ECHO Action Editor
Apr 16, 2018

Two years after pipeline shelved, opposition groups continue

0 comments

"April 20 marks the two-year anniversary of the suspension of a plan to build a controversial natural gas pipeline that would have snaked through parts of the Monadnock Region.

On that day in 2016, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, said it was halting efforts to construct the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, a $5.2-billion project.

At the time, residents and officials in 18 southern New Hampshire communities in the pipeline’s path were fighting the project. People in Fitzwilliam, Richmond, Rindge, Troy and Winchester were among them.

Their concerns centered on the possible environmental and health effects of constructing and operating the pipeline and its infrastructure, including a compressor station and land proposed to be taken by eminent domain.

Local and regional grassroots organizations formed in response to the project — such as the Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast Inc. (PLAN-NE), ECHO Action NH, and the N.H. Pipeline Health Study Group — and joined towns in opposition. ECHO stands for Earth and Energy, Climate Change, Health and Habitat and Outreach. Its focus is to promote clean, renewable energy throughout New Hampshire and nationwide, and for the planet a safe, healthy and prosperous fossil-free future.

A little more than a month after the suspension, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. withdrew the project’s federal application, ending the possibility of the pipeline moving forward. The move also set the project back by years should the company decide to pursue it again.

The 419-mile, high-pressure transmission line would have carried fracked natural gas from the shale fields of northern Pennsylvania to a hub in Dracut, Mass.

And with that, PLAN-NE, which is based in Massachusetts, ECHO Action and the N.H. Pipeline Health Study Group could have just stopped there. But they didn’t. The three groups have continued to remain involved in fighting policy changes favoring fossil fuels and projects across New England.

“Since my eyes have been opened to the role of fossil fuels in the acceleration of climate change, I cannot stop in my efforts to increase awareness everywhere,” said Susan L. Durling, a founding member of ECHO Action and a member of the study group.

Durling, a retired nurse, and ECHO Action co-founder Stephanie Scherr, a middle and high school science teacher, along with other volunteers, have continued to operate the organization.

Kinder Morgan suspended the NED project, it said, because it lacks customers either buying, or seeking to buy, space on the pipeline.

Liberty Utilities, which is New Hampshire’s largest natural gas utility, had signed on to buy natural gas from the pipeline, and had plans to expand its own infrastructure once the project was complete.

Without the NED pipeline, Liberty Utilities is proposing smaller natural gas infrastructure projects that, over time, could build into something larger, Scherr said.

Those projects include converting Keene’s decades-old propane-air distribution system to natural gas, building a natural gas pipeline in Lebanon and Hanover supplied by a facility near the Lebanon landfill, and building a pipeline to connect natural gas infrastructure in Stratham and Manchester.

The latter of the three projects is called Granite Bridge, with the proposed pipeline running along the N.H. Department of Transportation’s right-of-way for Route 101. It would also include the construction of a storage facility for liquefied natural gas in Epping.

“We’re really focused on what Liberty Utilities is doing and we’re concerned,” Scherr, who lives in Fitzwilliam, said. “Kinder Morgan pulled the pipeline for lack of contracts, and Liberty Utilities is still aggressively seeking contracts now. We were still dealing with Keene when the Granite Bridge pipeline came up.”

ECHO Action is reaching out to cities, towns, schools and businesses that would be affected by the proposed 27-mile-long Granite Bridge pipeline, she said.

“We just want people to be able come together in a relaxed environment to ask questions and get knowledge without the pressure of trying to ask those questions of industry,” she said. “We’re going one town at a time.”

On a mission

Volunteers that make up ECHO Action have grown in number since the NED project was suspended. The group is working on attaining nonprofit status, and it has joined a nationwide coalition of more than 200 pipeline opposition organizations, Scherr said. That contact gave ECHO Action members the opportunity to travel to Washington, D.C., last year to lobby about matters involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, fossil fuels, renewable energy and natural gas pipelines, she said.

“There has been so much going on that it feels overwhelming, but it all has been really positive,” she said.

They’ve also continued to work with members of other groups in New England that formed in protest of the pipeline, she said. Those groups, especially PLAN-NE, were extremely helpful in providing information in the early days of the pipeline fight in New Hampshire in the fall of 2014, Durling said.

“It felt like we were flying by the seat of our pants with Northeast Energy Direct,” Scherr said. “We have so many more great connections now, and ways to get information and learn from each other. We’re talking to communities, and people are listening.”

Besides ECHO Action, Durling, who lived in Winchester at the time of the NED project and now lives in Hillsboro, has remained involved with the N.H. Pipeline Health Study Group that also formed in response to the NED project. More recently, the eight-member group has been in discussions with the N.H. Department of Environmental Services about expanding its regulated toxic air pollutants list. They’ve also talked with state officials about more frequent measuring of some especially unhealthy pollutants associated with natural gas infrastructure and fracking, Durling said.

Fracked natural gas is pulled from the earth using a process that involves shooting water mixed with sand and chemicals at high pressures into rock.

In addition, group members are awaiting the release of a report by Dr. Curtis Norgaard identifying the chemicals in today’s natural gas, Durling said.

Norgaard is a Boston pediatrician, and his research about the potential health effects of emissions associated with natural gas infrastructure, such as compressor stations, was cited often by NED pipeline opponents.

Durling and other health study group members were also movants in a motion for reconsideration before the N.H. Public Utilities Commission about its October 2017 ruling that Liberty Utilities has the authority to offer compressed and liquefied natural gas to customers in Keene.

The company’s propane-air distribution system serves about 1,250 customers in the city and is used mostly for heating and cooking.

Liberty Utilities plans to convert the system by first installing a temporary natural gas facility on Production Avenue in Keene to provide natural gas to businesses on the road and across Route 9 at the Monadnock Marketplace.

Company officials have said their plan is to eventually have a permanent natural gas facility feeding the city.

The three-member commission granted the motion for reconsideration, in part, allowing just one of the movants, Keene City Councilor Terry M. Clark, to present his legal arguments against Liberty Utilities’ proposal. Clark joined the proceedings as a private citizen, not as a city official, according to the filing. The commission found that Clark, as a Keene resident who lives in Liberty Utilities’ franchise area, is the only one who has standing in the proceedings.

However, the commission left in place conditions related to safety and operational matters that it placed on allowing Liberty Utilities to make the switch in Keene to natural gas.

The matter remains pending before the commission.

Smaller projects, same goal

Meanwhile, PLAN-NE has remained involved in tracking the lobbying efforts of pro-pipeline groups in Massachusetts, President Kathryn R. Eiseman said.

That includes proponents of the Access Northeast project pushing for the so-called pipeline tax on electric ratepayers, she said.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against charging electric ratepayers to help finance pipeline construction in August 2016.

Traditionally, interstate gas pipelines are funded through long-term capacity contracts between the pipeline company and local gas utilities, and ultimately funded by those gas utilities’ ratepayers, Eiseman said.

Intrastate pipelines such as Granite Bridge are funded by the gas utility’s ratepayers, she said.

“In both instances, the companies are allowed to profit off of their capital investment with a guaranteed rate of return on their investment, so the larger their project, the greater the profit (at ratepayer expense),” she said.

In addition, the nonprofit organization is watching for new natural gas pipeline and infrastructure projects being proposed, and assisting concerned citizens in understanding the various regulatory proceedings in those cases, she said.

“The organization was triggered by the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, and it’s certainly why we formed,” she said, “but our mission statement and organizational documents were always looking beyond NED.”

That mission is “to prevent the overbuild of natural gas infrastructure and to champion clean, sustainable energy solutions,” according to the organization’s website. The mission also says the group envisions “a public that understands where its energy comes from and that is actively engaged in energy decisions that affect our communities and our region.”

Since Kinder Morgan withdrew the Northeast Energy Direct project, smaller natural gas projects proposed by companies that sought to benefit from the larger plan have popped up, and PLAN-NE members expected that, Eiseman said.

“We’re not at all surprised now that almost every one of the major gas utilities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire that were where customers of NED have now proposed their own solutions,” she said.

The smaller projects are harder to oppose than larger pipeline projects because they don’t cover as much ground, and they don’t have as many people aware of them, she said.

Granite Bridge is now the largest, longest and highest-pressure gas infrastructure project in New England, and PLAN-NE has filed a petition with the N.H. Public Utilities Commission to intervene in the proceedings, she said. Intervenor status would give the organization access to confidential records, the ability to ask questions during the proceedings and analyze what is being proposed, she said.

That way the group can make an “informed determination what would be an appropriate solution for the region’s energy needs,” she said."

 

http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/environment/two-years-after-pipeline-shelved-opposition-groups-continue-fighting-fossil/article_ce79bcde-4933-548a-94cb-9ee984d14d81.html

New Posts
  • ECHO Action Admin
    Aug 17, 2018

    It's your classic movie eureka moment. Young researcher Sarah-Jeanne Royer set out to measure methane gas coming from biological activity in sea water. Instead, in a "happy accident" she found that the plastic bottles holding the samples were a bigger source of this powerful warming molecule than the bugs in the water. Now she's published further details in a study into the potential warming impact of gases seeping from plastic waste. "It was a totally unexpected discovery," Dr Royer told BBC News. "Some members of the lab were experimenting with high density polyethylene bottles looking at methane biological production, but the concentrations were much higher than expected." "So we realised that the emissions were not just coming from the biology but from the bottle that we were using for the experiment." After graduating from university in Barcelona, Dr Royer found herself in Hawaii, leading teams of volunteers who were helping to remove plastic from beaches at weekends, while working on the chemistry of the substance during the week. Dr Royer found that the most widely-used plastic, the stuff used to make shopping bags, is the one that produces the greatest amount of these warming gases. At the end of the study, after 212 days in the sun, this plastic emitted 176 times more methane than at the start of the experiment. Ironically, when plastics were exposed to air the amount of methane emitted was double the level from sea water. What's causing these emissions? In short it's the Sun. Solar radiation acts on the surface of plastic waste. As it breaks down, becomes cracked and pitted, these defects increase the surface area of plastic available to sunlight which accelerates gas production. Even in the dark, the gas continues to seep out. "I'm in the field every week," said Dr Royer. "When I touch a piece of plastic, if there's a little impact on that plastic it's degrading into hundred of pieces pretty much as we look at it." Is this a big deal? Up to now, the link between plastics and climate change was mainly focussed on the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in the manufacture of plastic items. It's also known that when plastics degrade in the environment, they release CO2. Experts have welcomed this report as it is the first time that anyone has tried to quantify other warming gases emerging from plastic waste. "Low density polyethylene (LDPE) does emit ethylene, methane and propane, even at low temperatures that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions," Prof Ashwani Gupta from the University of Maryland, who was not involved in the study, told BBC News. "It is nice to see some quantified emissions on greenhouse gases for the selected polyethylene. The results clearly show variation in gas emission levels among the different polyethylene sources." While the amounts of methane and ethylene being produced right now from plastics are very small, Dr Royer is concerned about the future and the fact that as plastic breaks down, more surface area is exposed, increasing the amount of the gases that drifts into the atmosphere. "If we look at all the plastic produced since 1950, it's pretty much all still on the planet, and it's just degrading into smaller and smaller pieces, so we know the industry is booming and in the next 30 years and more and more greenhouse gases will be produced - that's a big thing." What have the plastics industry said? Nothing much at this point. According to Dr Royer, when she approached companies in the field, they weren't keen on talking about it. "I told them I was a scientist and I was trying to understand the chemistry of the plastic," she said. "I was trying to order some plastics of different densities and I was asking questions about the process and they all said we don't want to have contact with you anymore. "I think the plastic industry absolutely knows, and they don't want this to be shared with the world." How have other scientists reacted? "Research on plastic waste is revealing it to be a disturbing pandora's box," said Dr Montserrat Filella, a chemist at the University of Geneva. "As research expands our knowledge, we are realising that plastics can be insidious in many other ways. For instance, as vectors of 'hidden pollutants', such as heavy metals present in them or, now, as a source of greenhouse gases. And, in all cases, throughout the entire lifetime of the plastic." Others agreed that further research was urgently needed. "No one knows how much methane and ethylene are being released from these sources. We don't know if it is adding significant amounts of greenhouse gases to our atmosphere," said Dr Jennifer Lynch, a marine environment expert from the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (Nist). "It's another consequence of the use of plastics and it needs further examination." https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45043989
  • ECHO Action Editor
    Aug 2, 2018

    Front row w/ Sue in my #LiveFossilFreeOrDie tee at the Marchand/Kelly Forum in at the Exeter Inn in Exeter NH last night. Lots of questions about energy! Are you ready for some serious climate action? Break free from the establishment! #FossilFree603 #NHpolitics • Steve Marchand: 50% RPS by 2030 & No Granite Bridge Pipeline • Molly Kelly: Supports solar, wean off fossil fuels, no clear details, does not oppose Granite Bridge Pipeline
  • ECHO Action Editor
    Jul 31, 2018

    Governing.com, July 31, 2018 Rhode Island is using new tactics to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for disaster-related infrastructure damage. As hurricanes, wildfires and floods have picked up in number and intensity, courtrooms have become an increasingly popular battleground for governments hoping to hold fossil fuel companies accountable. The number of U.S. cases involving climate change increased from one filed in 2001 to nearly 100 in 2016, according to a database compiled by Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. So far, climate change lawsuits brought by cities have had limited success. Some environmental legal experts say that Rhode Island's new lawsuit could turn the tide. Rhode Island is the first state to sue fossil fuel companies for infrastructure costs due to damage from global warming. Its unique claims "open the door to some interesting possibilities," says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. “There are some novel, new theories [in Rhode Island's lawsuit]. And there’s a lot more information about what these companies knew and what they did ... since some of the earlier cases." The lawsuit names 21 defendants, including some of the world's largest fossil fuel companies -- ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell. The 142-page document cites existing damage and future threats to Rhode Island residents and infrastructure, including roads and bridges.  According to the complaint , the state “seeks to ensure that the parties who have profited from externalizing the responsibility for sea-level rise, drought, extreme precipitation events [and other consequences of global warming] bear the costs of those impacts on Rhode Island.” In eight counts, the lawsuit accuses the companies of violating state law surrounding public nuisance and failure to warn the public about potential threats, among other things. One of the more interesting counts is the claim for "impairing public trust resources," says Richard Ahrens, an environmental lawyer with the midwest regional law firm Lewis Rice. A state is particularly well-situated to make that claim, he says, because it can invoke the "public trust doctrine," which holds the government responsible for managing natural resources, such as air, land and water, for the benefit of the people. The success of these claims could be determined by which court hears the case. Shortly after Rhode Island filed its lawsuit, Shell requested the case be moved from state to federal court. If it's kept in federal court, Rhode Island could run into some challenges. Judges have ruled in past cases that federal laws and regulations supersede state law claims, says Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center. One example is the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, which stated that the Environmental Protection Agency, not federal courts, is responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. About 11 cities and counties have filed lawsuits similar to Rhode Island's. San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., for example, sued fossil fuel companies for environmental damages last year. Those cases were removed to a federal court where they were dismissed by a judge in June. The global nature of climate change is one reason these cases often get bumped up to the federal system, says Maxine Lipeles, director of the Interdisciplinary Environmental Clinic at the School of Law at Washington University in St. Louis.  But regardless of the reasons, a federal court could determine that the EPA is better suited to address Rhode Island's concerns. "The people who make [climate change] decisions are politically accountable. Congress is accountable. The White House is accountable,” says Lipeles. "The courts are insulated from that so they tend to shy away from what they think of as policy decisions that should really be made by politically accountable people." Article

© 2019 ECHO Action: #FossilFree603

ECHOaction.org  •  FossilFree603.org • PipelineFree603.org

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Pinterest
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • Email