To: Malcolm Bliss, on behalf of the Better Futures Project 350ma organizing effort
Malcolm, thanks for taking the time to meet with me regarding possible
350ma.org involvement with the Salem Harbor Footprint Power proceedings now underway (EFSB 12-2). As you may now be aware, I am a limited participant to the proceedings advocating for the "350ppm climate protection community" which may include the 350ma organization you and your young colleagues hope to build. The current calendar for these proceedings is:
- Tuesday, July 2, 2013: An Issues memo is scheduled to be distributed to all Board Members, parties, and limited participants. The Issues Memo it will be used to assist the Board in developing its instructions. The parties and limited participants may file written comments on the Issues Memo with the Siting Board Staff, and serve copies of their comments on other participants, in the same manner that motions and other documents are filed and served.
- Tuesday, July 9, 2013: scheduled deadline for receipt of written comments
- Thursday, July 11, 2013, 10 am: Energy Facilities Siting Board will
hold a public meeting to instruct Staff in the writing of a Tentative
Decision in the Footprint proceeding. Parties and limited participants will be given the opportunity to present oral argument before the Board at the public meeting.
I undertook the procedural requirements for becoming a limited participant because I feel the issues are important for everyone. We must voice ourselves as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts retires its coal-fired plants, on the singular issue of concern which I have addressed in these proceedings: the greenhouse gas emissions of methane from leakage and poor industry drilling practices associated with hydraulic fracturing. The EFSB has opportunity for inclusion of this issue under the mandate of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). Should they, it will mark the first time that a major generation plant is sited with consideration of GWSA mitigation requirements.
I have asked that mitigating measures be placed on Footprint Power that address their dependence on Natural Gas, hence on the NG extraction, hence hydraulic fracturing and its concomitant release of methane into the atmospheric commons. As I conducted independent research in the context of these proceedings I became convinced that NG does not represent a viable energy future for the Commonwealth, and that it may represent a worse option than coal. Nonetheless, this petition is likely to be approved and the "best" possible result is that serious mitigating conditions be placed on the petitioner.
I offer a lone voice in the EFSB 12-2 proceedings for the 350ppm climate protection community to require due consideration of our grave concerns in siting a NG plant as a replacement for coal. It has yet to be demonstrated that anyone in the
community shares my concerns and approach. As we discussed, effective activism uses EVERY means provided by Commonwealth governance under the new GWSA in co-creating a viable clean and sustainable energy future for this and future generations. I hope for a more productive relationship going forward.
