Posts Tagged ‘Duke Energy’

FERC’s pipeline review process is broken

Monday, February 20th, 2017 - posted by Peter Anderson

Former chairman adds his voice to public demands for greater scrutiny

As new research refutes industry's pro-pipeline arguments, former FERC chairman Norman Bay is calling for greater scrutiny of proposed natural gas infrastructure projects.

As new research refutes industry’s pro-pipeline arguments, former FERC chairman Norman Bay is calling for greater scrutiny of proposed natural gas infrastructure projects.

Sign the petition to stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline today!

It’s no secret: oil and gas pipelines have captured the nation’s attention, not to mention the new administration’s. Standing Rock’s resistance to the Dakota Access pipeline continues to put water protection, indigenous rights and environmental justice at the fore of any pipeline discussion. And not so long ago, the Keystone XL pipeline came to symbolize the United States’ willingness to lead (or not) on climate action. Now the Trump administration hopes to revive both.

The Trump administration also hopes to push through the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would transport fracked gas 600 miles from the Marcellus Shale in northern West Virginia through Virginia and into North Carolina. A list of the administration’s top 50 infrastructure priorities leaked in January includes the Atlantic Coast Pipeline at number 20. The document reports the pipeline’s permitting process as “done,” despite the fact that comment periods for some federal and state permits are currently open and no permits have been issued. How’s that for alternative facts?

Pipelines not needed

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency with primary authority for permitting interstate gas pipelines, was generally viewed as pipeline-friendly even prior to the Trump era. The agency allows a 14 percent rate of return on investments in pipeline capital, and its environmental reviews typically fall short in analyzing both the need for additional pipelines and the projected climate impacts of new projects (in addition to many other deficiencies).

However, former FERC Chairman Norman Bay offered a surprising call for reform of the agency’s pipeline certificate process when he stepped away at the beginning of February (see the last six pages of this FERC order). Bay criticized the method FERC uses to determine whether or not there is a need for a pipeline. He pointed out that FERC usually looks to precedent agreements between pipeline owners and gas shippers as evidence of need. But this method is flawed.

According to Bay, “focusing on precedent agreements may not take into account a variety of other considerations, including … whether the precedent agreements are largely signed by affiliates.”

Norman Bay, a former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Norman Bay, a former commissioner and chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

In other words, a company applying to build a new pipeline says, “Look, we have subscribers lined up to buy gas from the pipeline, so there must be a need for it.” But a closer examination reveals that the buyer and the seller are both affiliates of the same parent corporation.

This echoes a concern highlighted in a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis published in April 2016. That report found that “in situations in which a pipeline developer contracts with an affiliate company to ship gas through a new pipeline, this is strong evidence that it is doing so because of the financial advantage to the parent company from building the pipeline, but not necessarily that there is a need for the pipeline.”

This report studied the risks of building both the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 300-mile gas pipeline that would also cut through the Appalachian regions of West Virginia and Virginia. It pointed out that for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, five of the six companies contracted to buy gas are affiliates of the companies building the pipeline. Energy behemoths Dominion Resources and Duke Energy have a combined 85 percent ownership stake in the pipeline, and their subsidiary companies have subscribed to 86 percent of the gas shipped. For the Mountain Valley Pipeline, all six of the buyers are affiliates of the companies building the pipeline.

Another report, published in September 2016 by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., studied conservative estimates of future gas demand in Virginia and the Carolinas. It concluded that, even under scenarios where gas use for electricity production is high, existing pipelines have more than enough capacity to provide energy to the region. That is, we can keep the lights on and businesses thriving without ever building the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines.

Climate impacts of gas pipelines

In addition to the needs analysis, Bay also called on FERC to reform its evaluation of climate impacts. In its draft environmental review of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, FERC refused to consider that the pipeline would spur more gas production, enabling more methane leakage along the entire supply chain. Without quantifying them, FERC compared downstream smokestack emissions to global greenhouse gas emissions and concluded that the pipeline’s emissions would merely be a drop in the bucket.

In its draft environmental review for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, FERC did attempt a rough calculation of downstream emissions but again refused to analyze upstream effects or methane leakage. FERC’s review stated that emissions from burning the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s gas would be roughly 29 million metric tons (MMt) per year.

A new briefing published by Oil Change International puts a comparable number on emissions from gas combustion for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, estimating 31 MMt annually. But when you add increased gas production and methane leakage along the supply chain, total emissions more than double, reaching nearly 68 MMt per year. The organization also published a briefing for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, estimating total life-cycle emissions at nearly 90 MMt annually.

To put that in perspective, emissions from the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would be the rough equivalent of adding 20 coal-fired power plants to the grid or putting 14 million more cars on the road. Emissions from the Mountain Valley Pipeline would be like adding 26 coal-fired power plants or putting 19 million more cars on the road.

While Norman Bay defended FERC’s existing climate analysis methods from a legal perspective, he also argued for change. He stated that “in the interests of good government” the agency should analyze downstream impacts and perform lifecycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions — not just from pipelines — but from the entire Marcellus and Utica gas production region.

Other environmental impacts

Besides bludgeoning our atmosphere with huge amounts of new greenhouse gas pollution, the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines would, of course, threaten thousands of groundwater sources, surface streams and wetlands. Constructing the pipelines would force the permanent removal of trees along their routes, fragmenting habitats and spoiling views from the Appalachian Trail. The projects would threaten human health and safety, especially near powerful compressor stations used to pump gas along the line. They would disproportionately impact lower-income communities, communities of color and Native American communities, threatening important historic and cultural resources.

What can you do?

Unfortunately, Bay did not follow his own advice and revise the way FERC analyzes pipeline need or climate impacts while he led the agency. But here’s how you can do your part:

Mountain Valley Pipeline:

Atlantic Coast Pipeline:

Regional Coal Ash News

Thursday, February 9th, 2017 - posted by Elizabeth E. Payne

By Elizabeth E. Payne

In North Carolina, Duke Energy submitted a request to the state’s Utilities Commission on Dec. 30, 2016, seeking to defer costs associated with cleaning up its coal ash. With a deferral, the costs could be recouped through rate hikes in 2017, according to the Triad Business Journal.

The utility has also presented residents with drinking-water wells near its coal ash ponds a one-time $5,000 “goodwill” offer, plus additional payments for eligible properties. But any resident that accepts the offer must give up their right to sue Duke Energy for any future contamination or health problems.

“Duke Energy is trying to place a $5,000 price tag on my past, present, and future groundwater contamination concerns. This is an attempt to limit our ability to protect our families,” said Amy Brown of Belmont, N.C., in a statement by the citizen advocacy group Alliance of Carolinians Together (ACT) Against Coal Ash.

Dominion Virginia Power will pay to connect residents living near their Possum Point power plant to public water or provide filtration systems after wells in the area tested positive for contaminants.

On Jan. 25, a trial began against Tennessee Valley Authority for violations of the Clean Water Act. The lawsuit — brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of state conservation groups — alleges that the utility’s coal ash impoundments have polluted the Cumberland River.

The federal Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act was signed into law on Dec. 16, 2016. Among other provisions, the law gives states more power to regulate coal ash, and it gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency more authority to oversee state permitting processes.

Trouble is afoot in NC special session

Thursday, December 15th, 2016 - posted by brian

At the 11th hour, a vengeful display of power in Raleigh

North Carolina lawmakers have set about a brazen scheme to strip powers that McCrory enjoyed from the incoming Cooper administration.

North Carolina lawmakers have set about a brazen scheme to strip powers that McCrory enjoyed from the incoming Cooper administration.

You probably heard that last week North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, conceded to his Democratic challenger, Roy Cooper. It was a close race that dragged on for nearly a month after election day.

Upon conceding, Gov. McCrory told North Carolinians with a grin that “we now should do everything we can to support the 75th governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper.”

But it was widely rumored and is now abundantly clear that members of McCrory’s party in the state legislature had something else in mind. Last night, lawmakers set about a brazen scheme to strip powers that McCrory enjoyed from the incoming Cooper administration.

As has become traditional in North Carolina politics, lawmakers wove a deliberately tangled web. Over the weekend, Gov. McCrory called a special session ostensibly for the purpose of passing a recovery bill for communities impacted by Hurricane Matthew. But the agenda wasn’t restricted only to funding recovery efforts and it left room for “any other matters” legislators wanted to consider.

After days of deflecting questions and refusing to explain their priorities for the “emergency session,” Republicans introduced a slew of bills that would make sweeping changes and dramatically shift the balance of power away from the governor.

For instance, a House bill would alter Governor-elect Cooper’s ability to appoint the heads of departments such as the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality by requiring the state Senate to confirm cabinet members. A bill in the Senate would give more power to the Republican-majority state Court of Appeals and make it less likely for legal challenges on environmental and any number of other issues to reach the more Democratic-friendly state Supreme Court.

Other legislation relates more directly to environmental protections. A 43-page regulatory reform bill would change rules governing riparian buffers, vehicle emissions inspections and stormwater control measures.

Reminiscent of the legislature’s fast-tracked passage of House Bill 2, known as the “bathroom bill,” the power grab is receiving national attention (see here and here). It’s also causing backlash from North Carolinians and hundreds have crowded the state capitol in Raleigh to protest, among them residents that suffered the impacts of Hurricane Matthew.

“The politicians in Raleigh are treating flood victims like political pawns,” Michelle Herring of Kinston told Progress NC Action. “If this special session was supposed to be about disaster relief, and relief funding has already been agreed to, then why are we still here?”

In an editorial this morning, the Charlotte Observer editorial board described the state leaders’ actions as both “breathtaking and hardly surprising” and defined by an “all-too-familiar disrespect for democracy.”

Legislators plan to start voting on bills at 2:30 p.m. today. There’s still time to call your representatives. Let them know you’re watching and that North Carolinians are tired of their shady, undemocratic dealmaking.

Find the contact information for your House Representative and your state Senator.

Coal Ash Cleanup News in North Carolina and Georgia

Wednesday, December 14th, 2016 - posted by Elizabeth E. Payne

By Elizabeth E. Payne

A report issued by the federal Commission on Civil Rights in September examines whether the Environmental Protection Agency is complying with its environmental justice obligations. Environmental justice refers to the enforcement of environmental laws and policies fairly, regardless of an individual’s race, color or income.

The report focused largely on the agency’s regulation of coal ash disposal. The commission, members of which spoke with North Carolinians living near coal ash ponds in March 2016, found that “Racial minorities and low income communities are disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities and often lack political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision or seeking redress.”

The commission made several recommendations, including listing coal ash as a “special hazard” and funding more research on the health impacts of exposure to coal ash.

In Georgia, the board members with the state’s Department of Natural Resources approved the Environmental Protection Division’s final coal ash disposal and storage rules on Oct. 26. “These rules are an important step forward, but they do not go far enough,” said a statement from the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit legal organization.

The new rules were adopted two days after heavy metals contamination was found in the groundwater near several Georgia Power plants, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

In October 2016, Virginia Dominion Power withdrew an application to discharge wastewater from coal ash ponds at its Chesapeake power plant into surrounding waterways. Last year, the Sierra Club — represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center — sued Dominion for alleged groundwater contamination at the Chesapeake plant.

In North Carolina, conservation groups Yadkin Riverkeeper and Waterkeeper Alliance reached a settlement with Duke Energy on Oct. 5 after two years of litigation. The settlement requires that that the coal ash from the impoundments at its Buck Steam Station in Salisbury, N.C., be excavated and removed. Much of the ash will be recycled into concrete.

Lawsuits are still underway concerning the cleanup of other Duke Energy plants in the state, including Belews Creek, whose coal ash ponds Duke intends to cap in place (see page 27)

In early October, heavy rains accompanying Hurricane Matthew led to severe flooding across the eastern part of the state. According to United Press International, the storm caused $1.5 billion in property damage in the state and killed at least 26 people.

Among the structures damaged in the flooding following the storm was an inactive coal ash pond at Duke Energy’s H.F. Lee facility, a retired coal-fired power plant near Goldsboro, N.C. The inactive ponds at this facility contain more than one million tons of coal ash.

According to Waterkeeper Alliance, the impoundment ponds were submerged under flood water for seven days. As floodwater receded, an undetermined amount of the toxic waste product spilled into the Neuse River. A white material — comprised of fly ash particles known as cenospheres, one of many waste products from burning coal — coated the trees, banks and river surfaces.

The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality is evaluating whether enforcement actions are needed.

Hurricane Matthew flooding elevates coal ash concerns

Wednesday, October 19th, 2016 - posted by amy

Environmental justice groups express solidarity with impacted communities

More than a million tons of coal ash at Duke Energy's H.F. Lee plant along the Neuse River were submerged by flood waters after Hurricane Matthew. Photo by Waterkeeper Alliance.

More than a million tons of coal ash at Duke Energy’s H.F. Lee plant along the Neuse River were submerged by flood waters after Hurricane Matthew. Photo on Flickr by Waterkeeper Alliance.

Earlier this month, North Carolina was devastated by the impacts of Hurricane Matthew. Flooding occurred across much of the state, with the hardest impacts felt in the east.

Many of the communities hit the hardest, including lower income communities and communities of color, are those that are the least able to bounce back from such a catastrophic event. And much like they bear the brunt of industrial pollution, these communities are disproportionately suffering from the environmental impacts caused by flooding.

While the flood waters are still receding, we are learning about the impacts left in their wake. Flooding at Duke Energy’s H.F. Lee Plant, near Goldsboro, caused a breach in one of the plant’s cooling ponds. In a separate incident, one of the inactive coal ash basins was overrun, releasing an unknown amount of coal waste into the Neuse River.

It is critical to point out that the ash flowed out of an inactive pond. It underscores the notion that simply capping these sites and leaving them in place is not enough to keep detrimental impacts from occurring in the future. The only way to ensure these sites cause no future harm is to remove the ash from compromised locations, including flood prone areas and place it in either appropriate landfills, or even more promising, recycled into products for the concrete industry which wants and needs Duke Energy’s ash for its production facilities.

Hurricane Matthew reminds us that we are living in a time of less predictable weather patterns and more extreme storms With an eye to the future, we must continue to insist that leaving coal ash in unlined, vulnerable pits is not a solution the problem of pollution.

The North Carolina citizen group Alliance of Carolinians (ACT) Against Coal Ash released the following statement to express solidarity with those impacted by the floods and took a hopeful and determined stance to continue to fight not only against the threat of coal ash, but for all those for whom environmental justice has not been served.

ACT Against Coal Ash Statement on Hurricane Matthew:

The Alliance of Carolinians Together (ACT) Against Coal Ash stands together in support and solidarity with individuals, families, and communities across Eastern North Carolina devastated by the floods of Hurricane Matthew. The damage caused by this hurricane is compounded by contamination from coal ash, hog farms and other environmental hazards in their impacted communities.

Our alliance was formed and acts to protect and promote our health, the water we drink, the air that we breathe, and the land that sustains us. Hearing each other’s cries about coal ash and its threats to our communities, we’ve become a loud, unified voice for the rights of everyone to live in a healthy community. We are a family and there are times we need to lean on each other. Not all of us are impacted by this particular disaster, but, as in this case, the risk is exacerbated for us who live next to coal ash, whether now or in the future.

North Carolina’s people and elected officials cannot control a hurricane or other natural disaster, but if we heed the proactive pleas and concerns of our citizens, we can control the extent of the damage done. Much more needs to be done to secure coal ash, industrial hog waste and other threats to the health of our communities. Responsible and urgent action must be taken because natural disasters, and even more destructive ones, are happening with more frequency and intensity and will be sure to happen again. We are committed more than ever for permanent and safe solutions that protect all communities from all forms of environmental harm.

Alabama Coal Company Sued for Water Pollution and Other Shorts

Friday, October 7th, 2016 - posted by interns

Alabama Coal Company Sued for Water Pollution

On Sept. 1, conservation groups announced a lawsuit against Drummond Company for acid runoff from its abandoned Maxine Mine into the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River near Praco, Ala. The suit was brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center, Public Justice and Black Warrior Riverkeeper, the newest member of The Alliance for Appalachia. — Elizabeth E. Payne

Petition to Pause Nuke Plant

In a petition to the State Corporation Commission, the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council argued that Dominion Virginia Power must obtain a permit before proceeding with any further construction of a nuclear reactor at the North Anna Power Station. The $19 billion project has not been approved by regulators and, although it is included in Dominion’s long-term plan, the utility has not committed to bringing the reactor into service. Nearly $600 million has already been spent on preliminary construction, half of which has been passed on to Virginia ratepayers. — Brian Sewell

Duke Energy’s 15-year Plan

In its 15-year plan released in September, Duke Energy Carolinas projected a 1 percent growth in electricity demand. But between now and 2030, the company predicts a tripling of solar capacity and the continued displacement of coal-fired electricity by natural gas. Due to the uncertainty of fuel prices and future regulations, the plan analyzes the possibility of a new nuclear facility in upstate South Carolina.— Brian Sewell

Price of Met Coal Rises

Bucking the nationwide trend, Kentucky-based Ramaco Development, LLC, announced in September that it will begin operations next year at two mines in West Virginia and Virginia. Both mines will produce metallurgical coal used to manufacture steel. After a steep drop in 2015, global prices for metallurgical coal have rebounded in recent months largely, due to demand in China. But it’s not clear how many cash-strapped mining companies in Central Appalachia will benefit from the market’s shift.— Brian Sewell

Spill Leads to Gas Shortages

A pipeline supplying transportation fuel to much of the Southeast ruptured in September, spilling 338,000 gallons of gasoline in Alabama. Most of the gasoline collected in a man-made retention pond at a nearby strip mine, which minimized the impact to the Cahaba River system. But fuel shortages affected drivers in five states. On Sept. 21, Colonial Pipeline announced that service has been restored as cleanup continues.

Feds Account for Climate Change

A new guidance from the White House Council of Environmental Quality requires that federal agencies consider how their actions will influence climate change and how climate change will impact their actions.

N.C. Closer to Wind Energy

In August, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced that it will lease more than 122,000 acres off the North Carolina coast for commercial wind energy development.

Natural Gas CO2 Emissions Rise

Although natural gas releases less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, it now accounts for more energy-related carbon dioxide emissions due to major increases in consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Scientists Question Fracking Safety

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board is challenging a draft report by the agency that found little negative impact on drinking water from hydraulic fracturing. In a letter sent to the EPA on Aug. 11, the scientists called the report “comprehensive but lacking in several critical areas.”

Duke Energy’s empire grows with natural gas

Tuesday, October 4th, 2016 - posted by brian
 The pivot toward gas is especially pronounced in the eastern U.S., with Duke at the forefront of a historic fuel switch.

The pivot toward gas is especially pronounced in the eastern U.S., and Duke Energy is at the forefront of a historic fuel switching trend.

It’s both a sign of the times and a warning of things to come. Duke Energy’s purchase of Piedmont Natural Gas was finalized this week after North Carolina utility regulators signed off on the deal.

Duke executives say the $4.9 billion acquisition will bolster the company’s position in the natural gas sector by tripling its existing base of 525,000 gas customers and expanding its footprint into Tennessee. Their cheerful announcement also casts natural gas in a familiar light — as the clean, climate-friendly fuel of the future.

“This combination provides clear benefits to our customers and the environment as we continue to expand our use of low-cost and clean natural gas and invest in pipelines,” Duke Energy CEO Lynn Good said in a statement.

These days, terms like “clean” and “low-cost” come standard with efforts to tout the environmental and economic benefits of natural gas relative to other energy sources. By now, they should also set off alarm bells.

One of the nation’s largest electric providers, Duke has brought four natural gas-fired power plants online in North Carolina since 2011 to replace shuttered coal-fired capacity. Earlier this year, the company received expedited approval of plans to convert a fifth, its Asheville plant, from coal to gas.

A similar story is playing out in other states where Duke operates. Florida, which ranks third in solar potential but 14th in installed capacity, relies on gas to meet two-thirds of its electricity demand. Duke subsidiary Progress Energy operates several gas-fired facilities in the Sunshine State, including the 1,912-megawatt Hines Energy Complex.

Other large investor-owned utilities aren’t far behind. Florida Power & Light, also among the nation’s largest electric utilities, and Duke are partners in the controversial $3.2 billion Sabal Trail Pipeline, which will stretch nearly 500 miles from Alabama to central Florida.

Duke based its decision to purchase the Charlotte-based Piedmont on sustained market trends that forecast a continued expansion of natural gas’ role in the nation’s energy mix. The pivot toward gas is especially pronounced in the eastern U.S., with Duke at the forefront of a historic fuel switch.

Earlier this year, Duke received expedited approval of plans to convert its Asheville plant from coal to gas, the fifth plant to switch fuels since 2011.

Earlier this year, Duke received expedited approval of plans to convert its Asheville plant from coal to gas, the fifth plant to switch fuels since 2011. Click to enlarge.

And the trend shows no signs of slowing down. Duke’s most recent long-term resource plan proposes constructing three plants that would add nearly 2,500 megawatts of gas-fired generation in the Carolinas. The plan also calls for multiplying installed solar capacity threefold by 2031, but says solar’s “limited ability to meet peak demand conditions” makes more gas generation essential to ensure reliability.

“A thoughtful transition is what we are seeking, not a headlong rush to dependency on any one fuel,” Duke’s director of integrated resource planning, Glen Snider, told the Charlotte Business Journal.

Fair enough. Duke often claims credit for diversifying its portfolio ahead of the curve, although North Carolina’s renewable energy standard and tax credits for renewables have played a considerable role. But today, the company’s large stake in the $5 billion proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline threatens to counteract that thoughtful transition. If the 550-mile pipeline is built, Duke’s gas-burning power plants would be among its primary users.

Continuing to invest in massive pipelines designed to last decades could result in stranded assets, costly liabilities created when capital-intensive projects like pipelines or power plants are forced to retire before the end of their economic usefulness. This is especially true if the United States plans to do its part to meet international climate goals.

“We’ve been building gas power plants like crazy for the last 10 years,” Lorne Stockman, the author of a report on gas infrastructure for the group Oil Change International told Utility Dive. “I don’t see anyone really sitting down and saying how many more can we build if we are really going to make this transition.”

Replacing existing gas capacity with renewables may be unlikely in the near-term. But that doesn’t make the long-term planning decisions being made today any less problematic, because they foreshadow an energy future that experts are urging us to avoid.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline backers head to North Carolina

Monday, August 15th, 2016 - posted by guestbloggers

Special to the Front Porch: Our guest today is Lisa Sorg, environmental reporter for N.C. Policy Watch. A seasoned journalist, Lisa was the editor and an investigative reporter for INDY Week, covering the environment, housing and city government. This post originally appeared on the N.C. Policy Watch blog The Progressive Pulse.

Lisa Sorg

Lisa Sorg

While North Carolina is rightfully focused on the coal ash scandal, another environmental tug-of-war is strengthening in some of the state’s poorest areas.

Co-owned by Duke Energy, Dominion, PSNC and AGL Resources, The Atlantic Coast Pipeline would ship natural gas 550 miles, from the fracking hotspot of West Virginia through sensitive, federally owned land in Virginia, and then into eastern North Carolina.

Once it enters in Northampton County, near Pleasant Hill, the pipeline would span nearly 170 miles through eastern North Carolina. The pipeline — 3 feet in diameter, about as big around as a baby pool — would roughly parallel I-95, passing through historic plantation land and Native American communities. It would end just north of Pembroke, in Robeson County.

Backing the a $5 billion project is EnergySure, a coalition of more than 200 special interest groups from several states vying for a piece of the financial pie: chambers of commerce, utilities, construction and “right of way” companies, which pressure adjacent landowners to sell, voluntarily or through eminent domain. In North Carolina, supporters include the Energy Policy Council, appointed by Gov. McCrory and lawmakers, the NC Chamber of Commerce and the Pork Council.

The Pork Council could benefit because of recent state legislation, the NC Farm Act, which prioritizes using swine waste to fuel natural gas plants over renewable energy.

The group’s slogan: “Don’t let opponents hinder new jobs.”

The ACP would increase fracking impacts in W.Va. and harm communities along the 600-mile route through Va. and into N.C.

The ACP would increase fracking impacts in W.Va. and harm communities along the 600-mile route through Va. and into N.C.

The promise of jobs is seductive in eastern North Carolina, where a quarter to a third of people live in poverty. And this is precisely why these types of projects are placed in low-income communities: to reduce the chance of resistance.

Yet, as the opposition points out, the construction jobs are temporary. Clean Water for North Carolina projects that only 18 permanent jobs in North Carolina would be created by the pipeline, none of them guaranteed to go to local residents.

At a recent citizens’ meeting in Fayetteville, Ericka Faircloth of Eco Robeson explained how the loss of property, either outright or in its value, is particularly significant in Native American communities. (However, some members of the Halowi-Saponi tribe belong to EnergySure.)

“It has greater implications,” Faircloth said. “Our identity is linked to our sacred lands. We want to protect land for future generations of indigenous people.”

Natural gas, while touted as a cleaner alternative to coal is not necessarily “clean.” It is a fossil fuel. Over-reliance on natural gas for electricity, reports the Union of Concerned Scientists, carries its own risks to the climate. Fracking, a common form of gas extraction in West Virginia can release methane, a major component of greenhouse gases.

The gas that would run through the pipeline would not necessarily serve North Carolina. Natural gas is a commodity, like oil and corn, and is sold on the open market. And as Nature pointed out in late 2014, energy forecasters could be reading the tea leaves incorrectly, projecting an overly optimistic estimate about the amount of natural gas that is accessible.

Rivers, streams, swamps, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas would also be disrupted, some of them permanently, by the pipeline. The routing would place it over several key waterways, including the Little River in Johnston County; Swift Creek in Halifax, which feeds the Tar River; the Neuse River and the Cape Fear.

Other communities in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have successfully defeated gas pipeline projects. “It’s up to us to say we don’t need it,” said the Rev. Mac Legerton at the Fayetteville meeting. “We can win this.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known for its leniency toward these projects, must approve the pipeline before it can be built.

Rebukes, a resignation and more reasons to worry about coal ash in NC

Thursday, August 11th, 2016 - posted by brian

In the war of words over drinking water health advisories between state employees and the McCrory administration, residents are clear on who they trust

North Carolina state epidemiologist Dr. Megan Davies resigned abruptly this week and accused high-ranking officials of deliberately misleading the public on drinking water safety. Photo from ncdhhs.gov

North Carolina state epidemiologist Megan Davies resigned abruptly this week and accused high-ranking officials of deliberately misleading the public on drinking water safety. Photo from ncdhhs.gov

North Carolina’s state epidemiologist, Megan Davies, abruptly resigned from her position last night, writing in a letter that “I cannot work for a Department and an Administration that deliberately misleads the public.”

The department she is referring to is the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, where she worked for eight years. The administration is that of Gov. Pat McCrory, whose time in office has been tainted by his mishandling of the statewide problem of coal ash pollution.

Davies’ resignation is just the latest development in a public tussle between state employees and the McCrory administration that escalated last week when the transcript of sworn testimony by Dr. Ken Rudo, a toxicologist at DHHS, became public.

Rudo’s testimony raises troubling questions about the role leaders at DHHS and the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality had in downplaying the “Do Not Drink” warnings issued last year to hundreds of families on well water that live near Duke Energy coal ash sites. It also implicates McCrory’s office directly, with Rudo stating that he was called to the governor’s mansion to discuss the warnings and how to ease residents’ concerns about water contamination potentially caused by coal ash.

During his deposition, Rudo told lawyers that members of the McCrory administration wanted to tone down the warnings with language that “would not have been acceptable to me.”

News has happened fast since Rudo’s remarks became public and, when they probably should have played defense, high-ranking officials in the McCrory administration went on the attack.

On Tuesday, McCrory’s chief of staff, Thomas Stith, repeatedly accused Rudo of lying. The next day, the administration released an editorial signed by DEQ Assistant Secretary Tom Reeder and Deputy Secretary for Health Services at DHHS, Dr. Randall Williams, that attacked Rudo for reaching “questionable and inconsistent” scientific conclusions and creating “unnecessary fear and confusion among North Carolinians who are concerned about the safety of their drinking water.”

Rudo stood by his deposition following the accusations by McCrory’s office. And, after the editorial, he released through his lawyers a point-by-point rebuttal of Reeder and Williams.

He’s not alone. Davies — who was Rudo’s superior at DHHS — also told lawyers under oath that she did not agree with the decision to lift the “Do Not Drink” warnings. She also stated that representatives of Duke Energy met with DHHS about the health screening levels set for well water and that she believes the department deliberately misled the public.

Based on Davies’ letter of resignation, it is that belief and the deliberately misleading editorial that led her to resign:

“Upon reading the open editorial yesterday evening, I can only conclude that the Department’s leadership is fully aware that this document misinforms the public. I cannot work for a Department and an Administration that deliberately misleads the public.”

So where does all this leave North Carolinians with contaminated drinking water? Exactly where they were before, as distrustful of DEQ and DHHS as they are of their water’s safety.

On Thursday morning, members of the Alliance for Carolinians Together Against Coal Ash held a press conference outside of the governor’s mansion where they defended Rudo and Davies for putting public health first and made it clear who they trust.

Groups Face High Price if They Lose Appeal of Duke Energy Gas Plant

Wednesday, August 10th, 2016 - posted by interns

Two North Carolina nonprofit organizations concerned with climate change face a significant obstacle in their challenge to a new natural-gas-fired power plant near Asheville.

In March, the Public Utilities Commission approved Duke Energy’s $1 billion plan to build two 280-megawatt natural gas units. The Climate Times, based in Boone, N.C., and NC WARN, which is committed to watchdogging Duke Energy, argue that the power plant was fast-tracked without proper consideration of environmental impacts and the future economics of natural gas.

State law requires that the costs of delaying construction during the appeal process be covered by a bond, paid by the objectors if they lose.

The North Carolina Public Utilities Commission raised the bond on the two groups’ permit appeal from $10 million to $98 million in July, effectively barring their legal challenge. Duke Energy suggested $240 million, their estimated cost of delaying construction, after the groups appealed the first set amount. The organizations also plan to appeal the latest bond amount.

— Eliza Laubach