To: Board of Environmental Protection
Attn: Jennifer Cayer
106 Hogan Street
Bangor ME 04401
Re: Applications by Downeast LNG Inc. and Downeast Pipeline LLC for a
Liquefied Natural Gas
Terminal and Pipeline Project
Robbinston, Calais, Baring Plantation, Baileyville and Princeton,
Washington County
These comments are submitted to the Board of Environmental Protection
(BEP) on behalf of the Maine Chapter of the Sierra Club, and its
approximately 4,000 members statewide. The Sierra Club is the nation's
oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization, whose
purpose is to protect the wild places of
the earth, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's
ecosystems and resources; and to protect and restore the quality of
the natural and human environment. We place a high priority on public
policy and actions that address global climate change and promote a
clean energy future. Our comments therefore focus on our concerns for
the unique ecosystem of Passamaquoddy Bay, sustaining the
environmental quality of the region, and environmental justice for
local residents, including Native Americans. We ask that the Board
assure not only that conflicts with current uses of the area are
avoided and minimized, but also that future uses are not precluded.
Regulatory decisions, particularly those of such magnitude, must not
operate at cross purposes to the state's new emphasis on capping
emissions and promoting clean, renewable alternatives.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Sierra Club believes that the protection of the environment, human
life, and public welfare are essential factors to be considered by all
levels of government when making siting decisions. We believe that
siting decisions for energy facilities should be made only as part of
the overall land-use planning and should include protection of air and
water quality. Such facilities should be excluded from certain
categories of land, and should proceed only after a need for them has
been demonstrated. They should be located near load centers and, when
possible, on or near existing industrial facilities.
Moreover, in light of events of recent years, security concerns
regarding accidental and intentional incidents must receive special
attention. We stress that the ecosystems and the residents of
Passamaquoddy Bay deserve the same full consideration as those of more
populated areas, and no effort should be spared on any basis to
address concerns for health and safety and to answer the question of
"who is going to pay the bills" -- literally and figuratively.
Indeed, because services and infrastructure for dealing with accidents
or intentional harm are lacking in this largely rural area, much more
would have to be required and provided for by project proponents.
Siting of industrial-scale facilities should not preclude small-scale
renewable energy alternatives. There is active interest in tidal,
wind, and other renewable energy projects in the Passamaquoddy Bay
area. The Maine Coastal Program can provide information about an
assessment of Maine's potential for wind, wave, and tidal projects
conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and current
experimental and other applications for the state's submerged lands.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The siting of large facilities such as LNG terminals should not
proceed unless a definitive need for them has been demonstrated,
through open public disclosure and certification of need. We have
supported the call by others for a regional assessment for New England
and urge that BEP support this approach in order to avoid further
unnecessary costs to taxpayers, project proponents, and citizens. We
have also called for proactive and comprehensive review and ranking of
eligible sites for the entire Maine coast so that the
public may consider all available information. All details of any
individual proposal (funding, mitigation plans, identification of
responsible parties, operation) must be made available early enough to
facilitate a comprehensive, not piecemeal review. This is even more
relevant in light of Maine's commitment to reduction of greenhouse
gases and the multiple actions to that end that have recently been
undertaken by the state and region, including initiatives by local
communities (e.g., "Cool Cities"), but unfortunately has yet to be
done.
In general, economic studies prepared by industry tend to "juice up"
the benefits and avoid giving full consideration to the costs,
particularly the costs of disrupting existing marine and shore
transportation and
tourism and fishing. These studies ascribe the most optimistic
multipliers to the respending of plant employee income and stop short
of making the distinction between direct jobs and indirect and claim
the whole thing as the entire net economic benefit. More recently the
energy industry, while continuously repeating the refrain about the
need to reduce dependence on "foreign oil" (subtext: we should open up
all domestic areas to drilling) has stopped making the argument that
LNG will bring about lower prices. That is because LNG is only
economic in a narrow price range bounded by domestic supply at the low
end. In short, LNG is a big roll of the dice economically.
Parenthetically, we commend Governor Baldacci for his statements in
recent years that clearly rank restoration of Maine's fisheries as a
top priority and his unequivocal opposition to offshore oil and gas
drilling in the Gulf of Maine.
It is our contention that siting an LNG terminal in Passamaquoddy Bay
is to "do it the hard way" -- import gas from as yet unidentified
sources (Qatar?), using energy to transport it past the primary market
in southern Maine and Massachusetts, via an arguably dangerous route,
and to transform Maine's least industrialized coastal areas
irretrievably. We urge BEP to give preference to the vast opportunity
for conservation and efficiency, starting with combined electric/gas
efficiency retrofits in large commercial buildings where gas use is
driven skyward by poor insulation. There is no reason to put LNG ahead
of that in the queue.
LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
Decisions about the siting of energy-related facilities can only be
made in the context of sound overall land-use planning. LNG terminals
should be evaluated not just as simple terminals but as part of a
system for
delivering natural gas, including but not limited to pipelines and
other associated infrastructure and spin-off facilities in support of
this delivery function.
.
At a minimum the following categories of land should be explicitly
excluded from consideration as sites for LNG terminals or associated
infrastructure systems, including pipelines:
a) Land included in federal, state, or local park or natural area
systems, or in wildlife refuges, or in such proximity as to threaten
the environmental quality of protected areas. This means that
Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge must be OFF LIMITS as a location
for pipelines and related infrastructure. If no alternative is
offered, BEP should recommend denial.
b) Areas reserved for ecological, scenic, natural, wildlife,
geological, educational, or scientific value. This would clearly
apply to Mill Cove with its living resources.
c) Wild, natural, scenic or pastoral portions of coasts or shores,
including bays, estuaries, wetlands, lakes and rivers.
d) Coastal or riverine areas, especially those designated as
Essential Fish Habitat. This is particularly important in light of
growing evidence that Gulf of Maine waters are warming to the
detriment of lobster populations, fundamental to the state's economy,
and highlights the need for extra protections for the entire range.
e) Habitats of rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal
species. This includes rivers and other waters that provide habitat
for Atlantic salmon, as well as species that may or may not be
officially "listed" under the Endangered Species Act but whose
populations have been reduced significantly in recent years. We do
not want to have to "list" every species before we take care of them.
Many species are already affected by multiple stressors and we must
not shut out future potential for their recovery by adding to these
(light, noise, water and air quality problems).
f) Areas containing outstanding examples of plant communities.
g) Valuable archeological or historic sites and sites held sacred by
indigenous people.
h) Prime agricultural and forest lands.
i) Lands that play a vital role in the hydrologic cycle such as
aquifer recharge areas and wetlands.
j) Land and offshore areas characterized by adverse geological or
geophysical characteristics such as earthquake zones, floodplains, or
erosion-prone zones; these last must also be evaluated in the context
of
anticipated climate change effects such as sea level rise, utilizing
the most recent projections. Occasional small and moderate
earthquakes occur along the Oak Bay fault.
LOCATION
LNG terminals and delivery systems should be located as close as
possible to load centers to avoid unnecessarily intrusive disruptions;
to encourage conservation and pollution abatement by linking the
environmental burdens of power generation with its benefits; and to
maximize efficient use of energy
through utilization of energy for beneficial purposes rather than its
transport. Emphasis should be placed on reducing the emission of
pollutants rather than relying on remote siting. Since airborne
pollutants have been found to cause damage to the natural environments
far from their source, remote siting will not prevent environmental
degradation. Any tradeoff between impacting urban and rural/wild
environments should be discussed explicitly. In general, new energy
facilities should be located on land that has little
other productive value, and be sited in such a way as to be compatible
with and encourage the development of renewable energy resources.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The need to protect other important resources, such as water resources
and quality, and air quality should be carefully considered in the
planning for and siting of energy facilities. We note that at a
hearing on July 13, the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) ruled
that a new pipeline extension which will carry natural gas from an LNG
import terminal in Mexico to Southern California must not increase
emissions of pollution in the South Coast Air Basin, and we urge BEP
to take the same approach to capping pollution for Passamaquoddy Bay.
a) Air quality. Three scales of impact on air quality must be
considered:
Local scale: Environmental Protection Agency ambient air quality
standards and non-degradation standards must be met and potential
future growth must be allowed for. Sub-regional scale: Cumulative
impacts on the order of air quality control regions or air basins must
be considered such as result from persistent air flows. Regional
scale: Long-range transport of pollutants must be considered on the
order of several states or air basins. In addition, impairment of
visibility must be assessed in preventing degradation of air quality.
b. Water resources (marine and freshwater)
There should be no net depletion of groundwater. Stream flow should
not be depleted so as to alter ecosystem dynamics, harm aquatic
species, or alter the scenic or wild character of rivers. Alternate
requirements for water must be considered and priorities for use set.
c. Water quality
Sites for disposal of waste products should be free of all flood
potential and should not lead to runoff or leaching to surface or
groundwater. In siting along a shoreline or river, both cumulative
and interactive
effects of discharges must be considered in terms of thermal effects
and destruction of aquatic life.
Baseline studies and long term monitoring must be required, and the
Best Practices for Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals developed by the
National Marine Fisheries Service implemented in full.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
The Sierra Club contends that the Earth's wild places should be
protected and the Earth's ecosystems and resources should be used
responsibly and sustainably so that all people and future generations
may share nature's bounty; that the natural and human environment
should be restored to the benefit of all people and for other living
things, and their future generations; and that no community should
bear disproportionate risks of harm because of their demographic
characteristics or economic condition. Environmental decision-making
must include the full range of alternatives to a proposed action or
plan, including rejection of the proposed action or plan. Barriers to
participation (cultural, linguistic, geographic, and economic) should
be addressed. Local residents, including Tribal members, are
entitled to enjoy the sustainable aesthetic, recreational, cultural,
historical, scientific, educational, religious, sacred, sustenance,
subsistence, cultural, and other environmental benefits of natural
resources.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
When an activity potentially threatens the environment and human
health, safety and well-being, the proponent of the activity, rather
than the public, should bear the burden of proof as to the
harmlessness of the activity. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty must not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to **prevent** environmental
degradation.
While Maine's marine and coastal areas are becoming increasingly
crowded with demands on space for development, to exploit resources,
and for other purposes, our common goals must be a clean, healthy,
biologically diverse, safe, and productive environment. This means
confronting the policy shifts needed in the face of global climate
change, redirecting our energy policy by replacing, not adding to
fossil fuel use with clean and renewable energy production, working
with the ecosystems not against them, and adapting policy accordingly
(including subsidies and regulation).
In conclusion, BEP's review of the Downeast LNG proposal should
incorporate the principles detailed above and should be made in the
context of their long-run implications. Full consideration must be
given to the impact of all phases, including transportation and waste
disposal. A full record should be developed in order for the least
environmentally damaging alternative to be selected. We believe that
based on the merits of the case as well as the larger ecological
context, rather than on extraneous economic and political sales
pitches, this could only lead to a rejection of the Downeast
proposal. We do not want to add Passamaquoddy Bay to the nation's
list of "sacrifice areas" to meet an alleged energy demand that can be
reduced and addressed in less destructive ways.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Vivian Newman
Marine Issues Chair, Maine Chapter
Sierra Club
P.O. Box 388
South Thomaston ME 04858
207-594-7534
new...@roadrunner.com
