[act-ma] Wed July 30: Protest Planned Fracking in Massachusetts

[pf soto]

------ Original Message --------


  No Fracked Gas in Mass

/— *BOSTON RALLY  – July 30, 2014 – Info Here* 
<http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/boston-rally-july-30-2014/>
— Latest News & Thoughts Blog 
<http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/latest-news-blog/>
— Annotated FAQ about the Proposed Pipeline 
<http://www.massplan.org/annotated-faq/>/
— /What you can do!/ <http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/what-can-we-do/>

*Our Current Mission: *To stop the Kinder Morgan/TGP Northeast Energy 
Direct project/(a high-pressure gas pipeline planned by Tennessee Gas 
Pipeline Co., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, to run from Richmond in 
Berkshire County through to Dracut, north of Boston.)/
*Our Broader Mission: *To stop the expansion of fossil fuel 
infrastructure in Massachusetts and to promote expanded efficiency and 
sustainable, renewable sources of energy and local, permanent jobs in a 
clean energy economy.


        *Why the pipeline is being proposed:*

Concerned about possible shortages of energy grid supply once the 
region’s coal, oil and nuclear plants are off-line in a few years, all 
six New England Governors signed a letter, urging regional cooperation 
between them to make sure the grid stays sufficiently supplied.  They 
asked ISO New England and NESCOE to investigate what would be necessary. 
Studies by these organizations resulted in a plan to upgrade efficiency 
of the grid and to bring an extra 0.6 Billion cubic feet a day (Bcf/day) 
of natural gas capacity into New England, along with an unprecedented 
tariff on all electric ratepayers to cover the costs of the new 
infrastructure.

According to KM/TGP’s meetings with selectboards across the state, thier 
pipeline proposal is in direct response to this plan, but they pipeline 
they’re proposing is 2.2 Bcf/day. They say they will need to secure at 
least 0.7 Bcf/day to make the project worth their while but have not 
publicly disclosed how much is already slated in contracts they’re 
currently developing.

Concerns over how the Governor’s letter and NESCOE’s creation of the 
tariff came about were raised in a report from Conservation Law 
Foundation, which presented a substantial amount of evidence that closed 
door meetings with energy companies led to the request for more pipeline 
capacity.
Read CLF’s report 
<http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/governors-infrastructure-plan>


        Why the pipeline is being opposed:

The proposed pipeline path runs through hundreds of private properties 
and through some of the state’s most sensitive ecosystems and would be 
paid for through new tariffs on our electric bills.

We have been researching the need for this pipeline (or lack thereof), 
environmental and economic impacts and presenting across the state since 
February and are constantly updating and filling out with new findings.

*LOW DEMAND SCENARIO SHOWS NO NEED*
Studies commissioned by NESCOE and conducted by Black & Veatch show that 
if current levels of state energy efficiency programs continue, there is 
no need for additional natural gas infrastructure even with economic 
growth taken into account.  This is called the “Low Demand Scenario”.  
The low demand scenario is the only one that was never cost-analyzed as 
a possible solution to current peak demand crunches in electric 
generation gas supply.  ISO New England’s own report states that their 
number one challenge is dependence on natural gas. Yet ISO New England 
and NESCOE are calling for more pipeline capacity, rather than first 
developing more efficiency and clean energy solutions.

*POOR INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT*
Even if there were an actual need, there are currently enough leaks in 
the existing infrastructure to provide another 400 MW of power. The two 
most dangerous classes of these leaks are now slated to be fixed under 
new legislation that has passed, but repairing Class 3 leaks (considered 
non-dangerous) is not mandatory. We think it should be.

There are also existing pipelines that are standing at least partially 
unused.  Using these to capacity to store gas during non-peak times can 
keep enough reserve to cover the few days every winter when peak demand 
drives up prices. This project is not being driven by a shortage of gas 
supply, just a shortage of cheap gas available to electric generation 
plants during extremely cold weather when people use more of the gas 
supply for heat.

» /*Inefficiencies in the grid are a problem nationwide.*/ 
<http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/energy-policy/united-states-uses-39-energy-it-produces-wastes-61/>
*OVERSIZED SOLUTION TO PROPOSED “PROBLEM” – LIKELY EXPORT*
Even if the Low Demand Scenario was not proven, the amount of additional 
pipeline capacity requested by NESCOE is 0.6 Billion cubic feet a day 
(Bcf/d), but the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline project proposed by 
KM/TGP is being planned for 2.2 Bcf/d.
With nearly four times the capacity called for, where is the other three 
quarters of that capacity destined? The terminal hub in Dracut is also 
connection point to the Martimes & Northeast (M&NE) pipeline which has 
just applied to switch direction, bringing gas from Massachusetts, 
through Maine to the Maritimes of Canada, where two ports have just 
applied to switch from import to export. There is also new potential for 
export from facilities in Maine and Everett, MA.

In selectboard meetings across the state, KM representatives have 
repeatedly said that they have no control over who their customers are, 
so exports are on the table. Their own open season bidding memo called 
from LNG developers and customers in the Maritimes as well as local 
distribution and electric utilities.

*NATURAL GAS POLLUTES MORE THAN EXISTING GRID SOURCES in MA*
Looking into the CO2 emissions averaged over all sources of electric 
generation in MA, the average per source is 910 lb. per MWh. The average 
natural gas generation plant is 1,210 lb. per MWh.  Natural gas has done 
it’s “bridge” work.  With renewables phasing in at an unprecedented 
rate, adding more natural gas would now take is in the wrong direction 
for achieving the state’s greenhouse gas emissions goals – based on CO2 
output alone.

Natural gas is also primarily methane, a greenhouse gas over 86 times 
more powerful than CO2. When a full accounting of methane’s impact is 
taken into consideration, studies show that it has no benefit over coal 
or oil in reducing greenhouse gas effects.
Natural gas is often touted as a “bridge fuel” to a clean energy 
economy.  We are standing at the far end, having crossed that “bridge”. 
It’s time to step forward into that future we’ve been building.


        Opposition to the Pipeline

/Project overview//memo/ 
<http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/notgp/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/TGP-Northeast-Energy-Direct-Fact-Sheet-FINAL-5-22-14-2.doc>
/Letter to NESCOE**/ 
<http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/notgp/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/KM_TGP_Letter_to_NESCOE_05_23_14.pdf>


        WHAT YOU CAN DO! <http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/what-can-we-do/>

/*WHAT WE ARE DOING
*/

  * Making informational presentations across the state, showing what
    the pipeline components would be, where the areas of concern are,
    what the possible impacts would be and why it’s not necessary and an
    unfair economic and ecological burden.

  * Organizing the impacted landowners, towns,  concerned citizens, and
    others to resist the pipeline project

  * Creating space for groups and individuals to find and share
    information, organize,  collaborate, and plan — Networking with
    elected officials, regulators and clean energy experts to help form
    strategy for transitioning to a clean energy economy, creating
    local, permanent, climate-friendly jobs


/*/*/*Check our tally of progress*/ 
<http://www.nofrackedgasinmass.org/the_score/> – and realize that it’s 
only the tip of the iceberg.*/ Please explore our website and contact us 
with any questions or suggestions.*/