HomeMy WebLinkAbout20140957 Ver 2_11_13_2017 follow up ltr to Gov. and Sec. Regan_20171113November 13,2017
Governor Roy Cooper (via web form and hand delivery)
NC Office of the Governor
20301 -Mail Service Center
Raleigh., NC 27699-0301
'11Z
Via email: Jeremy Tarr, Office of the Gov. Policy Advisor Environment, Energy,, Transportation
NC DEQ Secretary Michael Regan (via email and hand delivery)
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh., N.C. 27699-1601
Via email: Tracy Davis, Director,, DEQ Div. of Energy Mineral and Land Resources
Sarah Rice,, DEQ Title VI Coordinator
Jay Zimmerman., Director,, DEQ Div. of Water Resources
Linda Culpepper, Div. of Water Resources; Jennifer Burdette, Div. Water Resources., 401 Unit
Dear Governor Cooper and Secretary Regan:
To follow up on several communications with your offices on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline,, we
start by enthusiastically thanking Governor Cooper and his policy team for making a principled
and very important decision to make North Carolina a part of the United States Climate
Alliance. We hope that we will set ambitious targets for our state to substantially- reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions. The single. most important action NC can take towards achieving
the goals of the Climate Alliance, we believe, is to prevent the construction of the unneeded,
costly and damaging Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Because the ACP is being built moWy by utility
affiliates, it will be costly to captive NC and VA electric customers in the coming years. This,
despite extensive data showing the LACK of significantly increasing demand for natural gas-fired
electricity in the Southeast US.
We are grateful for DEQ!s rigorous reviews of ACP,, LLC"s permit application for the 401 Water
Quality Certification and the Erosion and Sediment Control plan. 'We have been astonished by
the lack of information from the applicant to make these permit applications even close to
credible. They fall far short of providing DEQ assurance that ACP.. LLC and its contractors would
protect North Carolina's water quality. We salute your persistent efforts to get that
information in order to make a rigorous decision. Thanks also to the 401 staff for adding
requirements to provide cumulative impacts analysis for the extension into South Carolina that
ACP, LLC is openly discussing. The responses you have received to date from ACPI LLC indicate a
level of arrogance and presumption that the approval of the ACP is a "done deal." Therefore,
your continued careful adherence to regulatory requirements is reassuring to the public. We
believe there are no benefits that could compensate for the inevitable and permanent harms
the ACP would cause to, our waters, communities and economy. We appeal to you to do exactly
as Tracy Davis had said to several of us at a stakeholder meeting in March, "'if we don't have the
evidence that North Carolina's waters will be protected,, we WILL disapprove the permit."
As we've written before, our organizations do not believe that it will be possible to legally
approve these permits as protective of NC waters. We note many other reasons that the ACP is
truly not in the public interest for North Carolina. We summarize those reasons below.
1. The ACP is unnece to meet any documented residential or economic development
need. On the contrary, energy demand curves from the industry and the EIA show a lack of
increasing demand. FERC has carried out no regional analysis to assess the need for, or impact
of, several planned major gas pipeline projects in the Southeastern US. Further, this massive
project would increase our state and global climate vulnerability through substantially
increased routine and episodic methane releases.
2. The ACP will actually increase costs for NC electric ratepayers, as it. is acknowledged that
the builders will cover th e $5+ Billion cost through rate increases to electric customers.
3. Critical natural resources, unique to North Carolina,, would be substantially impacted,, and
in some cases, irreversibly harmed. Of the three states that the ACP would cross, NC has the
largest number of wetlands that would be impacted, in addition to hundreds of tributary
streams'in nearly all of NCs eastern rivers basins, which support our estuaries, commercial
fisheries and NCs $1.6 B recreational fishing industry. Therefore, an extremely rigorous 401
Certification process and exhaustively documented decision are critical for our entire state*4s
future health and economy.
4. In the near future, the ACP Pipeline will become even MORE superfluous and a more
unjustified expense as renewables (wind and solar) are already the predominant source of new
and increasingly cost -competitive generating capacity being built in NC and the nation. The
growing renewables industry and increasing energy efficiency, driven by cost savings, are
already flattening energy demand, reducing climate impacts and creating thousands of jobs.
5. The ACP's claim that thousands of new jobs will be created by the ACP is a gross
exaggeration. In fact, the project is officially projected to create only 18 permanent jobs in NC.
I .
The indirect jobs that ACP proponents say would be created through new industries� could
happen in only a few wealthier locations where there is enough investment to cover the cost of
$500,000 to several $$ million to tap onto the ACP. The poorest counties would see no taps or
ecodomic development at all, but would face significant risk, community disturbahcOs and
costs".
6. Ldw income and minority residLants and landowners would be disproportionatel�
impactOd. The ACP proposed corridor passes through communities with higher poverty levels
than the state as a whole in seven of the eight counties. All but one county through which the
pipeline would pass also have significantly higher minority populations, but FERC's contorted
analysis assured that this EJ impact would be undetected. We have learned there has been
additional pressure put on vulnerable landowners --the elderly, people of color and low
education, to lease for the project, presenting a further major environmental justice impact.
7. The pipeline would bring with it the risk of leakage, fire and explosions, and additional
expenses to local governments, as well as potential impacts to groundwater and private
wells. In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, FERC dismisses concerns about pipeline
safety by simply saying the builders will follow the safety rules of PHMSA. However, the
agency's own data show that pipelines built since 2010 have experienced a five -fold increase
over the previous decade in significant incidents. A recent report by Clean Water for North
Carolina "High Consequence Areas, Blast Zones and Public Safety Along the Atlantic Coast
Pipelines" points out that, rather than 660 feet., the actual "blast zone" along the pipeline
corridor is at least 943 feet either side of the pipeline. County and municipal governments are ill
prepared and under -equipped to respond to serious emergencies along the pipeline.
Simply put,, ACP would not serve the public good in North Carolina. The ACP has received
conditional, approval from FERC.. so it will be granted the right of eminent domain to take
private property for a project designed by the ACP owners to be very profitable to them, while
providing no economic or other benefits to any but the two largest cities along the corridor.
We believe that a commitment to Environmental Justice, to the economic well-being of NC
utility ratepayers saddled with the pipeline construction costs, to safety for residents near the
pipeline corridor and to the right of landowners and residents to use and enjoy their property
should give our elected and agency officials considerable concern. The promised economic
benefits of the ACP to the public have been exaggerated to the point of fraud, while the
adverse environmental and economic impacts have been greatly downplayed.
We ask that you take all possible steps to protect North Carolina's people and natural
resources, holding FERC and the ACP owners accountable through continued critical review of
all permits, credible analysis of Environmental Justice impacts. Please undertake more careful
permitting of the proposed compressor station in one of North Carolina's smallest and poorest
communities,, and require additional protections for groundwater from hazardous wastes and
other potential contaminants during construction and operation. Please bear in mind the
vulnerability of many residents, human and otherwise, to the impacts of the ACP
project, frankly designed for the private profit of the ACP owners and their affiliates, while
failing to serve any documented public need. ,
Yours truly,
Marvin Winstead, Nash Stop the Pipeline
Hope Taylor,. Clean Water for North Carolina
John Runkle, NC WARN
Belinda Joyner,, Concerned Citizens of Northampton County
Keely Wood,, Environmental -EE
Karen Beardon., 350 Triangle
Amy Adams,. Appalachian Voices
Denise Lee, Pee Dee Water, Air., Land and Lives (WALL)
Joe McDonald., Save Our Sandhills
Sharon Garbutt,, Chatham Research Group
Lib Hutchby,, Triangle Women's Intl. League for Peace & Freedom
Christine Ellis, Winyah Rivers Foundation
Kyle Dalton,, No Fracking in Stokes
George Matthis, River Guardian Foundation
Denise DerGarabedian, Western NC Frack Free
Will Scott, Yadkn RiverKeeper
Jenny Edwards, Roanoke River Basi -n Association
Bobby Jones, DownEast Coalition