fracking – RI Future

January 15, 2016January 23, 2016

Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice and a Just Transition

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (EJLRI) has created a brilliant position paper, “National Grid’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction Facility: Toxic Hazards in the Port Providence: Proposals for a Just Transition” that eviscerates National Grid‘s plans to build a new liquefaction facility for fracked LNG at Fields Point in South Providence. Over the next few days RI Future will be presenting the EJLRI’s position paper in its entirety.

Solutions and Alternatives

The information presented in the previous posts show that in addition to not being necessary, National Grid’s proposed LNG Liquefaction Facility would be dangerous and would contribute to existing environmental racism. LNG Liquefaction is not needed in Rhode Island in general, and it certainly should not be placed in the most toxic and most impoverished part of the state.

The immediate solution is to stop this facility from being built. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) needs to deny National Grid LNG LLC’s application, and the RI Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) and RI Coastal Resources Management Council (RI CRMC) need to deny the state level permits.

That being said, the proposed liquefaction facility is not the only problem outlined in this position paper. Even without the added significant risks of the liquefaction facility, the existing LNG storage tank, the Motiva oil terminal, the Univar chemical plant, the Enterprise LPG terminal, and other facilities in the area all pose significant environmental health hazards, and create the overall context of environmental racism. Toxic and hazardous facilities are dangerous for communities and dangerous for workers. Yet families are dependent on them for jobs, municipalities are dependent on them for tax income, and the way our socioeconomic system is set up we are all collectively dependent on the products they produce. Regardless of our dependency, the reality of climate science is that the fossil fuel / petrochemical industry is rapidly pushing our planet past its limits, producing present and future catastrophic impacts, and making people sick, especially front-line communities of color and indigenous communities. Our dependency on these industries is literally killing us.

As an organization, the EJ League is interested in big picture, long term, real solutions to interlocking crises that impact communities of color, marginalized communities, and planetary ecosystems. We are members of three national coalitions of grassroots, membership based organizations: Right to the City, Grassroots Global Justice, and Climate Justice Alliance. Together, and lead by our members and our communities, we are developing and sharing solutions that address these intersecting crises from the grassroots. These community based solutions are in opposition to the corporate top down false solutions that pretend to address a single symptom while reinforcing the underlying root causes of the problems.

True solutions are rooted in the work of grassroots internationalism, and using the framework of a “Just Transition”. We are collectively building a different context and a different system, an economy for people and the planet. The Just Transition framework emerged from partnerships between environmental justice and labor organizations. In the words of the Just Transition Alliance, “together with front-line workers, and community members who live along the fence line of polluting industries, we create healthy workplaces and communities. We focus on contaminated sites that should be cleaned up, and on the transition to clean production and sustainable economies.”

As part of the Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) Our Power Campaign, we are part of a collaborative that is:

uniting front-line communities to forge a scalable, and socioeconomically just transition away from unsustainable energy towards local living economies to address the root causes of climate change.

“We are rooted in rooted in Indigenous, African American, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and working class white communities throughout the U.S. We are applying the power of deep grassroots organizing to win local, regional, statewide, and national shifts. These communities comprise more than 100 million people, often living near toxic, climate polluting energy infrastructure or other facilities. As racially oppressed and/or economically marginalized groups, these communities have suffered disproportionately from the impacts of pollution and the ecological crisis, and share deep histories of struggle in every arena, including organizing, mass direct action, electoral work, cultural revival, and policy advocacy.

“Together we are strengthening relationships between community based organizations, environmentalists, labor unions, food sovereignty/sustainable agriculture groups and other sectors of society.

“As CJA we are coalescing our power to reshape the economy and governance in the coming decades we are communities united for a just transition.”

CJA’s Our Power Campaign has the long term goals to: 1) End the Era of Extreme Energy, and 2) Implement a Just Transition to Local Living Economies. This will be achieved by:

Building Local Living Economies with a model that that centers on: Zero Waste, Regional Food Systems, Public Transportation, Clean Community Energy, Efficient Affordable and Durable Housing, and Ecosystem Restoration and Stewardship
Building Community Resilience: Creating climate jobs that will build stronger, resilient, and more equitable communities through Grassroots Economies (ex. worker owned cooperatives) and Rights to Land, Water, and Food Sovereignty.

Economic strategies around Just Transition require strong partnerships between environmental justice community advocates and the labor movement. Too often the corporate 1 percent strategy of divide and conquer is successful, but Just Transition pushes us to build powerful working class alliances to overturn the economic and political power structures that simultaneously harm workers, create widespread economic inequality and poverty, and destroy the planet’s ability to sustain life. There is a growing international movement to change this, and the following reports outline some of the strategies to build strong labor/environmental alliances around energy systems and a Just Transition:

Just Transition in Port of Providence

Working with our national alliances and using these strategic frameworks, EJ League will continue to convene local and regional coalitions to develop and implement Just Transition strategies in Rhode Island, focusing on the Port of Providence as an urgent need. Our goal is to develop concrete strategies and tactics to leverage a rapid transition away from natural gas and all fossil fuels, with democratic front-line community ownership over the development of the sectors for truly renewable energy and energy efficiency work. Through workshops, teach-ins, and hosting a Just Transition Assembly with Grassroots Global Justice in late summer / early fall, we will be doing the collective work of developing local solutions to massive social and planetary problems. We will share our joint understandings and perspectives on the problems, learn about the frameworks and strategies that are effective elsewhere, and will forge pathways to transform our oppressive realities.

There are too many solutions and alternatives to list, and most solutions will be built collectively through praxis and not through theory. As a starting point, one could easily envision how the $100 million price tag for the proposed liquefaction facility could be better spent in ways that would address energy needs, create jobs in the economically marginalized and oppressed front-line communities next to the Port, support renewable energy and energy efficiency, and build greater community health instead of increased toxic risk. With the high percentage of old housing stock and rental units in low income communities, there is a large need to improve housing quality with weatherization, energy efficiency, and improvements in indoor air quality, lead abatement, and other healthy housing requirements. This investment would reduce the need for heating fuels, improve health outcomes, and would be able to employ many people from the community.

Job training programs around weatherization and housing work are already in place, and are focused on people of color, youth, and people with records who are excluded from many other sectors of the dominant economy. EJ League has a Board Member who is a weatherization job training specialist, energy auditor, and is working on seeking investors to build a production facility for cellulose to be used in blown-in insulations and home weatherizations. Worker owned cooperative enterprises in the industries of energy efficiency would transform economic power dynamics, bring democratic control into the workplace, and build wealth at the local level. These types of economic developments would be community owned, community led, would employ community members, and would support true community wealth development in stark contrast with the corporate fossil fuel and petrochemical model developments that poison, displace, and extract wealth at the expense of community wellbeing.

In addition to worker owned businesses for energy efficiency, we need community owned renewable energy development. National Grid is required to make a bare minimum level of investment into renewables, and is allowed to add a surcharge to all consumer bills to cover this. Despite the fact that everyone is paying for this, National Grid’s limited investments into renewables have been in affluent white suburban communities. Front-line communities, which have been sacrifice zones for hazardous energy developments for generations, need massive investments in renewable energy. But these investments cannot operate like most investments in the dominant capitalist economy, which come in from outside with disregard for residents, take advantage of poverty conditions, lead to gentrification and displacement, and extract wealth for the investor’s return on investment. We are also not asking for charity or handouts that would support public relations campaigns for polluting industries. We are demanding reparations.

We are exploring mechanisms to make it possible for renewable energy to benefit our communities, given that current capitalist market mechanisms favor larger corporations, municipalities with surplus budgets and strong tax bases, and families that are homeowners who can afford upfront costs in order to get the return on their solar/renewable energy investments. We are determined to make renewable energy a working reality that benefits low income communities of color in multiple ways, from reduced toxic hazards, lowered bills, better jobs, and shifting away from energy sources that are literally killing us. We know this will not happen overnight, and it will be a massive cross sector effort to manifest this vision. But we also know that we cannot afford to wait, and nothing is more urgent. We invite you to join us.

● Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

● Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

● Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

● Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

● Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

● Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

January 14, 2016January 23, 2016

Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Economic Inequality

The Fields Point Liquefaction Facility project takes advantage of, and will increase problems with economic inequality and economic injustice related to energy. First and foremost, the massive $100 million price tag for construction will be passed onto consumers as an added charge. National Grid tries to hide this fact by saying “the cost of the natural gas commodity on a customer’s bill is a pass through cost. This project will allow National Grid and other companies who use the Fields Point facility to supply domestic LNG at a more stable cost.” But “pass through cost” means they pass that cost through to us, and there is no guarantee that prices of domestic fracked gas will be any more stable than prices of internationally sourced LNG. If anything, the international prices of LNG have been steadily declining while domestic fracked gas prices are at historic lows and likely to increase as the industry builds LNG export terminals and fracked gas power plants that increase demand and lead to rising prices. There are existing plans and proposals to connect the Spectra Pipeline (the source of the fracked gas for this facility) (See: here and here) to an LNG export facility in Canada and to build a massive 900 MW power plant in Burrillville, RI that would be powered by gas from Spectra’s “Algonquin” pipeline.

Despite the industry’s claims of needing to build these projects to lower prices, with power plants and other major purchasers getting preferential treatment with locked in prices in long term contracts, individual consumers in Rhode Island will see rising gas prices for home heating and cooking. The $100 million construction costs for the liquefaction facility will be added on top of the price of gas, and collectively we are the ones who will end up paying the bill. On a purely economic level, the proposed facility does not make sense and will be locking us into further dependency on fracked gas.

Income and wealth inequality in Rhode Island means increasing gas prices won’t impact everyone equally. There are only four municipalities in RI that qualify as high poverty “core cities”, with childhood poverty rates over 25 percent – Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, and Woonsocket. Providence as a whole has a 27.7 percent poverty rate, almost twice the national average of 12.8 percent, and the front-line communities close to the Port includes the census tracts with the greatest concentrations of poverty in the state, specifically census tracts 5, 7, and 12. Five of the twelve census tracts in the adjacent neighborhoods are within the top 10 poorest tracts in Rhode Island, ranking 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 10th. The median family income is $31,800 with the poorest tracts having median family income as low as $14,067. On average, 35 percent of people in the community live below the poverty line and 63 percent are below the 200 percent poverty line. In the poorest census tracts, 64 percent live below the poverty line and 83 percent are below the 200 percent poverty line. EJLRI Position Paper_Page_27

The Providence unemployment rate of 12.4 percent is much higher than the statewide average of 7.7 percent , while the highest unemployment levels were found in Wards 8, 9, 10, and 11 (South Providence and Washington Park), where unemployment rates range from 15.3 percent to 40.5 percent . Ward 10, directly adjacent to the Port, has the highest unemployment levels including Census Tract 5 which is the highest at 40.5 percent.

Given this data, it is clearly a myth that expanding operations at the Port will create jobs to solve economic issues such as unemployment. There is no public data available on the workforce in the Port, but based on personal accounts and parallels with other comparable sectors, the jobs for work in Providence are not given to residents of Providence, let alone residents of the neighborhoods that are directly impacted. With the limited number of temporary jobs promised with the proposed LNG Liquefaction facility, the high paying jobs requiring specialized skills will be going to Kiewit, a multinational corporation that has also worked on the Keystone XL pipeline.

The increased costs of home gas prices will have a devastating impact in Washington Park and South Providence, where families living in poverty are already dealing with the frequent impacts of National Grid terminating utility service. This is especially true in rental units which are often less energy efficient: because tenants pay utility costs, landlords have no incentive to invest in weatherization or energy efficiency, making heating costs higher. In violation of state and federal law, National Grid routinely shuts off utilities for low income medically vulnerable people who are dependent on heat and/or electricity for medical needs. The RI Center for Justice filed a class action lawsuit against National Grid and the RI Division of Public Utilities and Carriers to stop these utility terminations.

The press release for the suit included the following:

“In my work on behalf of medically vulnerable children and families, I have witnessed National Grid’s routine disregard for health and safety considerations,” says attorney Jeannine Casselman, legal program director of the RI Medical Legal Partnership at Hasbro Children’s Hospital. “Even in cases involving children with severe illnesses and disabilities, we see utility shut offs happening on a regular basis. In some instances, this can lead to loss of housing altogether. Rather than provide a reasonable repayment plan for struggling families, National Grid too often shuts off services, causing further disarray and trauma to low income households.”

In collaboration with the George Wiley Center’s Lifeline Project, this effort is working to protect the health and welfare of families that are put in danger by National Grid’s reckless and greedy energy policies. The EJ League endorses the George Wiley Center’s campaign and the full demands described in the letter from health care professionals and delivered to the RI PUC:

1. A one-year moratorium on termination for all accounts that are coded as ‘medical’.

2. The engagement of an independent third party monitor to review the Division of Public Utility’s approval of petitions for permission to terminate for all accounts coded as medical. The monitor will be selected by a joint committee composed of members of the George Wiley Center, the medical community, the Department of Health and the Public Utilities Commission.

3. The Public Utilities Commission immediately begin requiring data submissions from National Grid that are consistent with those requirements placed on the company in Massachusetts, as per the George Wiley Center’s formal request from March of 2015.

4. The Public Utilities Commission immediately begin accepting and thoroughly reviewing petitions for emergency restoration and providing timely responses to each request.

There is no publicly available address specific data that shows geographic distribution of utility shut offs. Regardless, the concentration of extreme poverty and high levels of chronic disease and health problems in the front line communities next to the Port make it highly likely that these neighborhoods are disproportionately impacted by utility terminations. Testimonials for grassroots membership based organizations in the community confirms that utility termination is a major problem for many families living in front-line communities next to the fossil fuel energy complexes in Port of Providence which provide energy for the entire region. This is yet another sign of environmental injustice and systemic injustice that is built into the normal business operations of the fossil fuel industry.

● Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

● Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

● Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

● Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

● Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

● Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

January 13, 2016January 23, 2016

Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Public Health

All of the above issues discussed in this position paper are also public health issues. In looking at the social and environmental determinants of health, public health paints a picture that helps explain why particular populations are more likely to be sick. Issues of potential disasters, environmental racism, climate change impacts, and economic inequality are all public health issues. The EJ League is the backbone organization for COHEP (Community Organizing for Health Equity in Providence), a collaborative effort with DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equity), PrYSM (Providence Youth Student Movement), and the RI Doula Collective. COHEP is funded through the RI Department of Health’s “Health Equity Zones” (HEZ). As a place based initiative that works to develop collective impact strategies to address health problems and health disparities, COHEP’s HEZ work focuses on a few neighborhoods in South Providence including Washington Park, a front-line community to Port of Providence. Research and GIS mapping conducted as part of the HEZ community assessment show that Washington Park has largest concentration by far of chemical exposures in Providence, and also has the highest concentration of leaking underground storage tanks:

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_24 At hearings and public events about the proposed liquefaction facility, multiple community members have spoken out about issues of high asthma rates in the community being a major concern. Public health data backs up this concern, and shows that the area is one of the state’s largest asthma hot spots. While most of the state has asthma rates of 04.4 percent or 4.56.2 percent, most of Providence has asthma rates of 8 – 10.3 percent and the neighborhood next to I95 and the Port has the highest levels in the state at 10.4 – 15.4 percent. (link)

On top of the high level of children with asthma, the front-line community and asthma hot spot next to the port also has some of the highest levels in the state for Emergency Department visits or Hospitalizations due to asthma. Among children with asthma living next to the Port of Providence, 15.5 – 24.1 percent have had an Emergency Department visit, compared to rates of 03.3 percent for more affluent neighborhoods in Providence. Similarly with asthma related hospitalizations, for front-line neighborhoods adjacent to the Port or Providence, children with asthma had inpatient hospitalizations at a rate of 5.1 – 8.3 percent compared to the rate of 00.7 percent in the more affluent neighborhoods in Providence.

In addition to the many health problems and health disparities impacting the neighborhoods of South Providence and Washington Park, there are also public health impacts relating to healthcare facilities in these communities. The Lifespan and RI Hospital complex is the largest and most visible concern, containing the state’s only level 1 trauma center, Rhode Island Hospital, Women and Infants Hospital, and Hasbro Children’s Hospital.

In addition to this major hospital complex, there are many other healthcare facilities within a close radius (1 to 2 miles) from the proposed liquefaction facility and close to the other hazardous facilities in Port of Providence. These include but are not limited to:

Hasbro’s Medicine Pediatrics Primary Care (245 Chapman St) this facility offers primary care for children, and also offers specialty services for chronic conditions including asthma, diabetes, and hypertension, which exist at very elevated levels in this neighborhood. The facility also offers gender and sexual health services. It falls within the one mile radius of the proposed liquefaction facility.

Providence Community Health Centers (375 Allens Ave) PCHC serves approximately 50,000 patients in Providence, many of whom are low income, uninsured or under insured, and suffering from health problems impacted by social determinants of health. This location has their administrative building for all 9 health centers in Providence, as well as the Chaffee Health Center which serves patients. It is located within the half mile radius of the proposed liquefaction facility.

Providence Community Health Centers Prairie Avenue complex (369 Prairie Ave) this health center location also includes the asthma and allergy specialty clinic for the entire PCHC health center system across Providence.

Fertility Solutions (758 Eddy St) specializes in fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization and other related services

New Beginnings (717 Allens Ave) offers perinatal and ultrasound care

It is clear from this limited list, that any cumulative or emergency related impacts from the proposed liquefaction facility would not only impact the whole state’s health care system, but would particularly impact health care services related to maternal and child care, reproductive care, chronic disease care, and emergency response services. Ongoing background pollution and risks in this area should be seen as a public health crisis. Any potential future disaster impacting the port could cause a public health emergency of unimaginable proportions.

● Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

● Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

● Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

● Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

● Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

● Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

January 12, 2016January 23, 2016

Climate Change: LNG plant causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Climate Change

As a new fossil fuel facility involving methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the Fields Point Liquefaction Facility will create emissions that contribute to climate change. The source of the methane that would be liquefied is the Spectra Energy pipeline, which carries gas produced by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from the Marcellus Shale into New England. As a result, the emissions and climate change impacts of the fracked gas life cycle must be taken into account, from drilling to consumption. While the oil and gas industry and their supporters like to present “natural” gas as a “cleaner” alternative or a “bridge fuel” towards a renewable future, in reality gas produced by fracking is worse for the climate than coal.

The proposed liquefaction facility is part of a much larger regional strategy to massively expand fracked gas infrastructure across the region, coordinated by the “Access Northeast” project linking Spectra Energy, National Grid, and Eversource Energy. In order to take climate science seriously and hopefully avert devastating runaway climate change, fossil fuel use must be rapidly scaled back not expanded. This is especially true for natural gas, given the much higher potency of methane as a greenhouse gas. Instead of investing in the build out of new fracked gas infrastructure, massive investments need to be made in energy efficiency and truly renewable energy.

National Grid’s proposed facility would contribute to climate change emissions

National Grid will need a compressor station to take the incoming gas from the pipeline and bring it up to the needed pressure for liquefaction. This compressor would be powered by gas from the pipeline, contributing in addition to methane leaks throughout the natural gas pipeline, storage, and delivery system.

Running the liquefaction facility requires a large amount of energy and will use 15 Megawatts of electricity to liquefy the gas. For comparison sake, the Deepwater Wind offshore wind farm project will be generating 30 Megawatts of electricity, which means National Grid’s proposal would essentially cut the benefits of this groundbreaking renewable energy development in half. In general, 98 percent of Rhode Island’s electricity is generated from natural gas.

Climate Adaptation?

In addition to contributing to climate change, the proposed facility and the Port of Providence in general is at high risk from climate related impacts and severe weather events. It, along with the rest of the Port, is at sea level and is at risk from climate change amplified hurricanes as well as from future sea level rise. In both projected scenarios, as well as in other major flood events, the proposed liquefaction facility would be underwater, along with the adjacent facilities storing hazardous, flammable and/or explosive substances. National Grid claims the facility will be built to withstand a 500 year flood yet it also claims to have done outreach with community organizations that have never existed, which brings their trustworthiness into doubt. In recent years, multiple 1000 year floods have occurred, supercharged by the overheated climate. While it may be poetic justice or karmic effect to have the major producers of climate change emissions be impacted by the effects of climate change, once again it would be the neighboring front-line communities that would be hurt most by any climate related disaster.

● Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

● Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

● Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

● Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

● Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

● Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

January 12, 2016January 23, 2016

Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Environmental Racism

Beyond the potential disaster scenarios described in the previous section, there are many ongoing disasters that daily impact the front-line communities living next to Port of Providence. Business as usual under the current economic system is a state of disaster for marginalized communities, with concentrated poverty, mass incarceration, substandard housing conditions, and health disparities.

Environmental racism t?akes many forms, but is simply defined as the concentration of environmentally hazardous conditions in communities of color. A legal definition states:

“Environmental racism refers to intentional or unintentional targeting of minority communities or the exclusion of minority groups from public and private boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies. It is the racial discrimination in the enactment or enforcement of any policy, practice, or regulation that negatively affects the environment of low income and/or racially homogeneous communities at a disparate rate than affluent communities.”

The Supreme Court’s recent decision upheld the Federal Housing Act’s assertion that racism in housing policy does not need to be individually intentional if it can be shown as a systemic outcome of racial disparities.

Similarly, environmental racism is evidence as the result of sets of institutional policies and practices, regardless of whether the intent to discriminate is apparent. As described by Charles Ellison in an article titled Racism in the Air You Breathe, “?w?here you live—down to your exact zip code—can determine how fast you get sick and how soon you die.”? The following section will take a detailed look at the front-line communities of Southside (upper and lower South Providence) and Washington Park, which are right next to the Port of Providence.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_13

Demographics and the Waterfront?

This map shows the “percentage nonwhite” (based on 2010 census data) in a block by block geography. The approximate area of the industrial Port of Providence is highlighted in red. The line between Providence and Cranston (south of Fields Point and Roger Williams Park) shows a dramatic shift in demographics from people of color to predominately white.

The front-line communities adjacent to the Port of Providence are a corporate sacrifice zone; areas of concentrated poverty and marginalization where polluting industries are allowed to be sited and conduct hazardous operations with little regard for health or environmental impacts on the neighborhoods. This comparison of waterfront areas paints a clear picture of apartheid and de facto environmental racism. Downtown, Fox Point, and East Side / Blackstone neighborhoods in Providence, as well as Pawtuxet Village in Cranston and along the East Bay Bike Path in East Providence all have beautiful waterfront access with parks, biking, yachts, boating, sport fields, and festivals in relatively affluent and predominately white neighborhoods. Meanwhile South Providence, with concentrated poverty and communities of color, has little to no waterfront access in an area zoned for heavy industrial use with multiple polluting and hazardous facilities.

Environmental Justice Analysis?

Environmental Justice involves looking at the intersection of environmental hazards and their health impacts, demographics, and social inequalities, and forges strategies to erase inequities and ensure that everyone has a healthy environment to live, work, pray and play. Due to deeply entrenched institutional racism and societal inequalities areas of concentrated and racialized poverty are often also pollution hot spots filled with refineries, landfills, lead paint, highways, etc and lacking in benefits such as green space, waterfront access, healthy food, and clean air. Public transportation travels more frequently through poorer communities. Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority (RIPTA) terminal is also located in this community. In fact, South Providence is one of the largest “environmental justice” communities where all of these factors are concentrated statewide. Several tools from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make it possible to use hard data to tell the story of Environmental Justice concerns in the areas around the Port of Providence. The tools used to generate the following analyses include the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and the EJSCREEN tools, the open source data mapping project JusticeMap.org and the Center for Effective Government’s national mapping tool for schools and high risk chemical facilities. The area of analysis is primarily local, at the neighborhood level (Upper and Lower South Providence, Washington Park), zip code level (02905, 02907), and facility specific (one mile radius from proposed facility). It should be noted that while the one mile radius is used for the initial Environmental Justice impact analysis, a greater radius of two miles or more should be used to analyze cumulative and secondary impacts of the proposal.

The one mile radius around the proposed Liquefaction Facility, including a section of East Providence across the Bay which is more affluent and more white, has a combined demographic risk score calculated by EPA that is in the 90th percentile for Rhode Island, and 94th percentile for EPA Region 1 (New England). In other words, there are more at risk demographics in this radius than in 90 percent of the rest of RI, and more than 94 percent of the rest of New England. That combined profile consists of the following: 75 percent “minority population” (in 91st percentile for RI; 93rd percentile for EPA region 1) 56 percent low income (in 85th percentile for RI; 91st percentile for Region)17 percent linguistically isolated (in 88th percentile for RI; 92nd percentile for Region)31 percent with less than high school education (86th percentile for RI; 93rd percentile region) EJLRI Position Paper_Page_15a

EPA Toxic Release Inventory?

This EPA database catalogues releases of toxic chemicals. All 11 polluters listed for City of Providence are included in zip code 02905, which contains a greater number of polluting facilities than any other city or town in Providence County. All 11 of the polluters listed are within the one mile radius of the proposed Liquefaction Facility, both within the industrial area in the Port of Providence and but also in the neighborhood area between Eddy St. and Allens Ave in Washington Park.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_15b

According to EPA the industry that contributes most to onsite toxic releases in the 02905 zip code are Petroleum Bulk Terminals. The TRI facilities listed include many of the risks described in the previous section, such the Motiva fuel terminal (Petroleum Bulk Terminals) and Univar USA Inc (Chemical Wholesalers), as well as facilities located even closer within residential communities: Monarch Metal Finishing Co (Fabricated Metals), SafetyKleen Systems, Inc (Hazardous Waste/Solvent Recovery) and Mahr Federal, Inc. (Computers/Electronics Products).

Schools at Risk

A?s described earlier, the Univar chemical facility has a 14 mile hazard radius, pictured below as the large red circle. There are 311 schools within this zone, which are attended by approximately 110,000 children. The table below shows the national rankings of the percent of children within vulnerability zones. RI’s high ranking is due almost entirely to the Univar facility in Port of Providence, adjacent to the proposed Liquefaction Facility.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_16

EPA’s EJ SCREEN Tool

This new interactive mapping tool is a way to analyze the intersection of demographic risk profiles alongside environmental indicators such as air quality (particulate matter and ozone levels), lead paint, and proximity to traffic or facilities that require a chemical risk management plan, that store and process toxic materials, or that are water discharge polluters. The results can be mapped out and compared to the rest of the state, the rest of the EPA region, or nationally. In all of the following maps, the national percentile is displayed with the 95th100th percentile in red and 90th95th percentile in orange.

Proximity to Facilities Requiring a Chemical Risk Management Plan

The following map shows the Greater Providence area and highlights the areas that have close proximity to a large chemical facilities that require having a chemical Risk Management Plan (RMP). The area adjacent to the port is highlighted in red, meaning that it is in the 95th – 99th percentile nationwide in a combined measure of chemical risk proximity and demographic risk.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_17

The one mile radius around the proposed Liquefaction Facility ranks in the 97th percentile for the state, the 98th percentile for EPA Region 1 (New England), and 95th percentile nationally. This is an Environmental Justice community that is at high risk for exposure in a chemical incident.

Proximity to Water Discharger Facility

The following map for the combined EJ indicator for proximity to Major Direct Water Discharger Facilities and demographic risk. Again, the areas in Providence closest to the port are in the highest percentiles nationwide. In state, regional, and national comparisons, the one mile radius from the proposed facility is in the 97th percentile for this risk factor.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_18a

Traffic Proximity

The following map shows the EJ SCREEN risk status for Traffic Proximity and Volume. The one mile buffer from the site is in the 96th percentile for both state and national comparisons, and in the 98th percentile compared to the rest of EPA Region 1.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_18b

Traffic proximity and volume is an issue that requires careful attention for the proposed liquefaction facility. The I95 corridor is a major interstate roadway with heavy vehicle traffic. The Thurbers Ave exit, Eddy St. exit, and residential streets along Eddy St. and Allens Ave. carry most traffic in and out of the Port of Providence, and are located in some of the largest asthma hot spots in the state. This asthma hot spot has a high concentration of people with asthma (impacting Black and Latino families most) and some of the highest rates of emergency room visits and hospitalizations due to asthma. Air pollution in the form of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), ultra-fine particles, and black carbon are connected with heavy vehicle traffic and especially truck traffic. These air pollutants are known asthma triggers and are also linked to other respiratory health issues, certain cancers, and developmental disabilities. This is an existing burden that severely impacts Southside and Washington Park neighborhoods. The construction and operation of the liquefaction facility will be additional cumulative impacts in an area that is already overburdened. The proposed export of LNG via tanker trucks is a large concern: why should these communities now bear the burden of supplying the rest of RI and MA with LNG? National Grid says that there won’t be a net change in truck traffic, with 16 tankers per day currently delivering LNG and an estimated 16 tankers per day exporting LNG once the facility is built. However, there are no binding guarantees this wouldn’t increase later. National Grid’s partners in Access Northeast are proposing major new LNG storage tanks near New Bedford, if these tanks are built would they be supplied with LNG from Fields Point? FERC should analyze the production capacity of this facility and determine if the supply produced would require additional tanker traffic to distribute. In either case, the two years of construction will have a significant impact on additional traffic in the community.

Toxic Storage and Discharge Facilities

Toxic materials are a major issue in these neighborhoods, and are some of the highest ranking EJ Indexes placing all of South Providence and West End above the 95th percentile.

EJLRI Position Paper_Page_19

For proximity to Toxic Storage and Disposal Facilities, communities in the one mile radius surrounding the proposed facility are in the 98th percentile for the state and the 99th percentile for EPA Region 1 and National comparisons.

Environmental Justice: working towards equitable healthy environments

In simplistic terms, environmental justice means guaranteeing equitable access for all people to have healthy environments where they live, work, play and pray. For a more detailed description of environmental justice, please read the EJ Principles. The environmental justice movement has exposed the reality of the extent to which this equitable world does not exist. Because of ongoing legacies of racism, economic inequality, segregation, redlining, and other systemic injustices, someone’s zip code is the greatest factor in their health and life expectancy. Unfortunately, the front-line communities next to the Port of Providence, which are densely populated and filled with schools, day cares, home, and healthcare facilities, are a prime example of an area suffering from a concentration of pollution and a lack of environmental benefits such as parks, healthy food, and safe recreational areas. Many of the numerous schools in the community are crumbling and don’t have funding to deal with issues such asbestos, lead paint, mold, and poor indoor air quality. At home, many residents are faced with substandard housing quality. The high percentage of older homes means that many are energy inefficient, have lead paint, and are likely to have mold, mildew, and other air quality issues. Homeowners in the community were and continue to be hard hit by the foreclosure crisis, and the high percentage of rental apartments means that many residents are dependent on landlords to improve housing quality and make home more energy efficient. For homes that aren’t owner occupied, there is no financial incentive for the owner to make these upgrades, and the tenants are the ones who suffer from high energy costs and negative health impacts.

? Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

? Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

? Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

? Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

? Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

? Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

January 11, 2016January 23, 2016

Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

EJLRI02
Despite what the gas industry says, LNG is a dangerous substance. Developing additional large scale LNG infrastructure in densely populated urban areas, and particularly at Fields Point in the Port of Providence, poses a number of risks for potential disasters. This following section is an abbreviated summary of some of the risks and potentially dangerous scenarios. The gas industry is quick to state that LNG isn’t flammable or explosive, and that it isn’t stored under pressure. This is somewhat true, but it’s a dangerous half truth. LNG is stored at very cold temperatures (under 260°F), in double shelled containers without any air present. In these conditions, LNG is in stable liquid form and without air it is not flammable.

The potential dangers with LNG occur if something goes wrong and it leaves these conditions. At any temperature over 260°F it begins to boil and convert to methane gas, which causes it to expand by 600 times. At these temperatures, any sealed container would become rapidly pressurized. If LNG spills and begins mixing with air, it does become flammable between concentrations of 5 – 15 percent gas to air. For comparison, propane is flammable at concentrations of 2.1 – 9.5 percent, gasoline is flammable at 1.3 – 7.1 percent. As leaking or spilled LNG boils and expands, at first it presents hazards of cryogenic freezing (due it’s very cold temperature) and asphyxiation (due to it being heavier than air, displacing oxygen). If the expanding LNG cloud comes across an ignition source with enough air mixed in, it would become a pool of fire that can ignite back to the source of the spill. If the spilled LNG is pressurized (for example during the re-vaporization process, when LNG is converted back to gas to re-inject in to the grid), it can cause a jet fire. If a vapor cloud of boiling and expanding LNG occurs within a confined structure, and catches fire, it can become over pressured and potentially explosive. Ignition of pressurized liquids can cause a BLEVE: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion. (See here and here)

Relevant Past LNG Disasters

Washington State: March 31st, 2014

A rupture in one of the “pressure vessels” next to an LNG storage tank was cited as the cause of an explosion that injured 5 workers, sent 250 pound fragments of steel shrapnel flying over 300 yards, punctured a double shell LNG storage tank, and caused an evacuation of people within two miles from the LNG storage facility. “Benton County sheriff’s Deputy Joe Lusignan said Wednesday that it was ‘a little bit of a miracle’ that no one was killed. ‘It was an extremely powerful explosion, the initial explosion,’ he said. ‘Fortunately, we didn’t have any subsequent ones after that.’” The blast caused an evacuation within a 2 mile radius, far larger than the half mile area that National Grid is considering for impacts in Providence. Luckily, the area in Washington was sparsely populated, with only 1000 residents and agricultural workers evacuated, whereas a 2 mile radius from the LNG tank in Providence has a population of close to 80,000 people, which doesn’t include additional people at work, school, or in RI Hospital and trauma center. According the Reuters, the LNG blast in Washington “could focus attention on the risk of storing massive gas supplies near population centers.”

Skikda Algeria, January 2004

The port city of Skikda, Algeria suffered an explosion and deadly incident at an LNG Liquefaction Facility. A steam boiler exploded “after it probably drew flammable vapors from a hydrocarbon refrigerant leak into its air intake. This triggered a secondary, more massive vapor cloud explosion destroying a large portion of the plant. The incident killed 27 people, injured 74, and created an $800 million loss.” In the U.S, the 2004 incident spurred increasing opposition to LNG import facilities being proposed at the time. In response, “energy industry executives and regulatory officials have pointed out that the explosion in Skikda [was] attributed to a boiler that is not expected to be part of LNG terminals in the United States, which are to be used for warming liquefied gas back into a vapor, then storing it. The Skikda plant did the opposite, chilling natural gas until it condensed into a liquid.” National Grid’s proposed Liquefaction Facility in Providence would perform the same function as the Skikda plant in Algeria.

LNG Facility in Providence Denied in 2005 due to safety risks

In 2005, FERC denied an application from Keyspan (now National Grid) to expand the existing Fields Point LNG storage tank into an LNG import facility. FERC Commissioner Nora Brownell stated that the proposal was turned down because of safety risks and the “very real concerns made by the residents in communities and all of the towns nearby.” The “Commission staff concluded that the KeySpan LNG conversion project would not meet current federal safety standards… [and] identified 75 specific environmental mitigation measures that must be met by KeySpan LNG and its accompanying pipeline project [CP04223, CP04193].

A report by former White House anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke concluded that “urban import terminals, such as Fields Point LNG, would be vulnerable to “catastrophic” terrorist attacks, and also make “extremely attractive” terrorist targets.” In the detailed 159 page report, Clarke details multiple scenarios in which an attack on the LNG facility in Fields Point Providence results in an LNG pool fire and catastrophic mass casualties. The comprehensive report detailed neighboring industrial and chemical facilities that would be impacted by a LNG fire, but said that further study would be needed to assess the additional risks posed.

High Risk Neighbor: Univar Chemical Facility 

The proposed LNG Liquefaction facility neighbors a chemical facility owned by Univar, a multinational chemical corporation that also happens to manufacture chemicals for hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Fracking is a controversial process used in extracting natural gas from shale and other unconventional formations; the process has been banned in New York State due to public health concerns raised by the NY Department of Health. While it is unknown whether Univar’s facility in Providence has a direct link with fracking, the facility is listed on EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory due to onsite release 1,275 pounds of toxic chemicals in 2013. Chemicals listed on the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory database for the Univar site in Fields Point include but are not limited to:

1,1,1TRICHLOROETHANE, ACETONE, AMMONIA, CHLORINE, CHLOROBENZENE, DI(2ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE, DIBUTYL PHTHALATE, ETHYLENE GLYCOL, FORMALDEHYDE, FREON 113, METHANOL, N,NDIMETHYLFORMAMIDE, PHOSPHORIC ACID, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, STYRENE, TETRACHLOROETHYLENE, TOLUENE, TRICHLOROETHYLENE and TRIETHYLAMINE.

Former White House Anti-Terrorism official Richard Clarke wrote in his 2005 report on LNG in Fields Point that,

In the event of a [LNG] pool fire, temperatures would be high enough to compromise chemical storage tanks. Univar workers handle such chemicals as chlorine, sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide, and potassium hydroxide at the site. Chlorine leaks can be lethal. For example, a recent chlorine gas leak in South Carolina killed nine people and required evacuations for up to one mile from the site. We do not know all the effects of gas leaks on all these chemicals, or the potential consequences of explosion of these chemicals caused by high heat from an LNG pool fire. Additional research into the safety of this chemical facility is needed in assessing the risks posed.”

14 mile hazard radius: 110,000 schoolchildren at risk

In 2014, the Center for Effective Government released a report titled “Kids in Danger Zones: One in Three U.S. Schoolchildren at Risk from Chemical Catastrophes” which investigated schools being located within the hazard radius of chemical facilities. Appendix III of the report shows the percentage of students in vulnerability zones, by state. With 67 percent of students at risk from a chemical incident, Rhode Island is ranked 2nd highest nationwide, ranking above both Texas and Louisiana which are both known for welcoming petrochemical facilities in busy Gulf of Mexico ports. RI’s high chemical risk ranking is due almost entirely to the Univar chemical facility in Providence, adjacent to the proposed LNG Liquefaction Facility. Within the 14 mile hazard radius of the facility there are 311 schools with approximately 110,000 children.

Major Fuel Terminals and Fuel Transportation 

The Port of Providence is the largest fuel port in Southern New England, and supplies oil products (gasoline, diesel, ethanol, jet fuel, etc) to all of Rhode Island, Eastern Connecticut, and Worcester County and South Coast Massachusetts. The fuels are transported in and out of South Providence by international tanker ships, heavy truck traffic, and and a railway line that travels between I95 and Roger Williams Park and Zoo before connecting with the Amtrak and MBTA Commuter Train tracks in South Elmwood. Port of Providence has terminals operated by Sprague Energy, Global Partners LP, Enterprise Products (subsidiary of Duke Energy), New England Petroleum, and Motiva (a joint venture between Shell Oil and Saudi Arabia’s Aramco). National Grid’s LNG storage tank and proposed liquefaction facility is bordered by the Motiva terminal to the West and Northwest, and next to Global’s terminal to the South and Southeast.

Given the close proximity of highly flammable and potentially explosive substances, an incident at one facility could trigger a secondary incident at a neighboring facility. An incident, whether caused by natural disaster, human error, equipment malfunction, or terrorism, could quickly spread and cause much larger incidents. The presence of pipelines, tanker ships, fuel trucks, storage tanks, and ethanol trains each pose individual risks, their concentration in close proximity multiplies the potential scenarios in which an incident could occur. The Thurbers Ave exit is one of the busiest set of highway ramps in Rhode Island, with sharp turns and confusing cross traffic patterns. This is the exit that the majority of truck traffic into and out of the port uses, including the LNG tanker trucks carrying “methane refrigerated liquid.” Any potential accident, and the resulting disaster scenario, must be taken into consideration with National Grid’s proposed Liquefaction Facility.

Ethanol “bomb” trains

Ethanol trains docking at the Motiva terminal are within the half mile hazard radius of the proposed Liquefaction Facility, and are directly adjacent to the sharp turn on I95 by the Thurbers Ave exit. It is not unfathomable to conceive of a potential disaster involving a traffic accident with a fuel tanker or train car containing explosive ethanol or toxic chemicals traveling into or out of the port. In preparation for a potential incident, RI Department of Environmental Management and the City of Providence hosted a TriState HAZMAT FullScale Response Exercise on September 10th, 2011 focusing on a scenario of an ethanol train derailment at the Motiva terminal in Port of Providence, requiring both landbased and marine response teams.

According to the joint press release,“Ethanol is a highly volatile, flammable, colorless clear liquid and unlike gasoline, is completely soluble in water rendering containment boom and absorbent boom virtually useless during a release. More than two million gallons of denatured ethanol move through the Port of Providence area by rail, barge, and tractor trailer every week.” In 2014, community groups in Boston organized against ethanol trains coming through densely populated neighborhoods and sharing tracks with MBTA and commuter rail trains. Alternatives for Communities & Environment(ACE), Chelsea Collaborative, and Chelsea Creek Action Collaborative successfully won a statewide legislative moratorium against the dangerous ethanol “bomb”trains. (See here and here)

Dangerous incidents occurring in the Port of Providence

The following are not just hypothetical scenarios to study, they have occurred in the past. Luckily, previous incidents have been contained and have not escalated to worst case scenarios, but that potential exists.

Lightning Strike

On July 19, 2006 lightning struck an oil tanker that was about to dock at the Motiva facility adjacent to National Grid’s LNG tank. Associated Press reported that it resulted in a four alarm fire and that “every firefighter in Providence was on the scene.” A truck driver parked nearby said he“saw a bolt of lightning, followed by an explosion and a large fireball. [He] said he could feel the heat from the initial explosion several hundred feet away in a nearby parking lot. ”I’ve never seen anything in the world like this,” he said.” EPA responded by setting up air quality monitors nearby to check for toxic releases of airborne pollutants.

Earthquake

On July 22, 2015 there was a 2.3 magnitude earthquake in Rhode Island which was felt in Johnston RI, and Bristol RI, and Fall River, MA. The epicenter was determined to be in the Port of Providence at Fields Point, the exact location of the existing LNG storage tank and proposed Liquefaction Facility. According to R.J. Heim, reporting for WJAR/NBC10, “the earthquake leaves many people wondering if it compromised infrastructure at the busy port or shake a cluster of fuel tanks located nearby.” National Grid reported that their facility was not compromised, but questions remain as to whether the outcome would have been different if the Liquefaction Facility were in operation at the time, or if a stronger earthquake were to hit along the same fault line.

Hurricane

Hurricane Sandy was devastating for New York City and parts of the southern coast of Rhode Island, but luckily was not a direct hit on Providence. The Port of Providence is at sea level, and is on the wrong side of the Hurricane Barrier. A significant storm surge coming up Narragansett Bay would be blocked at the Hurricane Barrier, protecting downtown Providence that would cause additional surge and impacting the port. Of three major tidally influenced rivers that flow into Narragansett Bay in Providence, the Hurricane Barrier would block a storm surge from entering the Woonasquatucket or Moshassuck Rivers, displacing that excess water into the Blackstone River and the narrow top of the bay, where this heavy industrial port is located. A joint research project by University of Rhode Island, the RI Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration recognizes that “hurricanes pose a significant threat” and is undertaking a vulnerability assessment of infrastructure at the Port of Providence. However, most studies of storm impacts on the Port of Providence only consider the economic impact and how to make infrastructure more resilient; the impact on the communities of South Providence and Washington Park is often ignored.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

There are many potential disasters waiting to happen with the existing industries in Port of Providence, let alone with the proposed $100 million liquefaction facility. While there has been at least one disaster response exercise focused on the port, and a large quantity of specialized foam was purchased following the lightning induced fire at the Motiva terminal, neither of these initiatives relate to the specialized disaster response scenarios required in the event of an LNG or a secondary Univar chemical facility incident. Given the high concentration of facilities in the Port that store toxic materials, discharge pollutants, and/or require a chemical risk management plan, there are major questions remaining about what the overall disaster response plan is, who would be able to respond, and whether those responders would have the proper training and equipment required.

Richard Clarke’s 2005 report LNG Facilities in Urban Areas details many possible disaster scenarios that the state is ill equipped the handle. While scenarios involving LNG import tankers no longer apply due to FERC’s rejection of the previous 2005 proposal, the existing LNG incidents around the world have all been with Liquefaction Facilities, Peak Shaving storage tanks, or tanker trucks all of which are or will be present in Port of Providence.

What would happen if an incident compromised the I95 corridor near Thurbers Ave, or if an event impacted the state’s only trauma center? How would a two mile radius evacuation of a densely populated area occur, with RI Hospital, Hasbro Children’s Hospital, and Women and Infants all being within the two miles? What plans are in place to protect the children who attend schools within the hazard radius? Do any existing plans for disaster preparation and response take into account the high level of linguistic diversity within the community?

● Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

● Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

● Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

● Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

● Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

● Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

January 10, 2016January 23, 2016

Flawed Proposal: Background info on National Grid’s liquefaction proposal

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island (EJLRI) has created a position paper, “National Grid’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction Facility: Toxic Hazards in the Port Providence: Proposals for a Just Transition” that eviscerates National Grid‘s plans to build a new liquefaction facility for fracked LNG at Field’s Point in South Providence. Over the next few days RI Future will be presenting EJLRI’s paper in its entirety.

Introduction

This document is a detailed response to the many reasons to oppose National Grid’s proposal to build a $100 million Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) production plant in the Port of Providence. This project (also known as the “Fields Point Liquefaction Facility”) is costly and dangerous, and it is being planned for an area with many existing environmental justice concerns.

Beyond the obvious problem of having ratepayers (all of us) pay the bill for National Grid to benefit their own bottom line, there many specific concerns about the project. This report groups these concerns into the following major categories:

● Flawed Proposal: Background info on National Grid’s unnecessary project

● Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

● Environmental Racism: ongoing and underlying environmental justice issues

● Climate Change: it causes climate change and is at risk from climate impacts

● Public Health: health disparities and impacts on health care institutions

● Economic Inequality: high cost project that will cause economic damage

● Alternatives and Solutions: Strategies for Climate Justice & a Just Transition

The goal of this report is to make the case for organizations, businesses, residents, agencies, and public officials to join us in rejecting National Grid’s proposal, and supporting the alternatives and solutions highlighted at the end of the report.

Background on National Grid’s proposal

According to National Grid, their proposal to build a Liquefied Natural Gas production facility in South Providence in necessary, safe, clean, and will have no major negative impact. We disagree on all these counts, and explain why throughout the remainder of this report.

National Grid’s case for the project is available on their website. National Grid needs to get approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and all of the documents submitted by National Grid and comments from any other stakeholder are available on FERC’s website under Docket # PF1528 (Search at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/) . Since National Grid’s perspective is detailed on websites, media stories taken directly from company press releases, and in hundreds of pages sent to FERC, we won’t use much space here describing their project proposal.

The main points are:

● Instead of delivering LNG to the storage facility in Providence via truck, National Grid wants to build a $100 million facility to produce LNG directly from a Spectra Energy pipeline that delivers gas from Marcellus Shale (Pennsylvania) to Providence.

● LNG is produced by cooling natural gas (methane) to 260 degrees, which reduces its volume by 600 times and puts it into liquid form

● LNG is currently only needed in RI for up to 9 days each year

● National Grid would then use LNG tanker trucks to export the LNG produced in  Providence to other locations in Rhode Island and Massachusetts

● The production facility would require a gas compressor station and an electrical cooling  system that would use 15 Megawatts. (for reference, this is half of the 30 megawatts that Deepwater Wind will generate off the coast of Block Island)

There is no justified need for the project.

According to National Grid’s own information, the existing LNG storage is only used up to 9 days each year, and is less than half of the gas used even on the coldest days with the highest demand. National Grid says the requests to increase the supply of LNG come from two storage customers: Narragansett Electric Company and Boston Gas Company. Both of these companies are subsidiaries of National Grid.

National Grid’s “Public Participation Plan” is incredibly flawed.

In the document submitted to FERC, there are no actual community groups on their listing of Environmental, Community, and Neighborhood Stakeholders. The only two groups included, the South Providence Neighborhood Association and the Washington Park Neighborhood Association, don’t actually exist. When questioned about this, National Grid’s spokesperson David Graves responded that “The stakeholder list was first developed when both of these groups were active in the  neighborhood” which is also false, since neither group has ever existed. David Graves also stated that National Grid “[has] not been successful in locating any other neighborhood groups in the area that have an organized board of directors or a published list of officers and, to my knowledge, we have not been contacted by any neighborhood groups asking to be included in the list of stakeholders.” This is despite the fact that there are many thriving organizations in Providence, including three local groups that came to National Grid’s Open House on August 13, 2015 to speak out against the project (PrYSM: Providence Student Youth Movement, PSU: Providence Student Union, and EJLRI: Environmental Justice League of Rhode Island).

There were numerous articles written about the protest at the open house. (See: here, here and here.)

National Grid’s internal review and list of impacted stakeholders is flawed and limited in multiple ways. Most of their documents only refer to a 1⁄2 mile radius from the project, at some points only a 1⁄4 mile. Within this range are mostly other industrial projects and businesses, with only a few residential buildings considered. National Grid suppressed the addresses of who they have contacted, but stated they sent letters to affected landowners within 1⁄2 mile, which would only include industrial businesses and some landlords (not rental tenants). The required public Open House, held on August 13th 2015, was not well advertised. The time and date were printed once in the Providence Journal in July as part of the initial press release, but the time and date were not listed on National Grid’s project website, which just listed the Open House as being “in August” and required emailing National Grid to ask for time and date.

At the time of the Open House, the website and all materials were only in English, despite the fact that Spanish is a predominant language in the community where the facility is being proposed. It appears that National Grid has not made any effort to actually engage the community. Those community members who did participate in the poorly promoted Open House were racially profiled and threatened by an excessive police presence and were ignored by National Grid in later correspondences with FERC and media inquiry.

In order to understand the impact of the project on the neighboring community, the analysis must use a radius of at least 1 mile from the proposed site. Cumulative impacts and evacuation plans for potential disasters must consider at least a 2 mile radius. Given the demographics of the community and the concentration of other industrial activity at the location, a full analysis of the cumulative impacts must be included, and issues such as public health, climate change, and environmental justice concerns need to be analyzed in depth.

Next: Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

November 10, 2015

National Grid responds to liquefaction opposition

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

National Grid has proposed a liquefaction plant as an addition to the Field’s Point gas storage facility, to be located in South Providence, and every single comment the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) received on the proposed facility from the public was negative and against the facility’s construction. No one from the public, it seems, is in favor of the project.

Of course this will not deter National Grid.

In a 39 page letter, National Grid’s legal counsel responded to every commenter. Of course, some of the comments were dismissed as irrelevant with the phrase, “Expression of commenter’s view.” This phrase was repeated 27 times, in response, for instance, to Greg Gerritt saying, “Climate change is the crisis of our times” or Jesus Holguin saying, “This facility is not going to benefit us in any way. Something that would benefit us is [a] just transition away from fossil fuels.”

National Grid’s legal team sorted through the testimony of the various commenters and pulled out all the statements that “identify potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.” Expressed concerns that were not environmental in nature will be addressed at a later time, says National Grid.

The sloppiness of the response’s composition is evident in some of the misspellings of various names. Monay McNeil is misspelled Money McNeil and state Representative Aaron Regunberg is misidentified as Erin Regunberg for instance.

Further, the response to each comment, if the comment was deemed worthy of response, is footnoted in some 13 documents called “draft resource reports” and filed with FERC on November 2 and 4. This means that finding the reason for National Grid’s objection to a particular comment requires cross referencing footnotes with the draft resource reports.

For instance, when Rhode Island state Senator Juan Pichardo was paraphrased as saying he was, “Opposed to this LNG or this facility being built and the waterfront is so close to hospitals and so close to the neighborhood,” National Grid responded with:

Refer to Resource Report 1, Section 1.4 (page 1-14) (Operation and Maintenance).

Refer to Resource Report 5, Section 5.3.2 (pages 5-8 through 9) (Fire Protection), Section 5.7 (pages 5-13 through 5-22) (Environmental Justice) and Section 5.9.2.6 (page 5-28) (Environmental Justice Socioeconomics).

Refer to Resource Report 8, Section 8.2.2 (Existing Residences and Buildings).

Refer to Resource Report 11, Section 11.1 (pages 11-2 through 11-8) (Safety Issues), Section 11.2.3.2 (pages 11-10 and 11-11) (Thermal Radiation and Flammable Exclusion Zones) and Section 11.3.1 (page 11-11) (Facility Response Plan).

Refer to Resource Report 13, Section 13.14 ((pages 13-102 through 104) Hazard Detection System), Section 13.15 (pages 13-105 through 109) (Fire Suppression and Response Plan) and Section 13.16 (pages 13-110 through 111) (Hazard Control Systems).

Senator Pichardo could spend quite a bit of time wading through page after page of reports to find out exactly why National Grid believes his concerns are without merit, if he were so inclined.

To be fair, pages 2-9 of National Grid’s legal response attempt to distill the information from the draft resource reports into a few paragraphs organized by subject, such as “Traffic Impacts” or “Comments on Rate and Cost Impacts on Retail Gas Customers.” In these sections, the concerns and opinions expressed by the public are legally elided by claiming that the law is on the side of National Grid, a legal position that National Grid maintains, but does not prove. Remember that all the documentation National Grid is submitting to FERC are essentially sales documents, created to convince FERC to approve the project over the objections of the public.

For instance, in response to a complaint made that the public meetings were not adequately advertised within the affected community, National Grid’s legal team writes, “Some stakeholders commented on the quality of the public notification that has been provided to local residents for the proposed Project. Resource Report 5, section 5.7.2 discusses the public outreach undertaken by NGLNG to communicate with the environmental justice populations near the proposed Project…”

In other words, despite the experience of the community, National Grid maintains that they satisfied the letter of the law.

There’s a lot in the legal team’s response worthy of comment, and I hope others will chime in with comments on this, but one more point is worth consideration. National Grid is a huge company, with many subsidiaries and ventures. So when National Grid says that there is a customer need for the new liquefaction facility, it should be noted that the customer mentioned is The Narragansett Electric Company, which is owned by National Grid.

At another point, when discussing rate impacts, National Grid disingenuously claims that, “State public utility commissions regulate retail rates.” This is true as far as it goes, until one realizes that the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission serves as a virtual rubber stamping agency for any rate increase proposed by utility companies such as National Grid or its subsidiary, Narragansett Electric.

Like an evil octopus, National Grid wants us to believe that it’s various tentacles aren’t actually all parts of some enormous beast, but independent snakes acting alone.

This is why it is difficult to take seriously National Grid’s answer to the comments of Nick Katkevich, who “urged that the environmental effects of the proposed Project be considered in the same environmental document as pipeline projects sponsored by subsidiaries of Spectra Energy Partners, LP in New England, specifically the AIM, Atlantic Bridge, and Access Northeast projects.”

National Grid claims that these are all separate projects that must each be judged independently, and that there will be no cumulative environmental effects, at least as can be judged under present law. National Grid claims that the liquefaction facility “would be undertaken even if those pipeline projects did not or do not proceed” and “is an unconnected single action that has independent utility so it would not be appropriate to consider it in the same environmental analysis with any of the pipeline expansion projects.”

Despite the contentions of National Grid’s legal team, the planned expansion of fracked and unfracked methane gas infrastructure in Rhode Island seems part of a grand plan to keep our state addicted to fossil fuels that are destroying the environment. These proposed projects have lifespans of 50 years or more, yet optimistically we have much less than 35 years to kick the fossil fuel habit.

No amount of corporate legalese can change that math.

September 25, 2015

Beyond Extreme Energy breaks fast at noon today

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Day 15 of fast at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—industry's rubber-stamp machine — Day 15 of fast at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, industry’s rubber-stamp machine

Fasters from Beyond Extreme Energy (BXE), together with their supporters from several faiths, will break bread in front of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in D.C. today to end a dramatic 18-day hunger strike undertaken to demand that FERC stop issuing permits for the pipelines, storage facilities and LNG export terminals that use fracked natural gas, and instead heed Pope Francis’s call to care for the Earth, according to a BXE press release.

On Friday copies of the pope’s encyclical will be presented to the five FERC commissioners. There will be music, brief statements, and a procession, featuring BXE’s colorful and moving 50-foot anti-fracking banner, “The United Sates of Fracking.” BXE will also display the new quilt made in collaboration between fasters and residents of far-flung communities fighting fracking infrastructure in their communities.

“Being here, eating no food for 18 days, has taken me at 72 the oldest faster a fascinating and disorienting rabbit hole, where ‘normal’ appears absurd and even suicidal, and where unrealistic may be our only way out,” said Steve Norris, 72, of North Carolina, is one of the oldest fasters. “I think because of our legal structures, because of their narrow fossil fuel focus, and because people disbelieve in viable alternatives, their minds are wedded to the madness of more fossil fuels.”

Sean Glenn, 23, of Connecticut, is one of the youngest fasters. “I think this fast has just reinforced my belief in the power of people and our ability to overcome our old ways and really embrace new ones with complete curiosity, not knowing what we’re getting into,” she says. “The love that everyone has shown has been really powerful and the respect that we’re receiving for it is what has surprised me.”

WHERE: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 888 1st St NE, Washington, DC.

WHEN: Friday, Sept. 25, noon to 1:30 p.m.

WHO: The fasters, their supporters, and faith leaders.

WHY: The BXE fasters demand that FERC end its fracking-friendly support for expanding natural gas infrastructure, which has led to a toxic locked-in fossil fuel network at the expense of safe, sound, and clean renewable energy. Fracking wells and gas pipelines contaminate the homes and communities nearby, and also leak methane, which is responsible for about 25% of the man-made global warming we experience today.

Earlier this week a rally took place at the RI State House for People, Peace and Planet.

On Wednesday afternoon fasters adorned a street corner on the city side of the State House.

After that, on Wednesday, there was a vigil and prayer service at the State House in anticipation of Pope Francis’ address to Congress the following day.

Finally on Thursday, Fossil Free RI attended the celebration of International Peace Day at URI.

My oldest grandson, and youngest Fossil Free RI member, Octavio, at Peace Day on Quad at URI — My oldest grandson and youngest Fossil Free RI member, Octavio, at Peace Day on Quad at URI

Today at noon, our friends in DC, in Rhode Island and across the nation will break their fast. Also my wife, Beatrijs, and I will end our two-week fast; the battle against extractivism and wholesale destruction of life on Earth continues: “Where there is no vision, the people perish …” (Proverbs 29:18)

September 17, 2015September 17, 2015

As the fast continues: Educating Raimondo on climate change

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

PeacePeoplePlanet — Peter Nightingale at the State House (Photo by Pia Ward)

“You can’t negotiate with a beetle. You are now dealing with natural law. And if you don’t understand natural law, you will soon.”

Oren Lyons, a member of the Onandaga Council of Chiefs, quoted by Mary Christina Wood in her book Nature’s Trust, sums up what’s wrong with our self-absorbed political system and its failure to deal with our planetary climate emergency in referring to four million acres of Canadian forest wiped out by beetles now thriving in warmer winter temperatures as a result of global warming.

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, our dear governor Gina Raimondo was too busy for an unscheduled intro to the laws of nature. Too busy to interrupt paying back time for her campaign debts, I guess. Thanks, ProJo, for your perfectly timed editorial Familiar Odor. But please remember: Gina is an honorable person; so are they all, all honorable people.

Maybe Gina was doing the hard work of making sure that Providence will not be left behind, as—in city after city—we build what Frank Deford calls “Athletic Taj Mahals,” monuments for the “filthy rich.” Thanks, Frank; you nailed it: Spending Public Money On Sports Stadiums Is Bad Business. But do not forget that Gina is an honorable person; so are they all, all honorable people.

We The People who do not revolt against systemic corruption are the problem.

Since August 31, I’ve been trying to make an appointment with Gina to deliver a basic physics message. It took until September 13 before I got a reply: “Once again, thank you again for being in touch,” pretty pathetic writing that I should have received within three seconds rather than after two weeks, but no appointment.

The web site of the Office of the Governor is totally dysfunctional, but, dear reader, I’ll spare you details. I just wonder, why should we trust people to run a state if they cannot manage a web site? Of course, the problem in Rhode Island is not small-scale incompetence; broken democracy is what we are dealing with, but it’s not Gina, for Gina is an honorable person; so are they all, all honorable people.

Pia Ward, my dear friend, is the engaged artist who made the black-and-white photographs in this post. Pia and I went to Gina’s office on Wednesday to deliver a pizza, a lunch skipped in support of Beyond Extreme Energy’s No-New-Permits fast in DC.

Of course we were told that web site was not the way to make appointments with the governor. We have to follow procedures, no matter how many people have their lives destroyed or put their lives on the line in DC and elsewhere in the nation. We are but a nuisance and who cares about Terry Greenwood?

One of Gina’s aids, who dutifully took notes of our story, instructed us that I had to go home and to make an appointment I had to send an email to the gubernatorial scheduler, Kelly Harris (Kelly-Harris@governor.ri.gov). Never mind that we were already at the State House; the important work for corporate America and the filthy rich should never be interrupted, for they are all, all honorable people.

Report from the No-New-Permits fast in DC

**Fasters occupying the side walk for an overnight at the FERC Gates of Hell in DC.**

Ted Glick of ChessapeakeClimate.org and one of the Beyond Extreme Energy water-only fasters in DC had the following exchange with Norman Bay, the chairman of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Ted asked if the chairman would come down to receive the five copies of the Pope’s encyclical, Laudato Si’, on September 25th at noon. Bay said he would consider it. We all know what that means, but let Ted speak:

Then he stopped and we looked each other in the eye. He told me that he respected what we were doing with the fast and the commitment it showed as far as our beliefs. He said he felt this type of action was a good type of action.

However, he went on to say that he really had problems with us disrupting their monthly meetings and asked if we would stop doing that.

I responded: “How can we do that when there’s no change at FERC as far as permitting gas pipelines and fracking infrastructure, one after the other, with virtually no exceptions.”

His response: “These are just pipelines. We’re a regulatory agency. Blaming us is like blaming the steel companies that make pipes. It’s the production of the gas that you need to deal with.”

Keep up the disruption, my friends; irritation makes pearls. Dear reader, if you ever have to explain Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil,” this exchange would be a perfect starting point.

Events for the rest of our fast

Following up on the pledge to do three Ramadan-style fasts centered on each event in RI, Wednesday’s visit to the State House got Beatrijs, my wife, and me restarted fasting on Tuesday, after a one-day interruption. The following will get us to Friday, the 25th, when Beyond Extreme Energy will end its fast:

Peace Fest RI, Kennedy Plaza, Saturday, September 19, 2015, 1:30pm-4;30pm
Rally for People, Peace and Planet
URI International Day of Peace on the Quad 10am-3pm

Of course, it’s not too late to call Gina’s friends at Invenergy to tell them that fracked gas is not clean and that they should cancel the fracked-gas power plant proposed for Burrillville. Just keep in mind that Gina signed a contract with Invenergy, but Gina is an honorable person; so are they all, all honorable people. We The People are the problem, we who think that the next fully-scripted ElecToon will bring system change.

Oh, yes, how about that pizza we took to the Gina’s office? As anticipated, it ended up feeding hungry people on Kennedy Plaza.

September 9, 2015

Methane gas is no bridge fuel

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

After a persistent campaign by a broad coalition of environmental groups and a string of escalating acts of civil disobedience, Rhode Island mainstream media have slowly begun to question the claim that “burning natural gas is about one-half as carbon-intensive as coal, which can make it a critical bridge fuel for many countries as the world transitions to even cleaner sources of energy.”

That misleading statement was pivotal in The President’s Climate Action Plan of June of 2013. Business climate would have been more appropriate. But the media are discovering that the claim fails to account for the climate impacts of methane, the main constituent of “natural” gas, over its full life-cycle.

The latter starts at the well. From there, gas is transported via pipelines and compressor stations, to its final destination downstream. Gas escapes unburned at every stage. When the global warming potential of this so-called “fugitive methane” is taken into account, it turns out that “natural” gas (both conventional and fracked) is a greater threat to the climate than coal or oil burned for any purpose. This came to light in 2011, when Cornell University researchers Anthony Ingraffea and Robert Howarth, along with actor and anti-fracking activist Mark Ruffalo, were named among Time Magazine’s 50 “People Who Matter” for performing and publicizing a study that undercut the bridge-fuel claim. In April of 2014, a recent update of the research has confirmed this finding.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island continues on its misguided path of expanding the fracked-gas infrastructure with two proposed build-outs of Spectra Energy’s compressor station in Burrillville—part of a 3-stage pipeline expansion that will ultimately send fracked gas from Pennsylvania to Canada for export overseas—and the planned construction of a new gas-fired power plant, also in Burrillville. In addition, there is a plan is for a liquefaction facility at Fields Point in Providence, RI.

In a striking instance of environmental racism, the LNG facility will be sited next to a residential, low-income community of color with numerous schools and day care centers, and several hospitals. The area also is the site of the Univar chemical facility which has a hazard radius of 14 miles, within which there are 311 schools with almost 110,000 children.

Increasingly, climate activists across the nation have mounted campaigns against fracked gas, not only because it is disastrous for the climate, but also because fracking causes wholesale destruction of communities and the environment. Indeed, the expansion of fracking and fracked-gas infrastructure across the country continues to draw people from all walks of like into defiant acts of civil disobedience.

On August 13, Curt Nordgaard and I were arrested after locking ourselves to the front gate of Spectra Energy’s fracked-gas compressor station in Burrillville, Rhode Island in a direct action organized by the group Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG) to block construction at the site.

Nordgaard, a pediatrics resident at Boston Medical Center with no prior history of arrests, gave this explanation for his actions: “if we had legal means to stop this project, we would use them. Instead, we are forced to protect families and communities through nonviolent civil disobedience, in proportion to the severity of this threat.”

As a professor of physics at the University of Rhode Island with four grown children and six grandchildren, I am alarmed by the destruction we visit upon the Earth they shall inherit. In the spring of 2013, we founded Fossil Free Rhode Island to push for a swift transition away from fossil fuels.

Last December, I was arrested for the first time during a sit-in in U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s office in Providence to protest his tacit support for the pipeline expansion; with this recent arrest, I have lived up to my words at that time: “Science has shown that natural gas is more dangerous for the climate than other dirty fuels such as oil and coal. This pipeline is immoral and unjust, and we will keep taking action until this project is stopped.”

Let me correct a detail of the Providence Journal article Methane release from gas extraction seen as climate threat. The article states that compared to carbon-dioxide, methane is “20 times or more as potent in trapping heat while it lasts.” In reality, that factor is 86 times over the first 20 years after release. Considered over a 100 year time frame, methane was considered 21 times as potent as carbon dioxide, but the IPCC revised this figure to 34; the EPA still uses 21 as the global warming potential, an estimate decades out of date. (The ProJo has thus far chosen not to publish my Letter to the Editor with this correction.)

Numerous current developments, such as polar sea-ice loss, land-based ice sheet melt, and permafrost thawing, show unambiguously that the 20-year time frame is critical if we want to have a chance to avoid run-away climate change.

Meanwhile, our congressional delegation continues to recycle National Grid’s talking points in favor of more fracked-gas infrastructure. Supposedly, it is all about avoiding price spikes and choke points. Never mind that there were none of these last winter, as explained by Reuters in this article As New England freezes, natural gas stays cheap.

In all those years since Howarth was honored by Time as a “person who matters,” and in spite of his 100+ climate change speeches in the US Senate, despite countless attempts to get him up to speed, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has been unable to absorb the fact that, as far as global warming is concerned, natural gas is worse than coal and oil. No surprise; this comes with our corrupt political system in which access exchanged for campaign contributions takes precedence over the common good. Our state government, of course, is just as much a victim of the corrupt political system we still tolerate: Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo’s Campaign Contributions From Financial Services Industry Come Under Scrutiny.

In this picture below we see access in action: Lindsey Graham, Sheldon Whitehouse tour coal-fired plant with new technology. I still try to teach my students to consult independent experts when they want to educate themselves. How quaint!

**Industry educating Tom Rice, Lindsey Graham and Sheldon Whitehouse (CBC)**

August 26, 2015August 26, 2015

Blockaders of Spectra Energy construction site sentenced

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Associate Judge William C. Clifton of Rhode Island’s District Court handed down his verdict against Curt Nordgaard, and Peter Nightingale, who were arrested after locking themselves to the front gate at the site of Spectra Energy‘s compressor station in Burrillville, Rhode Island in a direct action organized by Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG).

Charges of disorderly conduct were dismissed; charges of willful trespass resulted in a one-year “filing,” which means that these cases will be dismissed if the defendants come into no further conflict with the law.

Nordgaard, a resident pediatrician at Boston Medical Center, stated after his arrest that “if we had legal means to stop this project, we would use them. Instead we are forced to protect families and communities through nonviolent civil disobedience, in proportion to the severity of this threat.” Nightingale, a professor of physics at University of Rhode Island and a member of Fossil Free Rhode Island and who was arrested last December during a sit-in in U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse‘s office in Providence, has kept the promise he made at the time: “This pipeline is immoral and unjust, and we will keep taking action until this dangerous project is stopped.”

Nightingale stated: “Under the Public Trust Doctrine, government has a duty to preserve Earth’s gifts for present and future generations. The fact that we cannot use this argument to justify our actions in Burrillville [in Rhode Island’s courts] is but one symptom of the environmental injustice that pervades our system of government.”

“Natural” gas has been touted as a bridge fuel by both the industry and the Obama Administration, but evidence has been mounting since 2011 that, independent of the use to which it is put, it is more dangerous for the climate than coal or oil. This development, along with a growing awareness of local impacts such as air and water pollution, threats to public health, earthquakes, etc. are continuing to draw unexpected activists into increasingly defiant acts of civil disobedience against fracking and gas-related infrastructure.

[This report compiled from a FANG press release]

August 21, 2015August 22, 2015

Fracked gas releases 8X more methane than previously believed

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A new report from researchers at Colorado State University shows that “U.S. gathering and processing facilities — where natural gas from nearby wells is consolidated for distribution through pipelines,” leak 8 times the amount of methane previously estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Methane “is about 72 times stronger than the same mass of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame.”

As Rhode Island considers moving forward with several large scale natural gas projects, including an expanded pipeline in Burrillville, a new energy plant in Burrillville, and a liquefaction facility in South Providence, it seemed appropriate to ask representatives from business, labor, government and environmental groups for their comments on this report.

It is important to point out, says David Graves, media relations for National Grid, that, “this study has to do with the gathering of natural gas. That’s something National Grid is not involved in and is in no way associated with liquefaction, LNG or the operations of local natural gas distribution companies, which is what we are.” As of this writing National Grid is considering issuing a more comprehensive statement.

Of course, the larger issue is the global impact that fracked gas will have on the climate. (The local health impacts of having a liquefaction facility and LNG storage near a community is outside the scope of the Colorado State University study.) The question becomes, should Rhode Island be committing resources to an energy source that contributes to world destruction? Future generations are dependent on our making smart decisions today.

Governor Gina Raimondo’s office downplayed the impact of our energy choices on future generations, saying, “The Governor has always spoken about the importance of having a balanced energy mix. We have to meet the needs of the present, while looking to the future.

“In the present,” continues the Governor’s office’s statement, “we have a serious problem getting a sufficient supply of natural gas, and our soaring, unpredictable energy costs are a huge challenge for our businesses and our families. This new next generation clean energy facility will help us increase our supply of energy and bring down costs – and in doing so, will help make our state a more attractive place for businesses to operate.

“At the same time, the Governor has made it clear we are committed to doing this in a way that drives a cleaner, more reliable energy system in the long-term. We cannot lose sight of our focus on no-to-low carbon energy solutions, such as energy efficiency and renewables, including offshore wind and solar power. We are focused on enhancing system-wide energy diversity by harnessing clean energy solutions that offer new possibilities for economic growth and innovation. It is clear we can be a real leader for the rest of the country in this industry and create new jobs.”

Michael Sabitoni, president of the RI Building & Construction Trades Council, concurred with the Governor, saying that, “The members of the building trades are just as concerned as anyone else with the quality of life in Rhode Island and that certainly includes their care for the environment. We have supported numerous renewable projects that will provide clean energy to our members and to our state. However, we think even the most ardent environmentalists agree that renewables cannot meet all of our energy demands. Therefore, we support development of clean fossil fuel plants to meet these needs. The proposed Burrillville plant will have the most advanced technology. This project will eventually replace old and outdated plants. In doing so it will not only meet our needs but minimize the concerns raised by the Colorado State report. Quite frankly, it is a project environmentalists should support.”

However, “ardent environmentalists” don’t seem to be on board with this alignment of industry, labor and government. Peter Nightingale, of Fossil Free Rhode Island, said that, “We have known since 2011 that ‘natural’ gas, methane, is not the bridge fuel that our national energy policy claims it to be. Both fracked and conventional gas have a larger global warming potential than coal or oil for any possible use. Robert Howarth, who was one of Time‘s three People of the Year in 2011, summed it up perfectly: the Whitehouse (in suggesting natural gas a ‘bridge fuel’) made a decision that is not based on good science. Today’s report is just the latest of many cracks in the nation’s meth bridge to Hell.”

Edit: After this posted David Graves of National Grid sent me the following statement:

“The Colorado State University report is not directly related to local distribution companies like National Grid. However, we take the issue of natural gas emissions very seriously. We have acted and are continuing to act where we can have the greatest impact. That is by limiting emissions within our system. National Grid has invested significantly in our 35,000 miles of natural gas mains which serve more than 3.5 million customers in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, lowering overall emissions while the distribution network has grown. We invested more than $1.2 billion in our gas infrastructure this past fiscal year and, to further limit emissions, we will spend $6 billion over the next five years. In Rhode Island, where we purchased the business of New England Gas Company in 2006, we have replaced nearly 300 miles of leak prone pipe beginning with 11 miles in 2009 and adding significantly to those numbers each year. Our goal is to replace 60 miles this year and 65 miles in each of the coming years with a long-term goal of replacing all 1,400 miles of leak prone pipe.”

Fossil Free Rhode Island also suggested the following video:

August 11, 2015August 11, 2015

Air quality benefits outweigh fracked gas facility

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The economic benefits from doing away with the burning of fossil fuels (including fracked gas) are tremendous in terms of “Air Quality Co-Benefits,” said James K. Boyce at the closing lecture at the Center for Popular Economics 2015 Summer Institute: Confronting Capitalism & Climate Crisis. “Add up those benefits” says Boyce, and you’ll find that the public health benefits are often twice the “social cost of carbon” which is the federal government’s measure of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

Boyce is is a professor of economics at UMass Amherst researching development economics and environmental economics, with particular interests in the impacts of inequalities of wealth and power and the dynamics of conflict. His talk provided yet more reasons to oppose the construction of Clear River Energy Center, a fracked gas energy plant in Burrillville, Rhode Island.

The “vested interests of those who claim to own fossil fuels in the ground” says Boyce, “prevent good climate policy” from being enacted in the United States. It is not possible to design a strategy that can both prevent catastrophic climate change and appease the fossil fuel industry. (As Noel Healy said at a previous CPE talk, “There is no fixable flaw in the fossil fuel industry business plan. We are asking a company to go out of business.”)

But it is possible, stresses Boyce, “to design climate policies that do not impose costs but are beneficial in terms of public health and incomes.” These strategies, if instituted by the United States, would not put us at an economic disadvantage, but would have immediate economic benefits.

20,000 people die every year as a result of air pollution in the form of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and benzene. The health impacts include asthma, impeded brain development, stroke and cardio-vascular disease, among many more. Treating these diseases costs money. Add to that the value of a statistical life, that grubby little number insurance companies have determined we are each worth, (about $7 million,) and therefore the costs to society of preventible death, diseases and conditions due to fossil fuel emissions is vast.

Another aspect of Boyce’s talk concerned the placement of fossil fuel burning plants. It is not true that carbon is carbon and that it doesn’t matter where in the world they are eliminated. “Co-pollutants are localized and specific communities are influenced by these pollutants.”

Again, this can be applied to Burrillville and the proposed fracked gas plant. Before the new fracked gas plant was proposed, Burrillville was facing a huge expansion of the natural gas pipeline. Back in February I listened to Kathy Martley from BASE (Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion) say, “Burrillville is Rhode Island’s sacrifice zone.”

Martley is also concerned about the chemicals the pumping station is using. Fracked gas is dirtier, she says, and requires an additional 25 chemical additives to make it run smoothly through the pipeline. Many of these chemicals are industrial secrets, meaning there is no information available to the public as to what they are. In the event of a leak, Martley and her family and neighbors may be exposed to an unknown toxic brew. These concerns are no doubt exasperated with the addition of a new fracked gas burning plant.

This is no idle concern of a local resident crying NIMBY. Ted Nesi reports that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is undecided on the matter. Hisspokesman Seth Larson said, “The senator has significant concerns about methane leaks during natural gas production and elsewhere in the supply chain and has been urging EPA to pin down the size of the problem and take action to address it.”

This jibes with a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that conludes that while “the global warming emissions from [fracked gas] combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil… Emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes… do not tell the full story.”

“The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines,” says the UCS, “results in the leakage of methane, a far more potent global warming gas than CO2.” And though fracked gas burning plants yield lower emissions than coal or oil, “Some areas where drilling occurs have experienced increases in concentrations of hazardous air pollutants and two of the six “criteria pollutants” — particulate matter and ozone plus its precursors — regulated by the EPA because of their harmful effects on health and the environment.”

Rhode Island has to decide if it is moral, given that there are clean energy solution available that do not rely on fossil fuels, to outsource our pollution and attendant health risks to those distant fields where desperate communities allow fracking. We have to decide if it is moral to make Burrillville, RI into a sacrifice zone, where, long after natural gas has gone away and the Earth endures a 4 or 5 degree temperature increase due to our continued reliance on apocalyptic technology, we will be leaving a toxic Superfund site to the next generation.

In the video below you can watch nearly the entirety of Boyce’s talk, where besides speaking about the health risks of fossil fuels and the economic advantages of avoiding them, he also outlines his “cap and dividend” approach to carbon reduction.

August 6, 2015

As the divestment movement grows, RI invests

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Divestment Movement,” says Dr. Noel Healy, of Salem State University, “is a very important, very powerful movement.”

Healy and Jessica Debski, a student at Salem State, were presenting a workshop on the divestment movement at the Center for Popular Economics’ 2015 Summer Institute in Northhampton MA. Divestment is simply removing investment funds from fossil fuel companies. Healy and Debski’s research was about student movements working to pressure their colleges or universities into divesting, but divestment has broader applications and aims.

The point of divestment isn’t to somehow starve the fossil fuel companies of the funds they need to survive, but to make a moral point about the immorality of participating in and profiting from a practice that is literally killing the world. Divestment stigmatizes the fossil fuel industry, said Healy, and changes the public discourse on collective energy. Governments are pressured to enact meaningful legislation against fossil fuels even as fossil fuel companies are pressured to “undergo transformative change.”

Divestment campaigns also help to raise awareness of the “systemic risk of fossil fuel stranded assets,” that is, the fossil fuels owned by companies that need to stay in the ground if we ever hope to avert climate catastrophe. It also raises awareness about the “disproportionate impacts of climate change on developing nations, economically disadvantaged communities, and future generations,” said Healy.

In the course of their research, Healy and Debski identified nine of the most common arguments institutions use against calls for divestment. One by one these excuses were projected on a screen and one by one Healy took these excuses apart.

In light of Governor Gina Raimondo’s recent decision to back, rather than oppose, a new fracked gas energy plant in Burrillville, I think it’s worth examining these arguments in detail.

1. We all use fossil fuels – so divestment is hypocritical.

“To say this implies that we have a direct choice in energy sources,” says Healy, but how can that be the case when the entire system is rigged towards fossil fuels? Healy’s words immediately resonated with me. For instance, what kind of public input was sought before making the decision to build a fracked gas plant in Burrillville?

2. Divestment is pointless – it cannot bankrupt the coal, oil and gas companies.

I touched on this argument in my opening above, but to reiterate, bankrupting the companies financially is not the point. The point is to call out the companies on their moral bankruptcy. Don’t forget the power of previous divestment movements, such as those targeting tobacco and South African Apartheid.

3. Divestment is not meaningful, its just gesture politics

This argument ignores the power of symbolism and the power of taking a strong moral stand. All movements start with such gestures. Divestment is a proven strategy. Think again about tobacco and Apartheid.

4. Shareholder engagement with fossil fuel companies is the best way to drive change

The idea here is that if institutions were to keep some stock in fossil fuel companies they would be able to agitate for positive change from within the system. The problem, maintains Healy, is that there is “no evidence to support this.”

“There is no fixable flaw in fossil fuel industry business plan,” says Healy, “We are asking a company to go out of business.”

5. Fossil fuels are essential to ending world poverty

Remember that these are real arguments, made by real institutions. “Developing countries demand energy,” points out Healy, “not coal.” If given a choice about how that energy is to be generated, nearly everyone prefers renewables. Climate change, caused by fossil fuels, will impact frontline communities and impoverished peoples disproportionately. Rather than essential to ending world poverty fossil fuels are a threat to the world’s poor.

6. Most fossil fuels are owned by state controlled companies, not publicly traded companies targeted by divestment

This is true. But the strategy around divestment is to stigmatize fossil fuels and to force government regulation and a change in energy policy. Also, it is worth noting that the rights to most of the carbon that needs to stay in the ground if we ever hope to avoid cataclysmic climate change has been bought up by private companies.

7. There currently is no alternative to fossil fuel use

“Politics, not technology is the biggest hurdle,” maintains Healy. Our government subsidizes fossil fuels. The IMF says that “G20 countries subsidize fossil fuel companies $1,000 per citizen.” There are alternatives, if we demand them.

8. Primary role of universities is to conduct research, inform public policy and educate

And the primary point of investments is to make money. But at what cost? Taking a moral stand on the apocalypse, goes this thinking, is not within the purview of financial investments. Healy points out that institutions of higher learning that take this attitude are undermining their commitment to science and truth. They are immorally putting future generations at risk, the same generations these institutions are committed to educating.

9. The Fossil Fuel sectors are major investors in alternative energy

In truth, fossil fuel companies, as an industry, invest less than 1 percent of their funds into alternative energy. It simply isn’t true that they are “major investers.” Remember also that we subsidize fossil fuels in ways we do not subsidize renewables.

Healy and Debski made a strong, compelling case for divestment from fossil fuels.

Rhode Island, in welcoming this new fracked gas plant in Burrillville, is planning to invest in moral obsolescence.

You can watch Dr. Noel Healy take apart the arguments against divestment here:

Jessica Debski outlines the history of the divestment movement and outlines some of their research here:

August 5, 2015

Protestors combat fracking in Rhode Island with Burriville power plant

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

After a fittingly stormy Tuesday morning, Governor Gina Raimondo announced a controversial plan at the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce to open a natural gas power plant in Burriville amid environmental protests and citizen complaints.

The plant, called the Clear River Energy Center, would utilize fracking to generate energy with natural gas. Fracking is a process that involves drilling into the earth, and then shooting a high-pressure water mixture at the rock to release the natural gas inside. Environmentalists have opposed the practice for a number of reasons. First, the process uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the site. Second, many worry that dangerous chemicals used in the process may contaminate groundwater around the site. There are also concerns that fracking causes small earthquakes.

The company that is sponsoring and privately funding the $700 million project, Invenergy, says that the practice is clean and environmentally friendly because the new plant will prevent older, less efficient plants from emitting pollutants like carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur oxides into the air.

Invenergy has predicted $280 million in energy savings for Rhode Islanders once the energy center is up and running. There would be an overall economic impact of $1.3 billion between 2016 and 2034. Roughly 300 construction jobs would be added to the state’s workforce to build the facility, over a 30 month time period. There would also be 25-30 permanent, skilled positions to actually run the center.

“The construction of this clean energy generation facility will create hundreds of jobs while delivering more affordable and reliable energy to our businesses and homes,” Governor Raimondo said. “We are tackling our regional energy challenges, committing to cleaner energy systems in the long-term, and putting Rhode Islanders back to work.”

Even with this promise of clean energy, there are still many staunch opponents to the proposed facility. Fighting Against Natural Gas, or FANG, held an emergency rally in front of the Chamber of Commerce as Governor Raimondo unveiled her plan. Some even believed the facility to be a “rape” of Burriville’s air, water, and soil.

Robert Malin from Rhode Island’s chapter of the Sierra Club attended the protest, in opposition to the proposed facility. Malin believes that the government has been less than forthcoming with details for the project, and shouldn’t be trusted.

More protestors rallying against Burriville fracking.

“The Governor has been saying that she doesn’t know anything about gas or fracking, and that this whole thing is just one little expansion that they’re doing, and by the way, we don’t have any money to build out the renewables, it’s a wish. Maybe in 20 years we’ll get around to actually doing it,” he said. “Then the next thing you know, they can dig into their pockets, they can pull out $700 million, and this thing that they’re planning, had to be planned in advance. They kept this whole thing under the table. Why wasn’t the public able to decide whether we want an explosive power plant building, bringing fracked gas, a deadly practice that was outlawed in New York state, that’s what we’re bringing.”

Malin explained that even though many don’t consider natural gas a fossil fuel, believing it lacks a carbon footprint, the energy source actually leaves what he called a “ghost footprint,” and still contributes to global warming.

“You’re trying to track a colorless, odorless gas,” he said. “Unfortunately, when it gets into the atmosphere, it’s called an accelerant to global warming. So, if you can imagine, you’ve got a big wood fire, and you take some gasoline and throw it on the fire. It flares up really quick. So if you’re not right there when you’re measuring it, when it flares up, then it’s very hard to track. The bad new is that it has the same carbon footprint as other fossil fuels, like coal and oil when it’s done.”

Stephen Dahl, from Fossil Free Rhode Island, said that Raimondo’s plan is short term, and that there are better options and avenues for the state to undertake.

“I think that is a very short gain that they are playing. In the short term, we’ll have jobs. For the longer term, if we follow countries like Germany and Scandinavia, and their mix of energies, in which we can build a transition to 100 percent wind, water, and solar for all purposes, both residential and commercial, here in Rhode Island, by 2050,” he said. “I understand that she has a limited term in office, and she wants to get something done. The way she’s chosen forward, though, is unfortunately, that short-term prospect, which will bring us more catastrophes. So, I object to it.”

Raimondo, and Invenergy’s Founder and CEO Michael Polsky both insisted that fracking, in combination with renewable energy sources, is only one of many puzzle pieces that can be put together to help slow climate change. According to Invenergy, the Clear River Energy Center will add more than 900 megawatts of new, cleaner energy to the regional energy grid, and will displace older, less efficient plants. It will also invest in well treatment and system upgrades, which will benefit 1,200 Pascoag Utility District water customers by contracting on a long-term basis for industrial water supply. Commercial benefits for the town of Burriville include millions of dollars in tax revenue, as well as the reduction of the property tax burden for homeowners.

Once approved, the Clear River Energy Center will begin construction in 2016, with operations scheduled to begin by summer 2019.

August 4, 2015August 5, 2015

Raimondo’s fracked gas plant and Obama’s clean energy plan

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The world is still examining the nitty gritty of President Barrack Obama’s Climate Change Action Plan. In the video that accompanies the announcement on whitehouse.gov, Obama can be seen touring a solar power plant. Windmills can be seen in some shots. The entire video, and the plan, seems to be about renewable power generation, like solar and wind.

Missing are examples of fossil fuel burning plants, except as cautionary images and examples of antiquated, dangerous technologies.

So why is Rhode Island building a natural gas energy plant in Burrillville?

Natural (or should I say Fracked) gas is mentioned twice on the whitehouse.gov page I linked to in this piece. It is mentioned as a source of carbon emissions, and as a source of methane. These are the very gases that are contributing to climate change.

Screen Shot 2015-08-03 at 10.38.36 PM — “…remind everyone who represents you that protecting the world we leave to our children is a prerequisite for your vote.”

Despite the president’s leadership, Rhode Island, lead by Democratic Governor Gina Raimondo, has decided to invest in a 50 year plan to directly undermine efforts to prevent climate change. It’s almost as if Rhode Island has decided to say “fuck you” to the future and to the very planet our children will inherit.

Calling the fracked gas plant a “‘Next-Generation’ Clean Energy Facility” is merely Orwellian Newspeak. Even if the plant were somehow able to produce carbon and methane at 10 percent of conventional natural gas plants, it will still be producing carbon and methane where previously there was none. It will be running on fracked gas, imported from not-so-distant environmental wastelands devastated by oil companies through pipelines made to enrich Saudi sheiks.

Building this plant is like investing in land line phone companies in 2005. It’s the energy planet version of 38 Studios. When Governor Raimondo officially announces this plant at the Providence Chamber of Commerce, 30 Exchange Terrace, Providence RI, on Tuesday at 10am, she will be announcing a failure of leadership, a failure of vision, and a wasted opportunity.

This is not the future Rhode Island deserves.

In the video, Obama encourages us all to “remind everyone who represents you that protecting the world we leave to our children is a prerequisite for your vote.”

You can remind Governor Raimondo tomorrow. See the Facebook event page here.

April 6, 2015April 7, 2015

NBC 10 Wingmen: Fracked gas pipeline politics

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A proposed pipeline that would transport fracked gas from Pennsylvania – through Burrlliville, Rhode Island – on its way to Canada is being sold to the American people on the promise of lowering northeast energy prices. But we know fracking contaminates water and we know the new pipeline will keep the public’s energy supply married to fracking industry for the next half century.

Should we believe corporate cheerleaders like Jon Brien, who say ‘build, baby, build’ when it comes to the proposed pipeline? Or is it finally time to take seriously the environmental activists who implore us to create a sustainable supply of green energy?

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

December 16, 2014December 17, 2014

Fighting fracked gas, URI professor arrested at Sheldon’s office

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Peter Nightingale, a URI physics professor, a Fossil Free Rhode Island activist and regular RI Future contributor, was intentionally arrested following a sit-in at Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s Providence office, according to Fossil Free RI in a press release.

“If Senator Whitehouse is truly a climate champion, it’s time he lives up to that title,” Nightingale said in a prepared statement prior to his arrest. “Senator Whitehouse sees methane as a bridge fuel, despite scientific evidence that it is, in fact, no cleaner than coal. Continuing our reliance on dirty energy harms communities everywhere and the laws of nature require that we be well on our way to a transition to green energy within this decade.”

Nightingale was one of 10 climate activists who protested the potential expansion of the Spectra natural gas pipeline project at Whitehouse’s office today. The Spectra pipeline relies on fracked gas and passes through Burrillville, RI. The group calls themselves FANG – Fighting Against Natural Gas.

Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island’s junior senator, is the one of the nation’s most well-known climate activists and senate’s most committed member to addressing climate change. His spokesman Seth Larson said Whitehouse may support the pipeline expansion project because it would help lower local energy prices.

“While the Senator is still reviewing the details of the proposed pipeline project, he generally supports the short-term expansion of natural gas capacity in New England to ease winter price spikes on consumers as we transition to more renewable energy over time,” Larson said.

“Senator Whitehouse personally met with these Rhode Islanders earlier this year to hear their concerns about the Algonquin pipeline,” Larson said. “The decision about whether to approve this pipeline project ultimately rests with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and Senator Whitehouse is committed to making sure that Rhode Islanders’ views are heard during the review process. Indeed, he and Senator Reed urged FERC to hold a public meeting on this project in Rhode Island, which happened on September 16 in Burrillville.”

In November, three Fossil Free RI activists were arrested at Senator Jack Reed’s office in Cranston.

December 12, 2014December 12, 2014

Multi-state week of action against fracked-gas pipeline expansion

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Burrillville, Wakefield, RI; Danbury, CT; West Roxbury, MA — Grassroots groups from four states along the proposed route of Spectra Energy’s Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) pipeline expansion, which cuts through New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, have joined together to host a coordinated “Week of Respect and Resistance” with actions from December 13 through December 19 in opposition to the project.

The project includes the expansion of a compressor station in Burrillville which is already “a major source of hazardous air pollutants”, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee.

The actions are planned in anticipation of the release of the final Environmental Impact Statement by the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) due on or about December 19, 2014. The week of action will target local, state and federal legislators and government agencies – all of whom have direct roles or influence in the approval of the project. These actions will build on the numerous rallies, vigils, meetings and call-in campaigns that have been happening across the states for the past several months.

“We are calling this a Week of Respect and Resistance: respect, because it’s important to honor the other struggles for justice that have come before us, and those that are taking place right now around the world. It’s also time for Spectra and our elected officials to respect our power and respect our desire to see a world powered by community owned renewable energy,” FANG organizer Nick Katkevich explains.

Fossil Free Rhode Island, a grassroots group promoting divestment from fossil fuels, will kick off the week with an event this Saturday, December 13, at the Alternative Food Co-op in Wakefield to highlight the need to build a localized, worker-owned economy and rein in the power of multinational corporations that perpetuates fossil fuel dependence.

Fossil Free Rhode Island will follow up with a call-in campaign next week to ask elected officials and state agencies to intervene to stop the AIM project.

Last year's news: " National Grid defends £1.5bn half-year profit and payout to shareholders " This year, National Grid obviously needs more money so their CEOs and stockholders can refine the well-deserved lavish lifestyles to which they are entitled. — Last year’s news: “National Grid defends £1.5bn half-year profit and payout to shareholders.” This year, National Grid obviously needs more money so their CEOs and stockholders can refine the well-deserved lavish lifestyles to which they are entitled.

Rhode Island groups will also be present at the meeting of the Public Utilities Commission next Tuesday, Dec. 16, to protest the 23.6% electric rate hike proposed by National Grid, a corporation headquartered in London, Great Britain. The meeting will be held at 10 am at 89 Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick.

Visit this website for updates on the actions planned for Rhode Island.

Late last month, Fossil Free Rhode Island launched a campaign urging the Rhode Island Department of Health to block the expansion of the compressor station in Burrillville, citing elevated asthma rates in the surrounding area. “We are outraged that Rhode Island’s political leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—are ignoring threats to our children’s health, and instead are siding with the fossil fuel industries,” said Tony Affigne, chair of the Green Party of Rhode Island, a signatory to the campaign. “This week will show the state’s leadership that people and the environment are more important than Spectra’s profit margin.”

Rhode Island Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club of Rhode Island, Occupy Providence, and the Voluntown Peace Trust have also signed on. As Peter Nightingale, Professor of Physics at the University of Rhode Island, stated: “We need an immediate end to uncontrolled experiments that threaten public health in Rhode Island and the habitability of the planet.”

Many elected officials in New York, including Congresswoman Nita Lowey, wrote to FERC requesting an independent risk assessment of a massive 42” new segment of pipeline that would run 105 feet from critical structures at the Indian Point nuclear facility.

Renowned pipeline expert Rick Kuprewicz stated: “[I] cannot overstress the importance of performing a full and complete process hazard safety analysis, independently demonstrating, especially to the public, that there will be no interplay between a possible gas transmission pipeline rupture and the IPEC facilities to failsafe shutdown or cause a loss of radiation containment in such a sensitive and highly populated area of the country.”

“We are at a critical juncture. Expanding the Spectra Algonquin pipeline will lock us into a reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure for decades to come. Communities across the region are coming together to oppose this pipeline and call for clean energy alternatives, energy conservation and efficiency,” says Michelle Weiser, Community Organizer with Toxics Action Center.

If approved, Spectra would begin construction as early as March 2015, and the project would be completed in November 2016. Another Spectra expansion, the Atlantic Bridge, is planned to follow right after the AIM Project with additional expanded segments of massive 42” diameter high-pressure pipeline segments and compressor station expansions, and a third project is also in the works.

These expansions would be devastating to the entire northeast region and much of the gas would be shipped overseas to foreign markets. “If the governmental agencies fail us and approve this project, our nonviolent resistance will only escalate. This week will be a demonstration of our commitment to stop this pipeline at all cost,” says Katkevich.

Groups involved with the action include: Stop the Algonquin Pipeline Expansion (NY); Sierra Club (CT); Greater Danbury MoveOn.org Council (CT); Capitalism v. The Climate (CT); Occupy Danbury (CT); Fighting Against Natural Gas (RI); Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (RI); Fossil Free Rhode Island (RI); Green Party of Rhode Island (RI); Occupy Providence (RI); Toxics Action Center (MA & RI); Mothers Out Front; No New Fracked Gas Infrastructure in West Roxbury, Dedham, or New England (MA); Flood Boston (MA) and Better Future Project (MA)

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Solutions and Alternatives

Economic Inequality

Public Health

Climate Change

Environmental Racism

EPA Toxic Release Inventory?­

Schools at Risk

EPA’s EJ SCREEN Tool

Proximity to Facilities Requiring a Chemical Risk Management Plan

Proximity to Water Discharger Facility

Traffic Proximity

Toxic Storage and Discharge Facilities

Environmental Justice: working towards equitable healthy environments

Potential Disasters: dangerous facility in a high risk area

Relevant Past LNG Disasters

Dangerous incidents occurring in the Port of Providence

Introduction

Background on National Grid’s proposal

Report from the No-New-Permits fast in DC

Events for the rest of our fast

EPA Toxic Release Inventory?