s a basic tenet of medical practice, and it’s a tenet that Governor O’Malley and his successor in office must apply when it comes to fracking and the health of Marylanders.
Given the alarming emerging evidence on the risks fracking poses to our health, and the many unanswered questions, Governor O’Malley must keep Maryland’s fracking moratorium in place. By doing so, the governor will be keeping his promise to ensure a science-based decision on fracking. As long as we don’t have the full answers we need and deserve on the health dangers, no fracking should happen in Maryland — period. At the bottom of it all, our health is worth far more than the short-term profits of the oil and gas industry.
Click here to submit a public comment on the health study and urge Governor O’Malley to keep our fracking moratorium in place.