20140957 Ver 2_Sierra Club_20170406

SIERRA
CLUB
I OUNDED 1892
April 6, 2017
Ile Honorable Roy Cooper
Governor of North Carolina
Raleigh, NC 27603
Re: Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Dear Governor Cooper:
The Sierra Club appreciates your long history of support for a clean environment, and for
reducing the harmful effects of fossil fuel on the climate and public health.
On behalf of more than 65,000 Sierra Club members and supporters in North Carolina, we
urge you to not support the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), to request that the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission complete a robust analysis and reissue a new Draft EIS, and to
direct the Department of Environmental Quality to make an individual determination about the 401
water quality determination and not rely on the US Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Wetlands
Permit 12.
We believe that the ACP is not in North Carolina's best interest, economically or
environmentally. The large -diameter pipeline would cross more than 200 miles of North Carolina's
coastal plain, fragmenting North Carolina's forested wetlands and pristine streams, sometimes using
in -stream blasting in important habitats that support many imperiled species, including birds, bats,
fish, and crayfish. The pipeline also is routed through rural, largely African American communities
as well as those of four state -recognized tribes. These communities are thus faced with both safety
and health risks and the possible loss of property values. Finally, the ACP could lock North
Carolinians into funding a massive fossil fuel infrastructure project that could preclude investment in
the renewable sector -- an investment that would provide many more permanent jobs and even
cheaper energy sources to the state of North Carolina.
All of these risks are unnecessary, as Duke Energy and Dominion have not demonstrated a
clear need for another gas pipeline. In justi4ing the pipeline in 2014 before the North Carolina
Utility Commission,' Duke Energy cited not market data but contracts with its own affiliate
companies -- a self-dealing tactic that experts agree can spur the development of pipeline
2
infrastructure untethered to market demand.
1 Duke Energy Carolinas. LLC and Duke Energy Progress, Inc. Advance Notice and Petition for Lmited Waiver
Docket Nos. E-7, Sub 1062 and E-2, Sub 1052
2 See - I.F. Wilson, Evaluating T\larket Need for the Atlantic Coast Pipehne at 6-12 (Sep 2016); S. Isser, Natural Gas
Pipeline Certification and Raternaking at 24 (Oct. 7,2016); C. Kunkel & T. Sanzillo, Inst. For Energy Economics &
Financial Analysis, Risks Associated with Natural Gas Pipeline Expansion in Appalachia at 5-6 (April 2016).

Sierra Club
Letter to Gov. Cooper
Re: Atlantic Coast Pipeline
April 6, 2017
Page 2
Further, the demand for gas-fired power generation in North Carolina is static or dropping.'
In fact, Duke Energy's own load growth projections have dropped considerably since 2014. In its
2016 Integrated Resource Plan, Duke Energy Progress confirms that additional pipeline capacity is
4
not needed to support gas-fired power plants until 2034.
Without requiring that the Draft EIS be updated to include realistic market demand, FERC
simply cannot fairly evaluate the need for the project or alternatives to Atlantic's proposal. We ask
your office to request that FERC complete a robust analysis and reissue a new Draft EIS, and we
urge you to not to finalize your administration's position with respect to the Atlantic Coast pipeline
without this complete information.
Enforcing North Carolina's Water Quality Standards Through a Separate 401 Certification
In addition to the FERC Draft EIS review, we would respectfully request that your
administration direct its attention to the important issue of Clean Water Act Section 401 water
quality certification. Project -specific 401 certification of pipeline projects is necessary to ensure that
pipeline -related activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards.
Water quality impacts from pipeline construction, operation, and right-of-way maintenance include
stream bank destabilization, sedimentation and burial of streambed gravels and habitat for
endangered freshwater aquatic and benthic species, loss of vegetative cover, higher water
temperatures, lower dissolved oxygen, higher nutrient load, exposure to drilling chemicals and
herbicides, increased predation, and introduction of invasive species.
A recent example from New York demonstrates the need for close scrutiny by states in the
pipeline context. In April 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
denied a section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Constitution Gas Pipeline.' The
department's rationale for denial included an examination of the pipeline's cumulative impacts on
waterways:
[C]ulnulatively, impacts to both small and large streams from the construction and
operation of the Project can be profound and include loss of available habitat,
changes in thermal conditions, increased erosion, creation of stream instability and
turbidity, impairment of best usages, as well as watershed -wide impacts resulting
from placement of the pipeline across water bodies in remote and rural areas.'
3 See U.S. Energy Info Admin., Annual Eneip, Outlook 2017, Table 2 Energy Consumption by Sector and Source Gan. 5
2D17 Vilson, Wilsoll Energy EconoiMcs, Evaluating 'M-arket Need for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline at 3 (Sep, 2016)
�. SeeJ.F \ - - -
4 2016 Integrated Resource Plans subnutted to NCUC by Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas.
5 New Yolk Stqte DeDaitment of Environment,,il Coiisen,,,ition Notice of Deiunl -Addressed to Constitution Pli3eline
Compnny, LLC 22, 2016).
6 Id. at 12.

Sierra'Club
Letter to Gov. Cooper
Re: Atlantic Coast Pipeline
,--A� pril 6, 2017
(I ))age 3
We urge North Carolina to reserve the right to similarly make individual determinations
regarding Section 401 water quality certification for specific pipeline projects, including the Atlantic
Coast Pipeline and its related laterals.
In conclusion
An imprudent investment into the Atlantic Coast Pipeline would lock the state into using —
or at least paying for -- fossil fuel infrastructure for decades. We imagine a better future for the
North Carolina counties in the proposed pipeline route. With the state's continued leadership in
solar investment and wind generation, the coastal plain could serve as an economic engine for the
region, providing clean, new sources of energy and jobs while also helping slow the effects of
climate change, including the coastal flooding that puts communities and state coffers attisk.
We look forward to an opportunity to engage with your office and staff around the FERC
Draft EIS review and what we hope will be the state's independent 401 water quality certification
process. Please let us know how we can provide further information or support in either of these
important processes. I may be reached by email at [e-mail] or by phone at
510-882-1882. Thank you for again your longstanding commitment to protecting our state's natural
resources.
I— - Sincerely,
� �,k
Deb Self
Senior Campaign Representative
Beyond Dirty Fuel Campaign
cc: The Honorable Michael Regan, Secretary, NC Department of Environmental Quality
William McKinney, General Counsel, Office of the Governor
Sheila Holman, Assist. Secretary for Environment
Jenni Owen, Policy Director, Office of NC Governor Roy Cooper
Lyn Hardison, Environmental Assistance and SEPA Coordinator
Tracey Davis, Director, Division of Energy, Mineral & Land Resources