No More Lac-Megantics! We Need Safe Rails and Sustainable Communities

Last week, a small but mighty group braved the bomb cyclone in DC to rally for rail safety outside the Canadian Embassy. We were there to stand in solidarity with the scapegoated rail workers currently on trial for the deadly 2013 crude oil train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
On July 6, 2013, a freight train carrying 72 tank cars of crude oil derailed in the small town of Lac-Megantic. Many of the town’s residents were gathered at a local bar for a birthday party when the runaway train barreled into downtown a little after 1:00 in the morning. When the train derailed at a sharp curve in the tracks, its highly flammable cargo exploded and wrought devastation, killing 47 people, orphaning 27 children, destroying 44 buildings, and leaving 160 people homeless.
Over four years later, the criminal trials for this tragedy are about to conclude. Yet the wrong people are being blamed. 
The rail company that operated the ill-fated train, Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway Ltd. (MMA), is not being held accountable for its dangerous policies and poor safety regulations that made the derailment inevitable. Instead, rail workers Tom Harding and Richard Labrie each face one count of criminal negligence causing the death of 47 people in the Lac-Mégantic crash.
While the prosecution has focused on the number of hand brakes that engineer Harding applied on the train before parking it for the night, the Transportation Safety Board report on the disaster paints a more comprehensive picture. After reviewing the TSB report, a chemical engineer at the Université de Sherbrooke concluded, “the company has tolerated improper braking practices, did not provide appropriate braking practice and did not ensure the employees were properly trained and demonstrated that they understood the training.”
What else do we know about the conditions that led to the derailment? The train was illegally overloaded, weighing 2,800 tonnes over the legal limit. There was a mechanical breakdown on the locomotive two days before the derailment, but MMA officials allowed the train to operate anyway. And the inspector of the locomotive had little experience, only having begun inspecting trains solo a few weeks before.
Yet the policy that most rail safety advocates point to as the key culprit in this case is the inherently dangerous one-person crew practice imposed soon before the tragedy. To increase profits, rail companies like MMA have been decreasing crews from four, three, or two people to only one person. When MMA made this change, the only action the company took to protect that remaining one-person crew member was to require the installation of a mirror on the conductor’s side of the train.
That’s right: a mirror was expected to replace a second and even third skilled worker.
Though it is clear that lax regulations and unsafe railroad management policies led to the tragedy in Lac-Megantic, engineer Tom Harding and traffic controller Richard Labrie are facing exclusive blame for the incident. They face life in prison for a tragedy that their employer made inevitable by cutting corners. Further, if the workers are convicted of criminal negligence, the reckless policies and lack of regulatory oversight that caused the disaster will not be changed. The conditions that led to the tragedy in Lac-Megantic will remain the norm, continuing to put communities along rail lines in danger.
In Baltimore, we have an opportunity to make real progress in the fight against dangerous crude oil trains. In October, 11 members of the City Council introduced an ordinance to zone out new crude oil terminals, which will limit dangerous crude-by-rail traffic in the city while protecting our climate from this polluting crude oil. 
Click here to learn more and take action with the CCAN Action Fund.

Virginia Water Control Board Vote Today: Dominion CANNOT Build Controversial Pipeline in VA Without More Study

Last-minute Delay of Permit Seen as Positive Step by Landowners and Environmentalists in Fight Over Dominion’s Atlantic Coast Pipeline for Fracked Gas

More Information Needed, Board Says. Decision is a Rebuke of Governor Terry McAuliffe’s Unwavering Support for the Controversial Pipeline; CCAN Looks to Governor-elect Northam’s Administration to Protect Virginia’s Waters

Summary: Bowing to unprecedented opposition from landowners and environmentalists, the Virginia State Water Control Board today threw a wrench in the plans of Governor Terry McAuliffe and Dominion Energy to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline for fracked gas. The board voted 4-3 to approve the project under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, but dependent on a final review of several environmental studies. The vote delays Dominion’s plan to begin near-term construction of the 600-mile pipeline. The decision likely means this issue will be delayed into 2018 and into the administration of Governor-elect Ralph Northam, who has taken a less openly supportive stance on the pipeline due to environmental concerns.
Statement from Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network:

“In a setback for notorious polluter Dominion Energy, the Virginia State Water Control Board today sided with landowners and environmentalists in calling for more rigorous and comprehensive review of the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline. After being ignored for years by Governor Terry McAuliffe and Dominion, the voices of everyday Virginians were finally heard and we will work tirelessly to make sure all the facts can come to the table. CCAN and our allies have argued all along that any science-based and transparent review of all the harmful impacts of the ACP can only result in official and final denial of Dominion’s radical pipeline for fracked gas.

“Now Virginians are counting on the Administration of Governor-elect Ralph Northam to do what the McAuliffe Administration failed to do: let science and the law guide decision-making on the pipeline.”

Background:
The Board bucked enormous pressure from Governor McAuliffe’s Administration, which was pressuring Board members to approve the pipeline without undergoing the in-depth analysis that a project at this scale requires. The Board voted to delay certification for the pipeline until after the Governor’s Department of Environmental Quality can review and give final approval to erosion and sediment control plans, stormwater management plans, and studies of sensitive karst terrain. While an outright denial of the project was warranted, the Board’s decision delays the project.
Unfortunately, the same Board approved the equally controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline for fracked gas last week. CCAN and three other groups immediately filed a lawsuit against that decision. Our hope is that today’s ACP delay could bring a similar regulatory delay to the MVP process, but there is uncertainty on this front.
Thousands of Virginians have mobilized over the past three years to stand against the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines. See fact sheet here. Over 17,000 community members submitted comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against the MVP during the public comment period, and over 21,000 submitted comments to FERC about the ACP. Additionally, over 53,000 people nationwide — including thousands of Virginians — have signed on to a Change.org petition calling on Governor McAuliffe to reject the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines. Activists have garnered opposition from all walks of life, from faith leaders to military veterans and more. The mobilization against the pipelines has also included civil disobedience, with 23 Virginians getting arrested outside the Governor’s mansion in 2016 and 19 arrested for barring the entrance to the Department of Environmental Quality office in Richmond this September.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 12, 2017
CONTACT: Mike Tidwell, Executive Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-460-5838, mtidwell@chesapeakeclimate.org
Anne Havemann, General Counsel, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-396-1984
Denise Robbins, Communications Director, 608-620-8819, denise@chesapeakeclimate.org

What the Water Control Board hearings really tell us

On Thursday, December 7, the Virginia Water Control Board voted to certify that there was “reasonable assurance” that the Mountain Valley Pipeline would not harm Virginia’s water quality, subject to about a dozen conditions. Two board members — Roberta Kellam and Nissa Dean — dissented, while five voted in favor.
The entire process extremely problematic. The Board was missing at least three critical pieces of information: (1) complete karst studies; (2) a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which looks at impacts to streams, wetlands, other waters of the United States; and (3) site-specific erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans.
Throughout the hearing, Board members themselves expressed concern that they were being asked to “put the cart before the horse.”
In reviewing the Mountain Valley Pipeline (and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline), the DEQ developed a new permitting process. Last week’s hectic decision made it clear that both the DEQ and the Water Control Board did not completely understand the new process and its implications. This new pipeline permitting process for the first time considered “upland activities,” that is, what happens to water quality when you clear steep mountains of all vegetation, and deferred to the U.S. Army Corps’ review of stream crossings.
At the State Water Control Board meeting, some board members, led by Robert Wayland, expressed skepticism that the Army Corps’ review would be sufficient to protect water quality — no matter if the Army Corps issues the same blanket one-size-fits-all permit it issues for most pipeline projects or actually does an individual review. The board attached an amendment to the permit that attempted to preserve its right to review stream crossings after the Army Corps issues its permit. The idea would be that the DEQ would present to the Water Control Board about whether the Army Corps permit was good enough, and, if not, the state could do its own review. It’s not clear, however, whether this attempt by the board to preserve its right to review stream crossings will stick. MVP now has a 401 certification that it can take to FERC. If FERC allows MVP to proceed, the state of Virginia would have to ask FERC for a rehearing, FERC could issue a tolling order, and the process could drag on while MVP starts to build. More broadly, this was the Board’s chance to look at the cumulative impacts to water quality from upland activities plus stream crossings, and it failed to look at the big picture.
The Board added a couple of additional conditions that aren’t too clear, related to expanding the width for a stream crossing and about successor-in-interest liability.
Governor McAuliffe and his administration have had their thumb on the scale for these projects from the very beginning, and that was evident at the hearing.
Why was McAuliffe’s DEQ asking the Board to make its decision without so muchcritical information? At one point, a Board member asked to see an Executive Summary of a not-yet-complete karst study. Maybe the Board members read that over their lunch break?
A lawyer from the Attorney General’s office also advised the Water Control Board to act quickly. During deliberations, the permit was projected onto the wall and changes were made using track changes. The vote itself was confusing. It was not clear who voted for and against the amended permit until the public insisted, and the chairman acquiesced, to a roll call vote. The entire process was rushed, hectic, and confusing.
Yesterday’s outcome is beyond disappointing, though not entirely unexpected given McAuliffe’s full-throated support for these pipelines. We’ll have to see what happens at tomorrow’s hearing on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline… but we now have a better sense of what to expect.

Everything you need to know about the fight against the Potomac Pipeline

By Cynthia Houston. Originally published in SpinSheet December 2017.
 
The flotilla of dozens of activists in kayaks who paddled down the Potomac River in August carrying protest banners that called for Maryland Governor Larry Hogan to reject the Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project is not a commonplace occurrence in the Potomac River watershed. Dubbed “kayaktivists,” this relatively new approach to activism has spread from Seattle and Portland to the East Coast and the banks of the Potomac.  
The kayaktivists were a part of an extensive anti-pipeline campaign that included “rolling encampments” on the Potomac and C&O Canal over the summer in addition to hundreds of Maryland and West Virginia residents joining hands to form a chain across the Potomac’s James Rumsey Bridge in October. Environmental advocates that include the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Eastern Panhandle Protectors, and the Potomac Riverkeepers have joined forces with landowners and citizens to influence what they see as a decision that ultimately lies with Governor Hogan.
The protests were against the proposed development of a 3.5-mile underground natural gas pipeline that would run across the narrowest part of Western Maryland, transporting fracked gas from Pennsylvania to West Virginia. The pipeline would provide 47,500 dekatherms of natural gas per day to West Virginia. Protestors and environmental activists are most concerned about a section of the pipeline that would cross under the Potomac River and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (C&O) – a risk they feel it too great to manage. Protestors also believe that the transport of fracked gas goes against the statewide fracking ban that Hogan signed in April.
In March, an application was filed by Calgary, Alberta-based TransCanada to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to gain approval to install the pipeline in Maryland, which according TransCanada’s video on the project is slated to be buried 72 feet underground when it crosses under the Potomac. FERC, the National Parks Service, and Maryland’s Department of the Environment (MDE) must approve the pipeline, and TransCanada must obtain more than 40 required permits. But anti-pipeline protestors have identified that the tipping point of this lengthy environmental assessment process lies with Governor Hogan. If the MDE grants TransCanada a 401 Water Quality Certificate under the Clean Water Act, certifying that the pipeline project would not negatively impact water quality in the state, Hogan can reject the certificate.
Maryland’s decision is a difficult one, and there are many voices in the mix. But if you think of the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” of the pipeline’s installation, there are several factors to consider that demonstrate risks that counter the benefits gleaned by West Virginia’s economy.
 

Who

TransCanada operates a 56,900 mile network of natural gas pipelines in North America, supplying more than 25 per cent of the natural gas consumed daily across the nation. President George W. Bush approved TransCanada’s first pipeline into the United States, “Keystone I,” in 2007. Scott Castleman, a TransCanada spokesperson, stated that the proposed Maryland pipeline would be buried up to 100 feet beneath the riverbed, with walls twice as thick as required, and would be constantly monitored for leaks and surges. Castleman stated that TransCanada has more than a century of experience building pipelines in the area. “A dozen TransCanada pipelines already cross under the Potomac River in Maryland,” Castleman stated.
However, as recently as March, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration submitted to TransCanada’s ANR Pipeline Company a Notice of Probable Violation Proposed Civil Penalty and Proposed Compliance Order, which identified that the company “did not use properly and well qualified welding procedures” at the ANR Lincoln Storage Field Line in Michigan, and did not properly monitor corrosion at pipe supports and at soil-to-air interface locations at the Michigan Bridgman Compressor station. In January, 2014, a TransCanada pipeline in Canada about 50 miles north of the North Dakota border ruptured and exploded. The local fire chief, Jeff French, described 20-30 foot high flames that were 10-15 feet wide shooting out of the ground. “You could see it from miles away,” French said. It took 12 hours to get the fire under control.
 

What

As a sign of good faith, TransCanada has agreed to bury the pipeline at approximately 100 feet in the area under the Potomac riverbed. Will Carey, an energy consultant with decades of gas industry experience, has shared that “the commitment to bury the pipeline deeper below the riverbed makes sense, and is a sign that TransCanada is compromising with the community on solutions.” Maryland Senator Richard Madaleno (D) has a different perspective. “Pipelines fail, pipelines leak. We’re putting it where it is potentially most dangerous, where pipelines have failed in other states. Why do that and risk all of the drinking water for the national capital region…? It’s just not a smart thing to do.” Carl Weimer, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, has stated that, “new pipelines are failing even worse than the oldest pipelines.” According to Weimer, the rush to expand natural gas pipelines has resulted in fewer quality controls, and new transmission lines are failing at the same rate as those constructed in the 1940s. Brooke Harper, Maryland Policy Director with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and Environmental Chair for the Maryland State Conference NAACP, has stated, “This pipeline would bring no benefits whatsoever to the state of Marylanders, only risks.”
 

Why

According to John Reisenweber, executive director of the Jefferson County Development Authority in West Virginia, the region’s existing pipeline system is limited and “basically out of capacity.” West Virginia’s Secretary of Commerce, H. Wood Thrasher, has stated, “The TransCanada pipeline is fundamental for the economic future of the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. Having a steady and reliable source of natural gas is vital to attracting businesses and industry to our state.” David Smith, city manager for the Town of Hancock, also supports the pipeline, saying, “we’ve done our due diligence and feel that [the] company we’re dealing with has expertise in this field.” West Virginia’s Public Service Commission has granted permission to the Mountaineer Gas Company, that area’s largest natural gas provider, to begin construction of a pipeline between Berkeley Springs and Martinsburg, West Virginia, that will receive the gas from the Maryland connection. West Virginia has already been to court with some landowners, and the use of imminent domain to obtain access to the land required to install pipeline has been granted.
 

Where

In a nutshell, Governor Hogan is between a rock and a hard place – and that rock is in large part the karst topography bedrock of Western Maryland.  Karst terrain is limestone (calcium carbonate); erosion, fissures, and sinkholes are common features of karst terrain. In karst topography, rainwater infiltrates horizontal and vertical cracks, dissolving the limestone, and creating vertical fissures that widen and deepen over time. Permeating water continues the development of the underground cracks – underground stream channels form, vertical shafts may open, and cave systems may emerge. Upper Potomac Riverkeeper Brent Walls has stated that, “karst geology is very sensitive geology that poses greater risks than normal construction practices for pipelines.” In his position as Riverkeeper, Wells has stated that, “it doesn’t matter how far below the river the natural gas line is constructed, because if it ruptures the gas will seep through crevices in the soil and it would be nearly impossible to track where it goes.” The threat? The Potomac River serves as the primary source of drinking water for more than 6 million residents downstream.
Another concern voiced by many is the potential impact on Western Maryland’s economy if a rupture or leak were to occur. “Tourism is the economic driver in the [area],” said Cannon. “We cannot afford to damage our pristine environment.” Drilling would occur under a portion of the Potomac River listed as sensitive on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, and the pipeline could potentially impact the C&O Canal, a National Historic Register site visited by millions of people every year.
 

How

Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) would be used to construct the section of the pipeline under the Potomac. HDD is used to install pipelines under bodies of water, roads, railways, buildings, and other structures. According to TransCanada, HDD is an “environmentally friendly approach method used to cross sensitive areas.” In HDD, temporary wetland mats are laid down on top of construction bore areas.  The pipeline is then installed using a three-phase process. First, a pilot hole is created by excavation via a downhole motor. In the second “pre-reaming” phase, the diameter of the underground path is increased to 12 inches with a “hole opener” that takes into account soil condition and density. In the third and final stage, “pullback,” the gas pipeline is fed into the reamed hole. According to TransCanada, a well-cap and swivel is placed which prevent any rotation of the pipeline. At the completion of HDD, TransCanada ensures restoration of the operating area. Tracy Cannon, an organizer with Eastern Panhandle Protectors, has stated that using HDD in karst topography would create pathways for water to drain down bore holes and dissolve the limestone around the piping. This could create sinkholes, resulting in subterranean ruptures. As recently as October, FERC had to clear Rover Pipeline to resume work at four HDD locations in Ohio after a 2 million gallon drilling fluid spill. FERC allowed Rover to resume only after third-party independent inspectors were established to oversee the HDDs and “further safeguard sensitive environmental features” to include the area’s karst topography. According to Cannon, even if there is no catastrophic accident while drilling into karst, the bedrock will be destabilized.
 

When

At present, as part of the permitting approval process FERC is requesting feedback that focuses on “the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts” – this input will be used to determine what issues need to be evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. Over the past year, Wells said he and his fellow advocates’ actions have slowed the timeline for the project. “We are pretty happy about that…they are actually considering alternate routes because they realize that the route that they have chosen could be in danger of being stopped,” he said. In terms of the MDE’s potential granting of the 401 Certificate, Maryland Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles has stated that, “we have requested additional information from the applicant on environmental impacts and engineering features,” and that “we are committed to protecting our precious Potomac River and the communities and resources that depend on it.”
 
Resources
TransCanada video demonstrating the HDD process is available at this link.

"Water is Life Rally and Concert" in Richmond Dec. 2

It’s time for the biggest public rally ever organized against the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. Here’s our goal: To bring so many moms and dads and farmers and students to Richmond on Saturday December 2nd that we can literally form a human ring around the Capitol building and the Governor’s mansion.
This encirclement will be the first public action against the pipelines of its kind in Virginia’s history. After the rally, we’ll stick around for a concert at “The National” theater just two blocks away.
We have to be creative and loud on December 2nd because, frankly, time is running out. The State’s Water Control Board will hold final hearings in Richmond on the MVP (Dec 6-7) and the ACP (Dec 11-12). We’ll be putting pressure on the Water Control Board with our massive rally and we’ll be telling our new governor and House of Delegates that water is life and we intend to preserve it for all our children!

RSVP today! 

http://bit.ly/stop-va-pipelines

TAKE A BUS 

The Sierra Club Virginia Chapter is providing buses from three locations: Hampton Roads, Staunton, and Northern Virginia. Here are the details:

Hampton Roads

Northern Virginia

Pickup #1: Leesburg, VA

Pickup #2: Vienna, VA

Staunton

Harrisonburg / Charlottesville

Pickup #1: Harrisonburg

  • Time: 10:30 am
  • Location: JMU Memorial Hall, 395 South High Street, Harrisonburg, VA 22801. Bus stop on north side of Memorial Hall (near the softball field)
  • Charlottesville pickup location (11:15am): Giant parking Lot, Rivanna Ridge on Pantops
  • RSVP: http://vasierra.club/waterislifestauntonbus

Pickup #2: Charlottesville

Roanoke (newly added!)

FIND PARKING

Below is a map of parking in downtown Richmond. (Click here for a downloadable PDF).

 

 

The Belltower is at the intersection of 9th and Bank Street.

 

The National Theater is at the intersection of 7th and Broad Street.

 

##

New Video Highlights the Advocates Fighting Bomb Trains in Baltimore

Local residents and advocates have been fighting explosive crude oil trains in Baltimore since 2014. From stopping a new crude oil terminal in 2015 to introducing a landmark piece of legislation zoning out all new and expanded crude oil terminals just last month, activists have made great strides in the fight to protect the city from bomb trains.
Watch the short documentary below to learn more about our campaign to stop bomb trains in Baltimore! Check it out! And after you watch, contact your Baltimore City Councilmember and urge them to support the Crude Oil Terminal Prohibition!

The video was made by Travis Edwards in conjunction with our partners at Clean Water Action and features South Baltimore community leaders Rodette Jones, Ann Robinson, and Keisha Allen.

The stunning Virginia election.

Turning the Tide on Dominion’s Power

We at CCAN are bleary-eyed today, reaching for extra coffee to get through the afternoon. But it was worth it last night. Like many of you, we stayed up late watching the final vote counts roll in from the Virginia races.
It’s big news, of course, that the next governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general will all be leaders who take climate change very seriously.
But here’s the real earthquake: Fourteen candidates who won last night had rejected all financial contributions from Virginia’s biggest polluter and climate obstacle Dominion Energy during their campaign. Among the 16 House seats that flipped, 12 were won by candidates who took a pledge to reject Dominion money, as well as District 11 incumbent delegate Sam Rasoul who held his seat. Plus, Lieutenant Governor-elect Justin Fairfax also rejected Dominion’s money, a first for that office.
So on balance, the election was not just a rejection of Donald Trump and his divisive agenda. It was a rejection of Dominion and its radically pro-fossil fuel agenda. That’s the biggest news from last night, by far. 
Ralph Northam, of course, will be the next governor, and we’re excited to work with him. Northam is opposed to offshore drilling for oil and gas in Virginia. But more importantly, he supports using his regulatory authority as Governor to cap carbon dioxide emissions from all power plants in the Commonwealth. Northam will be able to implement such a carbon cap – first proposed by the current Governor Terry McAuliffe – in 2018. We will also never stop pushing for a rejection of the two monstrous fracked-gas pipelines proposed for Virginia that threaten our climate, water, and property rights. Northam will have the authority to reject these pipelines, and he has not made a decision yet.
The re-election of Attorney General Mark Herring is also good news. He’s good on climate issues and we’ll need him to work hard to defend Virginia’s proposed carbon cap against the inevitable lawsuits from polluting industries.
And then there’s the House of Delegates again. Democrats picked up 16 seats in the House to create a 50-50 split with Republicans. We’re a nonpartisan group. We support leaders of all parties who fight climate change, and we were particularly sad to see climate champion, Delegate Ron Villanueva (R-Virginia Beach), lose last night.
But, on balance, last night’s winners are leaps and bounds better on climate issues than the Republicans they’re replacing. With a 50-50 split and with a couple of recounts that could actually give Democrats a slight pro-climate majority, we could finally see passage of CCAN’s top legislative priority for the past three years: The Virginia Coastal Protection Act. This bill would use the revenue generated from any cap on carbon pollution – hundreds of millions of dollars per year – to help the cities and counties of coastal Virginia adapt to appalling flooding already happening there due to climate change. The bill would also invest in energy efficiency and solar power statewide and retrain coal-industry workers in Southwest Virginia.
With a Virginia Senate pretty much evenly divided between the parties, and with Dominion Energy losing political clout, it’s not unrealistic to expect the Virginia Coastal Protection Act could reach the Governor’s desk in the near future. Northam himself is from the coast.
So we should all pause to give thanks. Thank the 13 House candidates who rejected Dominion Energy’s dirty money and WON, thus changing the legislative landscape in Richmond. And send a thank you to Lieutenant Governor-elect Justin Fairfax for doing the same. 
There’s much more work to be done, of course, to hold all our elected officials accountable in the near future. Which means citizens like you will need to stay informed and engaged on energy policies big and small. That’s where we come in. The Chesapeake Climate Action Network has never been more encouraged by the prospect for climate progress in Virginia than we are right now. We will keep you posted on all fronts.
But for now, send that note of thanks. And take a time to celebrate your victory – our victory – in Virginia last night.

Here’s a list of all the candidates who won last night who took Activate Virginia’s pledge to refuse contributions from Dominion:

  1. Justin Fairfax, elected Lieutenant Governor
  2. Del. Sam Rasoul, incumbent winner of District 11
  3. Jennifer Foy, winner of District 2
  4. Wendy Gooditis, winner of District 10
  5. Danica Roem, winner of District 13
  6. Kelly Fowler, winner of District 21
  7. Elizabeth Guzman, winner of District 31
  8. Kathy Tran, winner of District 42
  9. Lee Carter, winner of District 50
  10. Haya Ayala, winner of District 51
  11. Dawn Adams, winner of District 68
  12. Schuyler VanValkenburg, winner of District 72
  13. Debra Rodman, winner of District 73
  14. Cheryl Turpin, winner of District 85

Time to Resist the Potomac Pipeline

Two weeks ago, more than 300 hundred activists joined hand-in-hand on a bridge spanning the Potomac River, uniting West Virginia and Maryland in solidarity against TransCanada’s proposed fracked-gas pipeline under the Potomac.
The power and beauty of this moment brought me to tears and filled me with hope. When we are united, we can fight Big Oil and Gas and truly WIN!
Now that we’ve joined hands, it’s time to roll up our sleeves and stop this pipeline once and for all!
Chesapeake Climate Action Network, alongside other members of the “No Potomac Pipeline” coalition, will be holding community meetings throughout Western Maryland and West Virginia over the next couple weeks. Join us to learn the next steps in stopping the Potomac Pipeline! (Keep reading for meeting location/date details.)
After our historic fracking ban victory, Maryland is once again being threatened by fracked gas. TransCanada — the same company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, and who spilled over 16 thousand gallons of crude oil on South Dakota farmland — is trying to build a pipeline that would transport fracked gas between Pennsylvania and West Virginia. They want to do this with the shortest, cheapest, and most dangerous route possible. The “Eastern Panhandle Expansion” project would cut underneath the Potomac River that serves as the source of drinking water for millions of residents in our state and beyond.
Already, the oil companies are suing landowners to force the pipeline through their farmland. This pipeline would threaten the health of our drinking water and well-being of our communities. It would also deepen our dependence on dirty fossil fuels and fracking for years to come. By trying to force a pipeline through Sleepy Creek, Back Creek, and underneath the Potomac, we know that they are putting our families, our water, and our climate at risk.
We’re not going to let this happen.
Join us at a community meeting to learn how to stop this pipeline. During the meetings, we will talk about ways that we can raise our voices in our local communities, reach out to our neighbors, and make sure that our local elected leaders hear loud and clear that Marylanders say NO to the Potomac Pipeline.
Join us to learn how you can become part of a pipeline-free future for West Virginia and Maryland! Follow the links below to RSVP.
 
Eastern Panhandle: Wednesday, November 1, 6:30 pm in Martinsburg WV
Frederick County: Monday, November 6, 6:30 pm in Frederick MD
Washington County: Wednesday, November 8, 6:30 pm in Hagerstown MD
Western Maryland: Sunday, November 12, 4:00 pm in Frostburg MD

This FERC commissioner rejected the agency's approval for the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines

Late last Friday night, FERC issued certificates of approval for both the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. It was a cowardly, horrific move for the agency to dump this news on a Friday night — but we didn’t expect much better from an agency now run by Trump’s fossil-fueled appointees.
However, there is an interesting side to this story. One FERC commissioner, Cheryl LaFleur, dissented with the others on their decision. This is the first time she has dissented on a pipeline application in her many years of service — ever. By contrast, the two commissioners who voted in favor of the pipelines were appointed barely a couple months ago.
Read her dissent below, or download a PDF here, and share widely. Stay tuned — big actions to come.

Statement of Commissioner Cheryl A. Lafleur on Order Issuing Certificates and Granting Abandoment Authority under CP15-554 et al.

“With the increasing abundance of domestic natural gas, the Commission plays a key role in considering applications for the construction of natural gas infrastructure to support the delivery of this important fuel source. Under the Certificate Policy Statement, which sets forth the Commission’s approach to evaluating proposed projects under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act,the Commission evaluates in each case whether the benefits of the project as proposed by the applicant outweigh adverse effects on existing shippers, other pipelines and their captive customers, landowners, and surrounding communities.1 For each pipeline I have considered during my time at the Commission, I have tried to carefully apply this standard, evaluating the facts in the record to determine whether, on balance, each individual project is in the public interest.2 Today, the Commission is issuing orders that authorize the development of the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project/Equitrans Expansion Project (MVP) and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project (ACP). For the reasons set forth herein, I cannot conclude that either of these projects as proposed is in the public interest, and thus, I respectfully dissent.
“Deciding whether a project is in the public interest requires a careful balancing of the need for the project and its environmental impacts. In the case of the ACP and MVP projects, my balancing determination was heavily influenced by similarities in their respective routes, impact, and timing. ACP and MVP are proposed to be built in the same region with certain segments located in close geographic proximity. Collectively, they represent approximately 900 miles of new gas pipeline infrastructure through West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, and will deliver 3.44 Bcf/d of natural gas to the Southeast. The record demonstrates that these two large projects will have similar, and significant, environmental impacts on the region. Both the ACP and MVP cross hundreds of miles of karst terrain, thousands of waterbodies, and many agricultural, residential, and commercial areas. Furthermore, the projects traverse many important cultural, historic, and natural resources, including the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Both projects appear to be receiving gas from the same location, and both deliver gas that can reach some common destination markets. Moreover, these projects are being developed under similar development schedules, as further evidenced by the Commission acting on them concurrently today.3 Given these similarities and overlapping issues, I believe it is appropriate to balance the collective environmental impacts of these projects on the Appalachian region against the economic need for the projects. In so doing, I am not persuaded that both of these projects as proposed are in the public interest.
“I am particularly troubled by the approval of these projects because I believe that the records demonstrate that there may be alternative approaches that could provide significant environmental advantages over their construction as proposed. As part of its alternatives analysis, Commission staff requested that ACP evaluate an MVP Merged Systems Alternative that would serve the capacity of both projects.4 This alternative would largely follow the MVP route to deliver the capacity of both ACP and MVP in a single large diameter pipeline. Commission staff identifies significant environmental advantages of utilizing this alternative. For example, the MVP Merged Systems Alternative would be 173 miles shorter than the cumulative mileage of both projects individually. This alternative would also increase collocation with existing utility rights-of-way, avoid the Monongahela National Forest and the George Washington National Forest, reduce the number of crossings of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and Blue Ridge Parkway, and reduce the amount of construction in karst topography. Commission staff eliminated this alternative from further consideration because it failed to meet the project’s objectives, in particular that it would “result in a significant delay to the delivery of the 3.44 Bcf/d of natural gas to the proposed customers of both ACP and MVP”5 due to the significant time for the planning and design that would be necessary to develop a revised project proposal.6
“Similarly, in the MVP FEIS, Commission staff evaluated a single pipeline alternative to the MVP project that would utilize the proposed ACP to serve MVP’s capacity needs.7 While this alternative was found to have certain environmental disadvantages, such as the need for additional compression to deliver the additional gas, the EIS acknowledges that this alternative would “essentially eliminate all environmental impacts on resources along the currently proposed MVP route.”8
“I recognize that the two alternatives described above were eliminated from further consideration because they were deemed not to meet each project’s specific stated goals. However, I believe that these alternatives demonstrate that the regional needs that these pipelines address may be met through alternative approaches that have significantly fewer environmental impacts.
 
1. Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, 88 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999) (Certificate Policy Statement), order on clarification, 90 FERC ¶ 61,128, order on clarification, 92 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2000); 15 U.S.C. 717h (Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
provides that no natural gas company shall transport natural gas or construct any facilities for such transportation without a certificate of public convenience and necessity.).
2. See Millenium Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 140 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2012) (LaFleur, Comm’r, dissenting)
3. ACP and MVP filed their applications for approval pursuant to section7(c) of the Natural Gas Act on September 18, 2015 and
October 23, 2015, respectively.
4. ACP Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) at 3-6 – 3-9.
5. Id. at 3-9.
6. Staff also found that this alternative would likely limit the ability to provide additional gas to the projects’ customers, another of the stated goals for the original proposal. Id.
7 MVP FEIS at 3-14.
8 Id

Baltimore’s Chance to Stop the Next Big Oil Train Disaster

As Lac-Megantic Trials Proceed, Baltimore City Council Considers Bill to Stop Bomb Trains

 
On July 6, 2013, a freight train carrying 72 tank cars of crude oil derailed in the small town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec. Many of the town’s residents were gathered at a local bar for a birthday party when the runaway train barreled into downtown. When the train derailed at a sharp curve in the tracks, its highly flammable cargo exploded and wrought devastation.
The crude oil train explosion in Lac-Megantic killed 47 people, orphaned 27 children, destroyed 44 buildings, and left 160 people homeless.
That train was carrying crude oil from the Bakken Shale in North Dakota. Since the fracking boom took off in 2008, there has been a dramatic increase in crude-by-rail shipments in North America. The Bakken crude oil that is transported on these trains is more toxic and explosive than conventional oil. It contains a higher concentration of flammable methane and toxic fracking chemicals. Making matters worse, most of the train cars carrying this oil are outdated DOT-111s that were not designed to carry volatile material like crude oil. When these train cars puncture, they explode.
There have been dozens of crude oil train derailments over the past several years. While the incident in Lac-Megantic was by far the most devastating, communities across the continent have had to face oil spills, fires, and explosions due to crude oil trains. From Mosier, OR to Plainfield, IL to Lynchburg, VA, residents near rail lines live in danger.
Bakken crude oil has traveled through the heart of Baltimore City throughout the fracking boom. Between 2013-2014, over 100 million gallons of crude oil were shipped out of the Fairfield Peninsula in South Baltimore. According to the environmental group Stand, 165,000 Baltimoreans live in the “blast zone” of a potential derailment and explosion. I’m one of those 165,000.
Baltimore’s weak infrastructure is vulnerable, and we have had too many close calls with freight trains in the city. In 2001, a train derailed in the Howard Street tunnel and caused the infamous fire and water main break that effectively shut down the city for a week. In 2013, a coal train exploded in Rosedale that broke windows, shook nearby buildings, and slowed traffic throughout the region. In 2014, the retaining wall on 26th St collapsed, sending parked cars, streetlights, and large chunks of sidewalk onto the CSX tracks below. And in 2016, a train carrying acetone derailed inside the Howard Street Tunnel.
Thankfully, none of these incidents have resulted in the devastation and tragedy that Lac-Megantic faced. But crossing our fingers and hoping nothing bad ever happens is not a solution.
As the price of oil has plummeted, there has been a dramatic decrease in crude-by-rail shipments across the country. We need to ensure that when the next oil boom kicks off, Baltimore doesn’t become the next Lac-Megantic.
At last night’s City Council meeting, Councilmembers Mary Pat Clarke and Ed Reisinger introduced City Council Bill #17-0150 to prohibit the construction of new and the expansion of existing crude oil terminals in Baltimore City. This zoning ordinance will prevent an increase in crude oil train traffic in the city and send a strong signal that Baltimore does not want to be a hub for dangerous, polluting activity like crude oil train traffic. Instead, our city can be a leader in emerging clean energy industries like offshore wind manufacturing. This bill is also an opportunity for the Baltimore City Council to codify a piece of the Climate Resolution passed unanimously in June, which calls for the City to “limit the development and expansion of facilities that handle crude oil.”
This bill is being considered in the midst of the criminal trials in the Lac-Megantic disaster. Though it is clear that lax regulations and unsafe railroad management policies contributed to the tragedy there in 2013, railroad workers are facing exclusive blame for the incident. If the workers are convicted of criminal negligence, the reckless policies and lack of regulatory oversight that caused the disaster will not be changed. The conditions that led to the tragedy in Lac-Megantic will remain the norm across North America, continuing to put communities along rail lines in danger.
In Baltimore, we have an opportunity to make real progress in the fight against dangerous crude oil trains. Contact your City Councilmember and urge them to support the Crude Oil Terminal Prohibition (City Council Bill #17-0150) to protect Baltimore from becoming the next Lac-Megantic.