The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) announced today the finalization of two vital transmission rules: the transmission planning rule and the backstop siting rule. These two rules are essential to strengthening and accelerating the planning and permitting process for renewable energy and transmission.
Continue reading
WASHINGTON, DC — Late yesterday, a coalition of environmental groups took legal action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to halt start of construction of the fracked-gas Mountain Valley Pipeline, challenging the “certificate of public convenience and necessity” issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Attorneys for Appalachian Mountain Advocates filed the litigation on behalf of the Sierra Club, Appalachian Voices, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Wild Virginia.
The groups also filed a motion to stay the start of construction given the tremendous harmful impacts posed by the 300-mile, 42-inch diameter pipeline.
FERC approved the pipeline in October in a 2-1 decision, despite the significant risks the Mountain Valley Pipeline poses to streams, rivers and drinking water sources and to treasured Appalachian landscapes, and despite evidence that existing pipeline capacity is sufficient. If built, the pipeline would cut through a 3.5-mile stretch of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia and West Virginia, cross the Appalachian Trail at a previously undisturbed site, and cross waterways more than 1,000 times in the two states, posing a high risk of widespread water contamination. It would also significantly increase emissions that contribute to climate change, displacing public and private investments in energy efficiency, solar and other non-carbon based alternatives that cause far less environmental harm.
In response, Sierra Club Virginia Chapter Director Kate Addleson released the following statement:
“We are bringing this suit to stop the fracked gas Mountain Valley Pipeline because it threatens land, streams and rivers that are an important part of Virginia’s culture and economy. This pipeline would cause irreversible harm to our air, water, and communities, so we are evaluating every avenue we have to ensure it never gets built.”
David Sligh, Conservation Director for Wild Virginia, stated:
“The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission failed in its legal duty to assess the true costs of this project to the communities that would be harmed and the natural treasures that would be degraded or destroyed. A true accounting could not have led to the conclusion that this ill-conceived proposal is in the public interest. Citizens are forced to seek protection from the courts that we should have been afforded by FERC.”
West Virginia Rivers Coalition Executive Director Angie Rosser:
“FERC failed to follow the law; in so doing, it is recklessly sacrificing our streams, public lands and private property rights. Their refusal to fully evaluate the purpose and need of this project robs the public of benefiting from less harmful alternatives. FERC’s shoddy approval of MVP makes a mockery of their responsibility to the public interest.”
Peter Anderson, Virginia Program Manager for Appalachian Voices, stated:
“Dissenting FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur concluded that this project is not in the public interest — and with good reason. Construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline would devastate communities in West Virginia and Virginia, threatening their water and permanently damaging pristine mountain landscapes to transport natural gas that is not needed. We must hold FERC accountable for failing to evaluate the need for this project in a rational manner, and for dismissing the legitimate environmental concerns outlined by its staff and the public.”
Anne Havemann, General Counsel for Chesapeake Climate Action Network, stated:
“From coastal flooding to monster hurricanes to ravaging wildfires, climate change is impacting the critical systems that support life on our planet–right now. The Mountain Valley Pipeline for fracked-gas would dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions, while also trampling property rights, harming water quality, and permanently scarring pristine mountains. We are going to court to ask it to do what FERC failed to do — protect the public interest and halt construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.”
Doug Jackson, Sierra Club, 202-495-3045 or doug.jackson@sierraclub.org
Ben Luckett, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304.645.0125, bluckett@appalmad.org
Peter Anderson, Appalachian Voices, 434-293-6373, peter@appvoices.org
Anne Havemann, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-396-1984, anne@chesapeakeclimate.org
David Sligh, Wild Virginia 434-964-7455, david@wildvirginia.org
Angie Rosser, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, 304-437-1274, arosser@wvrivers.org
###
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.
“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
On July 21, Federal regulators issued a deeply-flawed final environmental review for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). We know that the pipeline would threaten hundreds of bodies of water, putting the drinking water for thousands of communities at risk. We also know that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would fuel climate disaster while blocking the transition we urgently need to clean energy and efficiency solutions. It is not surprising that this review from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is completely inadequate, given what we have seen in the past.
But it’s worth breaking down just how FERC gets it wrong on climate change — and what else it completely ignores.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) continues to ignore the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It entirely fails to consider emissions from fracking that this massive pipeline would trigger, and seriously discounts the emissions from burning the natural gas.
FERC concludes that the ACP would emit approximately 30 million tons per year of CO2 equivalent. This number is less than half of the emissions the ACP would actually trigger. A proper analysis by our friends at Oil Change International found that the ACP would cause 68 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution per year, which is the equivalent of 20 U.S. coal plants or over 14 million vehicles on the road.
FERC insists, as it has in past analyses, that “the upstream production and downstream combustion of gas is not causally connected [to the ACP] because the production and end-use would occur with or without the projects.”
This claim would be laughable if the consequences of climate change weren’t so severe.
FERC is ignoring its own role in approving all interstate gas pipelines, which are essential for the expanding gas production in the Appalachian basin. Even if you accept FERC’s premise that fracking for gas would occur without the ACP, which we don’t, you can’t ignore the fact that new pipelines generally trigger new fracking. And it’s FERC that approves all new interstate pipelines. A study by Oil Change International found that the Appalachian basin is the region with the greatest potential for growth in dangerous fracking, and developers are eager for pipelines to make high levels of fracking economical. There are currently 19 pipelines proposed in this region being considered by FERC. These pipelines would be a global warming bomb.
For the first time, FERC included a discussion of the Clean Power Plan in its review — but it provided no context or analysis for how the pipeline would impact a state’s goal under the plan. The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to meaningfully inform the public about the consequences of a major federal action before it takes places. Referencing the Clean Power Plan for the first time with no context does not provide meaningful information the public needs to evaluate the ACP and falls short of NEPA.
The draft analysis included a discussion of why the Council on Environmental Quality’s climate guidance, issued under the Obama Administration, didn’t apply to the ACP. FERC removed that discussion in this final draft. Instead it inserted a footnote discussing Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to not consider indirect climate impacts in their environmental reviews, such as the increased fracking that would come with the ACP.
These pipelines are meant to last 50 years or more, according to NPR. They are presented as climate-friendly alternatives to coal, but they serve only to lock us into a new form of dangerous fossil fuel instead. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. The ACP would lock us into decades of reliance on fossil fuels when we know we need to move to clean sources of energy, like wind and solar.
The FEIS does not require Dominion to make any changes to minimize ridgetop removal, period.
Experts studied the draft EIS to find that the construction of this pipeline would result in 38 miles of mountain ridgetop removal. For perspective, the height equivalent of a five-story building would be erased in places from fully forested and ancient mountains, much of it near the treasured Appalachian Trail.
Despite the outcry and unimaginable impacts from removing miles of ridgetops, not much changed in FERC’s final review. FERC still expects construction of the pipeline to require 125 feet of clearing width in mountainous regions. The agency directly states that “clearing and grading . . . would level the right-of-way surface.”
Furthermore, Dominion has yet to reveal how it intends to dispose of at least 247,000 dump-truck-loads of excess rock and soil—known as “overburden”—that would accumulate from the construction along just these 38 miles of ridgetops. The FEIS, for the first time, tells us definitively that “excess rock and spoil would be hauled off to an approved disposal location or used a beneficial reuse.” Yet Dominion and FERC still have provided no plan for dealing with this overburden and ensuring that it doesn’t poison our waterways.
The bottom-line is this: In its determination of “need,” FERC fully fails to even consider renewable energy as an alternative to this project.
If Dominion wants to bring more energy to Virginians, it should be focusing on clean energy, like expanding its pilot offshore wind program and opening the door to widespread community solar. The last thing Virginia needs is more natural gas infrastructure.
As Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Greg Buppert stated, “It’s FERC’s responsibility to determine if this pipeline is a public necessity before it allows developers to take private property, clear forests, and carve up mountainsides. Mounting evidence shows that it is not.”
For our climate and our future, we must stop this pipeline.
Photo at the top from Flickr user cool revolution with a Creative Commons license.
On Friday, June 23rd, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released its final environmental review for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP). The highly-flawed Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) paints a false and misleading picture of this massive, dangerous fracked-gas pipeline.
The FEIS does not spell good news for pipeline opposition, but it is far from final approval. There are many stages left in the process at the federal, state, and legal levels — and there is a growing movement committed to stopping this pipeline, along with Dominion’s proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), a pipeline of similar size and route. This growing resistance, alongside the shift in political narrative around these pipelines, show that the FEIS will only further the conviction and resolve of the growing anti-pipeline movement.
The Pipeline Pledge of Resistance is just one example of this conviction. The hundreds of people who have signed have pledged to engage in any tactic necessary to stop the ACP and MVP — including nonviolent civil disobedience and even risking arrest. To date, nearly 400 people have pledged to risk arrest to stop these pipelines. Plus, nearly 1,000 have pledged to engage in some form of support for those willing to participate in dignified civil disobedience to stop these radical infrastructure projects.
Those familiar with FERC’s history are not surprised by its shoddy environmental review. Since 1986, FERC has approved every proposal for a fracked-gas infrastructure projects that it has come across, with the exception of the Pacific Connector Pipeline and accompanying liquefied natural gas export terminal in 2016.1 Many of these projects have resulted in spills and even explosions. Furthermore, the agency has very strong ties to the very industry it is tasked with regulating. Since 2000, 12 of 15 former commissioners are “currently employed either directly or indirectly in the fossil fuel industry as executives, directors, partners, lobbyists, and/or consultants.”2
The opposition to the proposed fracked-gas pipelines is not just limited to those who have signed the Pledge. In recent months, the opposition has reached a fever pitch. Numerous groups and organizations have voiced their disapproval of the pipelines. In January, a letter signed on behalf of members of numerous indigenous tribes in the region denouncing the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was released to the public.
Photo from Flickr user Joe Brusky with a Creative Commons license. In April, announcements that both of these pipelines would trigger miles of ridgetop removal shocked public conscience throughout the region, with various Appalachian Trail hiking groups and enthusiasts assembling in Richmond last month to call upon Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to use his authority to reject the projects.
Finally, in May, a band of Virginia-based military veterans, representing every branch on the military, released an open letter to the Governor, linking the the MVP and the ACP to the movement against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota.
The broadening of the anti-pipeline movement in Virginia is indicative of a larger shift in the Commonwealth’s political culture. The contentious gubernatorial primaries this year in the state were dubbed a “referendum on pipelines”, with anti-pipeline candidates from both major parties winning districts along the proposed routes of these pipelines. Furthermore, over 50 Democratic candidates for Virginia’s House of Delegates have pledged to refuse money from Dominion Energy, the primary shareholder in the ACP and the largest contributor to political campaigns in Virginia.
Regardless of FERC’s announcement, the efforts to stop these pipelines in order to protect our land, water, communities, and climate will ultimately come from the massive grassroots movement. The movement has brought together folks from across Virginia from all walks of life with a common goal — and they are willing to put the their bodies on the line to achieve it.
1http://public-accountability.org/2017/02/oil-gas-industry-dominates-federal-agency-responsible-for-pipeline-approvals
2Ibid.
Groups call on FERC to issue completely revised Draft EIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Over the past three months, more than 17,000 people in the affected region — along with tens of thousands of others across the country — have sent comments or signed petitions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission demanding the agency do a thorough, accurate and unbiased review of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline, and ultimately reject the project. Local groups and environmental organizations submitted hundreds of detailed comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory (FERC) outlining numerous reasons finding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement substantially lacking information for meaningful review.
The proposed pipeline passes through important habitat in the Jefferson National Forest and would have devastating impacts on the New River Valley and surrounding areas. There are many substantial deficiencies in the DEIS that must be corrected through the issuance of a completely revised DEIS, including the failure to fully evaluate the need for the MVP and the failure to fully evaluate the impacts to water resources, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and climate change implications. Correcting these deficiencies will require significant new analysis and the incorporation of high quality and accurate information regarding MVP impacts.
Legal and environmental experts have filed review comments of the nearly 2,600-page document that identified major gaps in FERC’s analysis, including:
In addition to significant flaws, there is a significant amount of information regarding other environmental impacts that is missing from the DEIS that will not be provided by the applicants in a manner that facilitates meaningful public disclosure and participation.
David Sligh, Conservation Director, Wild Virginia, 434-964-7455.
“FERC must revise the draft EIS to correct gross deficiencies in information and flawed analyses. Wild Virginia calls on the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to insist on a new and adequate DEIS from FERC, or to fulfill their legal duties and prepare their own.”
Ben Luckett, Senior Attorney, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304.645.0125, bluckett@appalmad.org.
“We’re shocked the FERC has continued to disregard its federal duties and fast track this project — especially given major gaps in the agency’s understanding of the pipeline’s impacts, as well as any need for it in the first place. FERC has the extraordinary power to allow MVP to take private property for its shareholders’ own private gain. Just because the job of evaluating the impacts of such a massive project is difficult doesn’t mean that FERC may cut corners and ignore its important duty to the public. FERC should not proceed forward, sacrificing family land and other private property, without fully analyzing this destructive and unnecessary pipeline.”
Lara Mack, Virginia Field Organizer, Appalachian Voices, 540-246-9720. lara@appovices.org.
“FERC woefully underestimated the impacts the Mountain Valley Pipeline will have on the Appalachian mountains, wildlife habitat, water resources, and communities. If FERC did it’s job correctly, with the public interest in mind, it would see this project for what it is — a dangerous boondoggle.”
Andrew Downs, Regional Director, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, 540.904.4354, adowns@appalachiantrail.org.
“Through a deficient level of planning and environmental impact assessment, the MVP project represents a threat not only to the purpose and values of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail but, by undermining the United States Forest Services’ protection of the AT, it represents a fundamental and existential threat to the entire National Trails System”
Anne Havemann, General Counsel, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 240-396-1984, anne@chesapeakeclimate.org.
“FERC’s draft environmental review utterly ignores the pipeline’s full impacts on the climate. The limited–and opaque–review fails to fully account for methane pollution from increased fracking that the pipeline would trigger, from leakage along the route, and from the ultimate burning of the gas. The pipeline would fail the White House’s climate test. FERC must revise its review to include the pipeline’s full lifecycle of climate pollution, and consider clean energy alternatives.”
Ellen Darden, POWHR Co-Chair, Montgomery County, Va. 540-230-1091
greennrv.ellen@gmail.com.
“The people of Appalachia stand united in an unprecedented interstate coalition: Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR), to make clear to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the United States Forest Service, the US Army Corp of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management that Mountain Valley Pipeline has failed to establish a need for this destructive project.
FERC’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement summarily ignores the detailed, credentialed hydrogeologic, economic, historical preservation and cultural attachment research submitted by the POWHR coalition and hundreds of landowners opposed to MVP. Rather than interfering and obstructing public opposition to MVP, FERC must review the entire body of scientific research submitted and reject this project.”
Kirk A Bowers, PE, Pipelines Campaign Coordinator, VA Chapter, Sierra Club, 434.296.8673, kirk.bowers@sierraclub.org.
“The Draft EIS is blatantly biased. It makes sweeping unsubstantiated claims of the need for the pipeline while dismissing any and all potential adverse effects. The applicant provides cursory responses to data requests in a perfunctory manner without analyses or serious consideration of the adverse effects of the proposed pipeline. The applicant has failed to make reasonable efforts to avoid and minimize adverse effects on communities, landowners and ecosystems impacted by the proposed pipeline. In light of the incompetent and unprofessional manner in which the application has been handled by MVP LLC, it is incumbent on FERC to reject the application.”
On October 16th, in Keene, New Hampshire, at a public town hall meeting attended by hundreds, Hillary Clinton had this to say about the notorious Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC:
“If we’re going to have a national commitment to do something about climate change, FERC needs to be part of that commitment. And that’s my view on how we have to alter a lot of parts of the Federal Government. Ya know, it’s not just the EPA that needs to be focused on combating climate change, every part of the Federal Government needs to be focused. I want to have, by the end of my first term, a half a billion more solar panels installed and by the end of my second term enough clean, renewable energy to power every home in America. And if those are our goals, then it’s important that we don’t have the right hand doing something different than the left hand.”
Whoa, what’s going on here?!? I could see Bernie Sanders, or maybe Martin O’Malley, saying this, but Clinton?
It’s not that I have great faith that Clinton, if elected, would follow through on this in the ways and with the urgency needed. I don’t. But her saying this now, over a year before the election, can be of great value. It can lead to other candidates also addressing the issue of FERC, including at upcoming debates. It can lead to growing press coverage about the wide, deep and determined grassroots movement fighting FERC as it continues to rubber stamp every proposal for the expansion of fracked gas infrastructure that comes before it.
When FERC holds public meetings in localities which are facing new pipelines, compressors, storage and export terminals, Clinton’s words should be printed up and distributed to everyone there and written in large, bold letters on signs and banners.
When Beyond Extreme Energy takes action at FERC Commissioners’ monthly public meetings in DC, something it has been doing for a year, the same thing should happen, as much as possible.
When Clinton or other Presidential, Senate or House candidates, and not just Democrats–hey Republicans, do you support the federal government taking people’s land to benefit private corporations?–are answering questions at town hall meetings in Iowa, other New Hampshire towns, Nevada, South Carolina or other states, we must make sure questions about FERC and fracking are brought forward.
Seemingly from out of nowhere, thanks to the courage and persistence of local New Hampshire activists, a light can be seen at the end of the long tunnel that so many of us fighting FERC have been in for years. When Hillary Clinton is publicly saying what so many of us have been saying, when FERC is going to be even more on the defensive than they already are, when our up-from-below pressures just keep building, there is reason to believe that, yes, we can win in our battle against FERC and its fossil fuel industry partners.
Pope Francis is coming to Washington, D.C., arriving September 22nd and taking part in activities through the 24th. He will be in the United States until the 27th.
A growing coalition of faith-based, environmental, climate, social justice and other groups has come together and is planning a variety of activities leading up to and during the week that this inspiring and courageous world leader will be in town. This pope has been outspoken about the urgency of the climate crisis and its connection to the larger environmental, social and economic crises of our time. It is important that we who share his concerns take visible action to support him and amplify his message.
Beyond Extreme Energy begins the activities with a planned 18-day, water-only “Fast for No New Permits” in front of FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It will begin on Tuesday September 8th and continue until Friday the 25th, which is the day after the Pope’s speech to Congress. CCAN National Campaign Coordinator Ted Glick will be one of those taking part in this action. On September 9th and 10th BXE fasters will be taking part in activities with Grandparents Climate Action.
CCAN and BXE are working with the Franciscan Action Network, which is planning a fast September 14-23 at McPherson Square. The fast is part of an international fast organized by the Global Catholic Climate Movement. Their fast will end the evening of September 23rd with an interfaith service at the Lincoln Memorial.
On the evening of September 22nd Jewish Rabbis will lead an evening Yom Kippur Day of Atonement/At-Onement service at the Lincoln Memorial.
The big day is September 24th. That morning Pope Francis will speak before Congress. Outside on the mall Moral Action for Climate Justice is organizing a rally with a broadcast of the Pope’s speech, and a program of music and speakers before and after. The National Park Service and other police agencies expect hundreds of thousands of people to be present on the mall that morning.
And on September 25th, as the Pope speaks in NYC before the United Nations, people will flood Capitol Hill to call upon Senators and House members to finally get serious and move forward to take action on climate. Later in the day, Beyond Extreme Energy is organizing a gathering at FERC as the fasters end their fast and as religious leaders attempt to take copies of Pope Francis’ “Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home” into FERC to deliver to the five FERC Commissioners.
CCAN looks forward to all of these activities next month and urges our members and supporters to take part in as many of them as you can. It’s time for moral action for climate justice!
Starting November 1st, hundreds of people are planning to take part in a very full week of climate action in Washington, D.C., focused on FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The week will also draw connections to other very problematic institutions as far as the global warming crisis.
Over 50 organizations have endorsed this week of action, many of them local groups fighting fracking, fracking infrastructure and proposed fracked-gas export terminals. On Friday, November 7th, the last day of the week, dozens of fracktivists from the fracking-ravaged state of Pennsylvania are traveling to DC to anchor that morning’s action at FERC.
The continuing fight against the Cove Point export terminal is a central reason for this week and a major focus of the Beyond Extreme Energy (BXE) demands, which can be found at http://bit.ly/BeyondExtremeEnergy; and in summary demand:
The heart of the BXE actions is five days of nonviolent sit-ins at the entrances to FERC every morning of the November 3-7 workweek. Over 100 people have signed up and indicated their willingness to risk arrest, with many others signed up to participate in other ways.
Saturday, November 1st: BXE participants join with the Great March for Climate Action as they walk the final leg of an eight month journey across the country which began in Los Angeles in March. Hundreds of us will walk from Elm Street Park just a few blocks from the Bethesda Metro stop, gathering at 9 and beginning at 9:30 am. The 7 mile walk will end at the White House where there will be a rally. Then that evening, at 7:00 pm at St. Stephens Church, there will be a longer program where marchers reflect upon their heroic experience.
Sunday, November 2nd: Full day of training, discussion and preparation for the week of action, at Impact Hub DC at 419 7th St. NW. from 10AM-8PM
In addition to the early morning actions at FERC, there will also be actions each afternoon at other locations.
Monday, November 3rd: Afternoon demonstration outside the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee calling upon them to get real about the seriousness of the climate crisis. This will be followed by a “flash mob” action at FERC and at Union Station spearheaded by fracktivists coming down from New York City. For the DNC action gather at the Columbus Statue outside of Union Station at 1:30/1:45 for a march to DNC. Look for the “flash mob” group around 4:15 at the same location.
Tuesday, November 4th: A bus has been reserved to take people to Cove Point for a demonstration in support of local people who continue to fight the plans by Dominion to build a dangerous export terminal. We plan to be in Solomon’s Island on Solomon’s Island Rd. near the long bridge by 2 pm.
Wednesday, November 5th: There will be an action at the Justice Department calling for them to intervene to see that justice is done in Ferguson, Mo. and that the national scourge of police brutality, especially against black and brown youth, is seriously addressed. We say: stop disrespecting and abusing the earth and its climate, stop disrespecting and abusing the people. We plan to be at the Justice Department, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, between 9th and 10th Sts., by 2 PM.
Thursday, November 6th: We will demonstrate outside the headquarters of National Public Radio, which keeps running pro-fracking ads of the oil and gas industry and just cut back its team of environmental reporters to one! NPR is at 1111 N. Capitol St. NW, near L St.
Friday, November 7th: Led by fracktivists from Pennsylvania, we will go the Dept. of Transportation to demonstrate against its policies and practices that are allowing a dramatic expansion of coal, oil and gas shipments, including exports. We should be there around 1:30 pm, and DOT is at 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, at M St.
Click here for full schedule.
There is still time to make plans to participate in this important seven days of climate action. You can find out more and sign up at http://bit.ly/BeyondExtremeEnergy. Let’s build upon the power and spirit of the People’s Climate March and say loudly and clearly that NOW IS THE TIME TO STEP IT UP ON CLIMATE!