Safe Coast Virginia: Report Offers Bold Flooding and Climate Action Plan

Today the Chesapeake Climate Action Network released a report — Safe Coast Virginia — that details the climate change threats facing coastal Virginia and outlines ten bold but practical solutions for addressing them.

Click here to view and download a PDF copy of the report.

Click here to read the news release.

Coastal Hampton Roads is already ground zero for climate change impacts in Virginia. By the year 2100, sea levels are projected to rise by as much as seven feet or more, substantially higher than average global projections. That places much of Tidewater Virginia second only to New Orleans and Louisiana’s Gulf Coast as the largest U.S. population center at greatest risk of flooding and largely disappearing. But Hampton Roads also has an opportunity to be a ground zero for solutions.
Safe Coast Virginia lays out 10 important solutions that are within the reach of Virginia’s citizens and policymakers right now. These solutions can make Virginia a leader in reducing (“mitigating”) the actual source of climate change and sea level rise: greenhouse gas emissions. These solutions could easily make Virginia a global market leader in the growing clean technology sector. These solutions include realistic and necessary approaches to adapt and protect Virginia’s coastal communities from the rising tides and extreme weather impacts that can no longer be mitigated.
Top among the report’s policy proposals is a win-win solution that’s new to the policy discussion in Virginia: participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). This cooperative effort among nine eastern states from Maine to Maryland reduces greenhouse gas emissions through a cap on carbon emissions. By participating in this regional program, Virginia could reduce planet-heating emissions while raising hundreds of millions of dollars in dedicated funding for coastal adaptation. Indeed, the report finds that Virginia could raise up to $200 million annually by 2020.
Read the Safe Coast Virginia report here. Then stay tuned for ways you can help make these solutions a reality for Virginia.

Report Offers Policy Solutions to Safeguard Coastal Virginia from Rising Tides

For Immediate Release
July 9, 2014
Contact:
Jeanne McCann, 301-656-0348 or 301-741-6234, jeanne@thehatchergroup.com
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org

Report Details Costly Damage from Virginia’s Rising Tides; Offers Policy Solutions for Future

Group proposes 10 recommendations to reduce carbon pollution and manage sea level rise

Top policy proposal could raise an estimated $200 million annually for coastal adaptation by 2020 while cutting greenhouse gas emissions

Norfolk, VA – Experts detail the threat of rising tides and outline ten bold but credible recommendations to prepare for sea-level rise and reduce carbon pollution in a first-of-its-kind report aimed at safeguarding coastal Virginia. The recommendations include a call for Virginia to secure hundreds of millions of dollars in flood protection funds by participating in a regional carbon cap program for power plants. It also calls on the state to enact a mandatory clean electricity standard, encourage development of solar and wind power, improve storm evacuation and shelter efforts, and coordinate efforts to maintain national security in an area that includes the world’s largest naval base.
The report—titled Safe Coast Virginia—was released today outside the Unitarian Church of Norfolk, which is being forced to consider relocation due to severe flooding from rising sea levels. The report combines the latest climate science with stories of Virginians already suffering as a result of rising tides, bigger storms, more frequent flooding and rising insurance rates. It predicts that the situation will only get worse. Sea level rise projections for Virginia’s Tidewater region are significantly higher than the worldwide average.
“Hampton Roads is the New Orleans of the East Coast, the ‘ground zero’ for climate change,” said Mike Tidwell, executive director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network, which published the report. “But Virginia also has the chance to be a worldwide leader—and example—in clean energy production and climate change adaptation. This report provides a roadmap for how to get there.”
“Much as we love our church home, we’re not able to stay here,” said Brian Brennan, Director of Religious Education at the Unitarian Church of Norfolk. “Climate change is happening right now. It’s not in some distant future, and Virginia must take action.”
This is the first climate solutions plan to emerge following Governor Terry McAuliffe’s highly praised executive order of July 1 re-establishing the Virginia Climate Change Commission. It also follows the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan,” which requires states to reduce pollution from carbon-intensive power plants.
One of the report’s most significant recommendations is for Virginia to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative effort among nine eastern states from Maine to Maryland that reduces greenhouse gas emissions through a cap on carbon emissions and has raised $1.8 billion in proceeds for participating states. Safe Coast Virginia warns that by not participating, Virginia is leaving hundreds of millions in new revenue on the table that could be used for flood protection and prevention as sea levels rise in coastal Virginia.
Based on RGGI modeling data, the report finds that Virginia could raise up to $200 million annually by 2020 if it joins the program.
Other recommendations call for Virginia to:

  • Adopt a mandatory energy efficiency standard that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Adopt a mandatory clean electricity standard.
  • Improve emergency planning in the Hampton Roads region for climate-related disasters by coordinating efforts between state and local planning officials to improve evacuation and emergency shelter management efforts.
  • Enact targeted new state policies to encourage significant development of solar power and offshore wind energy to reduce carbon emissions.
  • Provide dedicated state funding for climate change adaptation efforts in Virginia’s coastal region.
  • Form an integrated task force focused on protecting military assets.
  • Protect communities through “living shoreline” adaptation measures.
  • Develop local “accommodation” strategies, such as raising the maximum building-height limits and expanding wetlands—as well as considering “strategic retreat” from vulnerable areas.

Military and business communities warn that the costs of climate change—estimated to be in the billions over the next two decades—will be crippling, and that action must be taken for national security as well as economic reasons. The Hampton Roads region of coastal Virginia is home to the largest naval installation in the world, and Defense-related activities and spending account for 41 percent of the region’s economy.
“The military is a huge part of the Hampton Roads economy, and hugely reliant on the region’s infrastructure,” said retired Captain Joseph Bouchard, former commanding officer at Naval Station Norfolk and a former Virginia state delegate. “It makes good strategic and economic sense for Virginia’s leaders to embrace many of the readily available solutions outlined in this report.”
Other notable findings in the report:

  • Using existing technologies, Virginia could generate almost 17 times its annual electricity demand through solar power alone.
  • The Virginia Office of Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security estimates that up to 500,000 people could be expected to evacuate the region in the event of a hurricane, with 50,000 needing public emergency shelter. Virginia’s state-managed shelters can currently handle fewer than 20,000 people.
  • While Dominion Virginia Power won the rights to more than 113,000 offshore acres for wind development off Virginia’s coast—with the potential to power 700,000 Virginia homes—the company currently has plans to build only two offshore wind test turbines in 2018. This is far less than what is needed.

Safe Coast Virginia includes photos, maps and data that explain complex science in layperson’s terms, as well as a thorough review of the most current climate science available.
Read the full Safe Coast Virginia report at: http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Safe-Coast-Virginia-Report-July2014.pdf

###

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

CCAN Applauds Latest Milestone for Maryland Offshore Wind Power

For Immediate Release
July 2, 2014
Contact:
Tommy Landers, 301-442-0134, tommy@chesapeakeclimate.org
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org

Statement of Chesapeake Climate Action Network regarding Maryland Wind Energy Area Announcement

 
ANNAPOLIS–Today, the United States Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) released the Final Sale Notice for Maryland’s offshore Wind Energy Area (WEA). BOEM will begin the auction to lease this area on August 19, 2014, and the agency reports that 16 companies have already formally expressed interest in bidding.
Tommy Landers, Maryland Policy Director at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, had the following statement in response:

“Today’s announcement marks a critical milestone in Maryland’s pursuit of offshore wind power. This plentiful energy source just a few miles off our shores is Maryland’s single largest source of clean electricity, with enough potential to power more than one third of Maryland’s homes and businesses. That’s why offshore wind power can and must be a foundation of Maryland’s strategy for combating climate change and transitioning to a clean energy economy.

“The O’Malley-Brown administration showed great leadership in championing offshore wind power legislation in Annapolis. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network was proud to work closely with the governor’s team and a broad array of partners to get that legislation across the finish line last year, laying the groundwork for this critical next step. Today’s announcement is a testament to the determination of the O’Malley-Brown administration, the Maryland Energy Administration, federal officials and many others to realize the vision of clean, local offshore wind power for our families and businesses.

“Moving forward, CCAN and our allies will continue pushing to ensure that this summer’s auction leads to turbines spinning off our coasts as quickly as possible. As climate change inflicts increasingly costly impacts on our economy, environment, and well-being, Maryland must do everything it can to speed the transition to clean energy solutions, from offshore wind power to land-based wind and solar to energy efficiency.”

The O’Malley administration’s press release about today’s announcement is available at: http://www.governor.maryland.gov/blog/?p=10587

###

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) is the oldest and largest 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 in this unique region that surrounds our nation’s capital to call for state, national and international policies that will put us on a path to climate stability.

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

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

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

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

###

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

Activists Launch Picket at Obama Energy Commission over Fracked Gas Exports

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, June 23, 2014
CONTACT:
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, 717-439-0346 (cell), kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Mike Tidwell, 240-460-5838 (cell), mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org

Activists Launch Picket at Federal Energy Commission, Demanding Halt to Rubber-Stamping of Fracked Gas Exports

Picketers say agency is illegally ignoring global warming and safety harm of fracked gas export projects at Cove Point and nationwide
Protesters will return to FERC headquarters daily this week to demand moratorium on gas export permits
WASHINGTON, DC—Marching and chanting with signs like “Gas exports: Worse than Coal” and “FERC: My safety matters,” dozens of protesters launched a week-long picket outside the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. today to challenge the agency’s handling of controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) export proposals. The picketers are demanding that FERC place a moratorium on its approval of gas export permits until the commission has accounted for alarming new federal data showing that such exports to Asia could be worse for the climate in coming decades than if overseas countries burned coal.
“FERC has provoked this unprecedented picket line by willfully ignoring the unprecedented harm fracked gas exports pose to our climate and to our communities,” said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “In response to mounting evidence that exporting fracked gas from Cove Point and other sites nationwide will help cook the planet, our nation’s energy commissioners are in effect covering their ears and closing their eyes, while giving a giant thumbs up to the gas industry. Simply put, this must stop.”
Last month, a Department of Energy study revealed that—even when using conservative estimates of planet-heating methane emissions—exports of U.S. fracked gas to Asia provide no climate benefits for decades, if ever, and would almost certainly be worse for the climate over the next critical 20 years than if Asian countries burned coal.
In recent weeks, as opponents of the Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility proposed in Maryland generated 150,000 comments nationwide against the project, FERC continued to defy health and environmental leaders—and, groups allege, the law—by refusing to conduct a standard Environmental Impact Statement. It also defied U.S. Senators and a U.S. EPA official by refusing to extend the 30-day public comment period for the project. Environmental and clean water groups are poised to sue FERC for illegally dismissing the climate change, fracking and human safety impacts of the proposal in its draft environmental review, which also drew criticism from the EPA.
“Residents living next door to Dominion’s proposed Cove Point facility are coming to FERC this week because we refuse to let this agency sacrifice our safety to the gas industry,” said Tracey Eno, a founding member of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community. “FERC has failed to conduct a transparent, quantitative risk assessment that considers the very real threat of explosions compromising our safety in our own homes due to Dominion’s proposed addition of extremely hazardous liquefaction equipment at Cove Point. It’s clear it will take a citizen uprising to change the status quo at FERC, which is why we’re picketing this week.”
Each day this week groups of picketers from across the region will converge on FERC’s Washington, DC headquarters at lunchtime, highlighting the accumulating evidence that FERC is a secretive and dysfunctional regulatory agency in need of significant reform. Delegations of residents from southern Maryland and Myersville, Maryland will lead the picket Tuesday and Wednesday respectively, drawing attention to the ways FERC has sidelined their voices in reviewing the Cove Point plan and a related gas compressor station in central Maryland.
“From Lusby to Myersville to Minisink and beyond, mothers like me see FERC repeatedly failing to protect the health and safety of our children,” said Ann Nau, vice president of Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community. “With a FERC rubber-stamp in hand, Dominion sued my small town to force a toxin-spewing compressor station on us, defying community and local government opposition. We are here to shine a bright spotlight on FERC’s practices, and to demand a change in course before more communities see hazardous pipelines or polluting compressors in their backyards.”
FERC is facing growing public backlash because of its role in green-lighting the massive expansion of gas pipeline and other infrastructure triggered by the surge of fracking in recent years. In early June, a federal appeals court ruled that FERC had illegally “segmented” its approval of a major East Coast gas pipeline project, and thereby ignored its potential cumulative environmental impacts. This court victory should set precedent for similar legal challenges to FERC’s rubber-stamping of gas industry projects.
“Maryland’s religious communities are heartbroken by the harm climate change is already causing to our neighbors, close to home and around the world,” says Joelle Novey, Director of Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVA). “We’re not going to let a Goliath corporation stomp into Maryland and make a mockery of our good work to protect our air, our water, and our climate. We’re picketing outside FERC because we’re trying to faithfully do what David did: we’re giving this our best shot.”
In all, FERC is currently reviewing 14 fracked gas export proposals. The $3.8 billion Cove Point facility, proposed by Virginia-based Dominion Resources just 50 miles south of the White House in southern Maryland, would take gas from fracking wells across Appalachia, liquefy it, and ship it to customers in Japan and India. A CCAN analysis found that, from fracking wells to final smokestacks, the Cove Point project could alone trigger more greenhouse gas pollution than all seven of Maryland’s existing coal-fired power plants combined. The Cove Point project would be the first fracked gas export facility on the East Coast and the first ever built in a densely populated residential area.
View photos of the picket launch at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chesapeakeclimate/sets/72157644914012429.

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

#StopGasExports: A Week of Online Action

This morning, the inbox of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is being flooded with tens of thousands of messages from people all across the nation saying “no” to fracked gas exports. Today is the final day to submit a public comment urging FERC to reject the “poster child” for a disastrous gas industry plan to export natural gas: the Cove Point terminal proposed just 50 miles from the White House on the Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland. (You can click here to take action by the 5pm deadline.)
And while we’re flooding FERC’s inbox today, anti-fracking marchers will flood the streets outside of FERC’s headquarters on Sunday, July 13th. Why?
The short story is this: FERC is on the verge of rubber-stamping a massive expansion of fossil fuel exports — fracked gas exports — that would spell disaster for the climate. It would harm communities all along the chain of new fracking wells, pipelines, compressor stations, and gas “liquefaction” plants involved in the process. And, as the gas is exported overseas (almost entirely to Asia) gas prices would even rise here at home, meaning virtually all Americans lose while wealthy gas corporations profit. This is exactly the wrong direction for our country and for our climate — and that’s where you come in.
On Sunday July 13th, we take our grassroots movement for clean energy, not fracked gas exports, straight to Washington, DC. We know that the five-member FERC commission – appointed by President Obama – has a shameful track record of rubber-stamping virtually all gas industry projects brought before it. Now is our time to demand a change in course.

Join thousands of Americans in Washington, DC on July 13th to send a strong message to President Obama and FERC: Keep the gas in the ground. Wind and solar power now!

To spread the word, the internet will be abuzz this week with the Stop Gas Exports Blogathon. Every day through Saturday, movement leaders like Bill McKibben, Sandra Steingraber, and Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. and everyday fracking fighters will be blogging about different aspects of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and why they’re not the solution to our energy and climate woes. Follow #stopgasexports and www.stopgasexports.org for all the updates and to share with your friends!
To learn more today, check out the full run-down of frequently asked questions below.
__________________________________________________
[bs_collapse id=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
[bs_citem title=”Why are thousands of Americans coming to Washington DC on July 13th?” id=”citem_3062-c96d” parent=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
From the Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico to the Oregon coast, the gas industry is proposing to build more than 20 LNG export facilities.If the gas industry has its way, it will ship so much carbon overseas it will be like building 100 new coal plants. Fracking wells and their associated explosion-prone infrastructure will proliferate. And over time it could double or even triple the current domestic price of gas.
As we call out the president for his support of fracking, we’ll turn up the pressure on FERC to protect the American public and stop being puppets to the fossil fuel industry. To date, FERC has approved virtually all oil and gas infrastructure proposals brought before it. That’s why we’re demanding change — thousands of Americans from areas affected by gas exports will say “no way” to more rubber stamps that subject more and more communities to expanding pipelines, compressor stations, export terminals and other fossil fuel infrastructure.
But we’re not just opposed to things, and we’re using our people power to push for the positive change we need. On July 13th we’ll proudly and loudly say “yes” to wind power and solar energy and efficiency investments. Wind farms don’t cause earthquakes. Solar panels don’t poison our drinking water. And energy efficiency doesn’t leak methane. But they DO create jobs and a stable climate.
[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title=”Why is exporting natural gas bad for the climate?” id=”citem_9aca-e4b3″ parent=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
Natural gas is mostly comprised of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas that can leak into the atmosphere at every stage of the drilling and export process. The gas industry has run an elaborate hoax, touting itself for representing the “clean” fossil fuel. But if you consider the full lifespan of exported gas, from fracking, piping and compressing it across America, liquefying it, shipping it 6,000 miles to Asia, and then regasifying it, piping it more and finally burning it, this process has a climate impact that is is as bad as — or worse than — burning coal! A recent study by the U.S. Department of Energy found that, over a 20-year timeframe (the critical window for tackling the climate crisis), LNG exports to Asia would likely be worse for the climate than if Asian countries burned coal. According to Climate Progress, “a close reading of the DOE report in the context of the recent literature indicates that exporting natural gas from the U.S. as LNG is a very poor idea.”
[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title=”Who is responsible for approving a natural gas export facility?” id=”citem_77fb-52df” parent=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
Before a natural gas export facility can be built, it needs a number of local, state, and federal permits. For Cove Point and other projects on FERC’s existing docket, the US Department of Energy (DOE) was responsible for first analyzing whether or not shipping LNG to countries where the US doesn’t have an existing free trade agreement is in our national interest. Then, FERC looks more specifically at the safety and environmental impacts of the project, based on standards laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act. In the case of Cove Point, FERC released an Environmental Assessment on May 15, and gave the public a mere 30 days to comment in return. In late May, DOE changed up the federal review process for future LNG export projects — DOE will now release its final public interest determination only after environmental reviews for proposed plants are completed.
Ultimately, President Obama’s administration needs to reverse its approach to these destructive projects. President Obama can’t meet his promises to solve the climate crisis by overseeing a massive expansion of fracked gas infrastructure that vents harmful methane into our warming atmosphere.
[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title=”If there are significant risks involved, isn’t FERC obligated to reject these plans?” id=”citem_60f3-382e” parent=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
Morally, yes. And, if FERC fully followed the law, yes. However, FERC has approved almost every project that the oil and gas industry has put before it, rubber-stamping several facilities that have gone on to have fatal accidents. Earlier this spring, a case brought against FERC by residents of Minisink, NY to challenge FERC approval of a compressor station, highlighted this track record. Attorneys for Minisink argued that FERC is “predisposed to sign off on projects.”
In many cases, FERC will “segment” its review of permits, considering individual parts of a gas infrastructure project to, in effect, disguise the cumulative environmental consequences. In another recent case, the DC Circuit court ruled in favor of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, New Jersey Highlands Coalition, New Jersey Sierra Club finding that, in reviewing a pipeline expansion proposal, “FERC acted arbitrarily in deciding to evaluate the environmental effects of the Northeast Project independent of the other connected action.”
In the recent case of Cove Point, FERC’s Environmental Assessment swept the project’s many dangers under the rug, absurdly concluding that this $3.8 billion fracked gas export plan would have “no significant” impact on the environment or human health while failing to analyze its role in driving expanded fracking or the cumulative climate change pollution it would trigger. Unless FERC substantially revises its insufficient analysis, environmental groups will likely sue the agency for violating the National Environmental Policy Act.

[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title=”Where are gas exports being planned in the US?” id=”citem_2676-5c60″ parent=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
There are currently 14 U.S. LNG export facilities proposed to FERC, from Oregon to Texas to Louisiana to Mississippi to Maryland. In Maryland, the Cove Point terminal, proposed by Virginia-based Dominion Resources, would be the first fracked gas export facility on the East Coast, and the first facility located so close to schools, daycares, a public park, and many private residences. There are 4,000 homes within 2 miles of Dominion’s proposed export facility, and local residents are deeply concerned about an accident on the facility that could escalate into a major fire or other life-threatening event.
[/bs_citem]
[bs_citem title=”How do I know I won’t see the benefits of gas exports?” id=”citem_ab19-dd3a” parent=”collapse_a1f3-fc1b”]
If all the proposed LNG export projects in the U.S. are approved, the result would be the export of more than 40 percent of our current production of natural gas. This means more competition at home, and thus, higher prices for domestic consumers and industries. In fact, a study commissioned by the Department of Energy shows that exporting natural gas would harm every major sector of the U.S. economy — except the gas industry.
In the example of Cove Point, the Maryland Public Service Commission concluded that the “LNG facility will not provide net economic benefit to Maryland citizens,” despite granting Dominion a conditional partial permit. In fact, the 130 megawatt gas-fired power plant Dominion would have to build onsite to fuel the energy-intensive “liquefaction” process will provide ABSOLUTELY NO electricity for Maryland’s grid. That means we see all of the pollution and risk and none of the energy.
[/bs_citem]
[/bs_collapse]

____________________________________

CCAN Condemns Federal Failure to Extend Cove Point Public Comment Period

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

CCAN Condemns Federal Failure to Extend Cove Point Public Comment Period

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

###

Join the Chesapeake Climate Cruisers

For the third year in a row, CCAN members and supporters will take part in the 300-miles-in-five-days Climate Ride from NYC to DC, September 20-24. CCAN Board member Cindy Parker and I are signed up and getting prepared for this challenging but very rewarding biking experience.
There’s still time to sign up as a member of CCAN’s Chesapeake Climate Cruisers team. You can do so by going to http://climateride.org, learn more about the ride and what’s involved and then sign up.
In addition to being a long-distance ride through some absolutely beautiful countryside, the Climate Ride is also a fund-raiser. Participants need to raise at least $2,800 to participate, a majority of which goes to the group or groups which you designate as beneficiaries. The Climate Ride organization has lots of tips and ideas to help you meet that goal. For each of the last two years, CCAN has received about $10,000 to help us do our important work.
I was not a long-distance bike rider before I did my first Climate Ride in the spring of 2012. I did do bike-riding, mainly as part of my exercise routine. I rode about 8 miles three times a week. But as a result of the riding I did in preparation, and as a result of that first ride, I fell in love with long distance biking. Ever since I ride about 70 miles a week, sometimes more, doing so usually in early morning. I enjoy the rising of the sun, the singing of the birds, the animals, other bikers, runners and walkers I encounter and the good feeling that comes after a hard physical workout.
To begin to do this while in my 60’s has been like a special gift, something I would have never done if not for Mike Tidwell asking me if I wanted to join him on that ride.
I hope CCAN supporters who have not experienced the joys and the challenges of this sport, as well as those who are already avid bikers, will seriously consider joining Cindy and me this September.
I’m available if you have questions; you can contact me at ted@chesapeakeclimate.org.

DOE: U.S. LNG exports to Asia are likely WORSE than coal for the climate

U.S. Department of Energy report confirms:

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

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

A summary from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network

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

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