Category Archives: fossil fuels

MA House Passes Gas Leaks Bill

In a unanimous vote, the House passed a bill to require utility companies to stop leaks from their gas lines. As reported in the Boston Globe (2/13/2014),

Boston’s gas pipelines are riddled with thousands of small leaks — often the cause of the occasional rotten-egg-like whiff of mercaptan-laced gas that passerbys smell. Federal and state legislators have called for fixes, citing both safety concerns and the amount of money lost from leaking gas that never gets to consumers.

State Representative Lori Ehrlich, the Marblehead Democrat who filed the bill, said she was delighted at this step toward addressing the problem.

“The law has permitted gas companies to merely monitor more than 20,000 gas leaks throughout the Commonwealth,” Ehrlich said in a statement. “These unrepaired methane leaks waste almost $40 million of a natural resource annually, and often lead to deadly explosions.’’

SAFE has been a strong proponent of fixing the gas links, particularly in light of the proposal to build a new gas-generation power plant in Salem.

CLF and Footprint Close to Agreement

The Salem News (2/12/14) reports that Conservation Law Foundation and Footprint Power are close to announcing a settlement in CLF’s lawsuit challenging Footprint’s effort to site a new gas plant in Salem.

In a joint motion filed yesterday with a state board, the New Jersey power plant developer and the Massachusetts environmental organization said they “believe that they may be able to reach a settlement” in the contentious case that has been fought at public hearings, before state boards, in court filings and at private meetings.

If a settlement is not reached, arguments in the case will begin March 4 before the Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court. Read more.

SALEM GAS PLANT AND THE LOW-CARBON FUTURE

Salem Alliance for the Environment (SAFE) released the following statement in response to the February 8 demonstration in Salem by 350-MA.

SAFE fully agrees with 350MA that the United States must take immediate steps to address global climate change. However, SAFE believes that the proposed quick-start, high efficiency natural-gas power plant for our city is consistent with the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act and can play a positive role in decarbonizing the electric grid in the three decades ahead.

As a seaside community, Salem should be on the forefront of addressing the climate crisis. If we are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, including sea level rise that could risk putting a part of our own community under water, the world must reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050. Like the sponsors of the protest against the proposed gas plant in Salem, we are in search of a viable path forward.

Our vision for Salem includes a large-scale maritime wind farm off of Cape Ann—a project that would become more viable if the proposed Salem gas plant goes forward.  And as advocates for solar energy, we are pleased that Salem is one of 15 communities that have been selected for the second round of Solarize Mass.

We also recognize the growing evidence that hydrofracking is severely damaging the environment and peoples’ lives. We strongly oppose this practice and believe it should be stopped until proven safe. To that end, SAFE supports federal and state regulation of fracking and legislation that forces utilities to prevent chemical contamination of drinking water supplies and to fully address methane leaks in the gas distribution infrastructure.

The “easy” work in reducing emissions has been done here in Massachusetts, with all coal-fired power plants scheduled to close by 2017. Going forward the choices become more difficult. Among the steps we can take to further reduce emissions in the short run is to replace older gas generation with high-efficiency quick-start plants similar to the one proposed for Salem.

The challenge of renewable energy is that it is intermittent: the sun doesn’t shine at night, and the wind can die down at any time. The older plants that currently power the grid are not good at filling in these interruptions in power production because they take 12-36 hours to ramp up to full power. The proposed gas plant for Salem is a much better choice to be paired with large renewable projects because it offers super-efficient generation with the flexibility of being able to increase or decrease power generation in an hour’s time, without having to run any more than needed.

During this recent cold spell, our reliance on the dirtiest fossil fuels – coal and oil – for our region’s electricity has escalated dramatically. This situation underscores the need for gas as a transitional fuel until renewables can take up the slack. Otherwise, we are exposing ourselves not only to the unnecessary risks of rolling brownouts that ISO New England (the region’s non-profit electric grid manager) has so forcefully warned us about in their recent statements but also a reliance on dirtier fuels that increase our greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural gas power generation is not a panacea but rather a transitional step. It is a much cleaner-burning fuel and creates fewer carbon emissions than either coal or oil. For gas generation to be part of the solution, however, public policies must ensure that gas extraction and transmission meet the highest standards.

In the next 30 years, we must make major changes in how we generate, transmit and use electricity. Our policymakers here in Massachusetts and in Washington, DC, need to make a far greater commitment to investing in renewable energy generation and in the national network of transmission infrastructure needed to deliver that power to every community in America. Once that infrastructure is in place, then natural gas generation can—and should—be phased out.

This is a need and vision that will take decades to make real. During this transition we have a choice of relying on older gas generation or upgrading to the latest and most efficient gas turbines that will allow us to introduce more renewables, not fewer, into the regional power grid.

Our goal should be to build a national transmission network powered by thousands of renewable energy projects distributed all over the system. That will allow us to decarbonize our electricity in this country safely and dependably.  If we choose not to build high-efficiency gas plants at strategic locations on the existing power grid, we miss the opportunity to create the infrastructure of the future–today.

We must recognize that in order to transition from our current electric system to one in the future powered mostly by renewable energy, we need several interim steps. We believe this proposed plant is one of the steps on this pathway to a low carbon future that our region and country must pursue and develop.

We should not let unrealistic short-term idealism, regardless of how well-intentioned, limit long term progress.

Read  SAFE’s earlier statement on Footprint Power’s proposed gas generating plant for Salem Harbor.

Proposed Gas Plant Could Help Reduce Emissions Regionally

SAFE co-chairs Patricia Gozemba and Jeff Barz-Snell respond to a recent article in the Boston Globe:

RE “NEW Salem plant a test case for state climate law: Utilities call power vital; environmentalists alarmed” (Page A1, Jan. 19): The implication in Erin Ailworth’s article is that all environmentalists oppose the Footprint Power project in Salem. Salem Alliance for the Environment, a leader in the fight to end coal-burning at the power plant, is supportive of Footprint’s efficient, quick-start natural gas plant. At the same time, we continue to speak out against special favors for Footprint, such as a recent amendment in the Legislature, since pulled back, that would have ended all review at the state level for the proposed plant.

As a group of progressive environmentalists — whose membership includes engineers, scientists, and environmental policy experts — SAFE believes we need to be practical in building a bridge to a renewable future. We are active in promoting a wind farm off Salem Sound, one or more wind turbines in our city, increased renewable capacity through the Solarize Salem initiative, and city-wide energy efficiency.

The proposed plant would reduce regional carbon dioxide emissions while providing the high certainty of available energy when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. SAFE believes that it is too simplistic to draw a line in the sand with a cry of “no more fossil fuels.” Highly efficient gas plants, such as the one proposed for Salem, would help reduce emissions now as we scale up much-needed renewable energy projects going forward.

Colorado Governor proposes stricter fracking regs

According to the New York Times, Governor Hickenlooper is proposing to crack down on methane leaking from gas wells. The pollution has become so pervasive that Rocky Mountain National Park is experiencing elevated ozone readings.

Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado proposed on Monday tough new limits on leaks of methane and other gases from well sites and storage tanks. Supporters called the limits, which would exceed existing federal rules, the most sweeping in the nation.

Although the rules would also cover traditional petroleum and gas exploration and production, pollution from fracking — hydraulic fracturing, used to extract gas and oil from rock formations — is the driving force behind the proposal.

The proposal, which would directly regulate emissions of methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas, for the first time, came just after Colorado voters indicated their unease with the state’s booming oil and gas industry in elections this month.

Mr. Hickenlooper developed the proposal in negotiations with three of the state’s largest oil and gas developers — Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Encana Corporation and Noble Energy — and the Environmental Defense Fund, a national advocacy group.

Among other measures, it would require companies to regularly search for and repair gas leaks in their drilling and production equipment and to keep records of their findings. Read more.

Future of Power Generation in Salem

A Statement from the SAFE Board of Directors

SAFE has struggled with the environmental issues raised by the likely construction of another fossil fuel-burning plant on Salem Harbor. Like our allies in the environmental movement, we dream of a future in which energy demand is reduced dramatically by advances in energy efficiency, and is supplied by clean and renewable sources. We believe that this vision is achievable if our country and other nations rally to the urgency of the climate change crisis at hand. Even with an urgent mobilization, however, we expect the transition to a low-carbon world to take several decades to achieve. There will be no overnight fix to the climate crisis.

The City of Salem has before it a proposal by Footprint Power to redevelop the existing site of the Salem Harbor Generating Station.  This large, multi-year project would be the largest transformation of the Salem waterfront since the current plant’s construction in 1954-56.  Footprint Power is the new owner of the site and seeks to demolish the existing plant and related structures, remediate the entire site, and then build a 692 MW combined-cycle gas plant on 18-20 acres (on the eastern portion of the site, near the South Essex Sewage District facility).  The current plan calls for a tight timetable with the new plant online and ready to generate power by 2016.  Then, once the new plant was online, they would redevelop the remaining 38 acres of the site.

Salem Alliance for the Environment (SAFE) has expressed qualified support for this project for several reasons. Despite environmental concerns laid out below, we believe that the proposal, under the right circumstances, can provide a meaningful opportunity to transition to a renewable energy future.

Environmental Concerns

SAFE believes that people in the United States and around the world must heed the calls of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to reduce carbon emissions.  The last consensus report called for industrialized, G-8 countries to reduce their CO2 emissions by 80 percent or more by 2050 if not sooner.  This is a generation-defining and historic challenge we face and it will require major changes in US energy policy and the lifestyle of American citizens.

Consequently, SAFE has struggled with the environmental issues raised with respect to supporting another fossil fuel-burning plant on Salem Harbor.  While gas burns more cleanly than coal or oil, it still contributes to climate change.

In addition, this new plant would be using gas purchased from hydrofracking operations.  Because hydrofracking is not well regulated and is rapidly expanding, it has become an environmental threat. In some regions, hydrofracking is threatening the purity of ground water supplies. In addition, millions of cubic feet of methane are escaping into the atmosphere each year.  Methane (or CH4) is 26 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 (over a 100 year period). Thus, the science is uncertain as to whether the lifecycle carbon emissions from using natural gas are a substantial improvement over coal or oil. At the same time, we believe that appropriate regulation could significantly mitigate the environmental damage that results from the process, making natural gas an appropriate, if not ideal, “bridge” to a renewable energy future.

The Energy Transition

Our society needs to increase our use of renewable energy and reduce our consumption and dependence on fossil fuels for electricity and transportation. One viable path towards this future goal of relying more on renewable energy sources is to use high-efficiency, combined-cycle gas plants like the one being proposed for Salem. A plant with this design and technology can increase or decrease its power production at any given moment, and therefore is an ideal facility to be paired with large-scale renewable energy projects such as wind and solar farms, whose generation is intermittent and constantly changes.

The only other type of power generation readily available to do this is nuclear energy.  For obvious safety and environmental reasons, SAFE’s members do not support that option.  Rather we aspire to live in a society that harnesses the wind, the sun and waves to sustainably provide our country and planet with the energy it needs.

This sort of major transition will take a generation or more to accomplish.  It begins however with building and putting in place the infrastructure that opens up the potential to harness renewables. SAFE therefore supports the Footprint proposal, with qualifications, for the sake of this larger vision.

We take our role as local environmental advocates seriously. Our support is not, and has never been, unconditional; it is premised on our researched understanding that the proposed plant will contribute to the net de-carbonization of the regional grid, and will further enable, rather than impede, the development of renewable energy. Should these premises prove otherwise, or if evidence emerges that the proposed plant will undermine the general health or well being of Salem or its neighboring communities, SAFE’s position may change.

Addressing Climate Change

Addressing global climate change is a significant challenge for our community. We live in a coastal city that is already feeling the impact with increasingly high tides, severe weather, and coastal flooding. Though the proposed plant would be less polluting than its predecessor, the more energy it produces, the more CO2 it will release into the atmosphere. It is only appropriate as a transition, not as a solution. It does not in any way lessen the need for the government, or us as citizens, to keep driving down our carbon emissions, at the individual and societal level.

With this in mind, SAFE’s vision for our area includes the development of an off-shore wind farm off the coast of Salem and/or Cape Ann. Though there is no proposed plan for a maritime wind farm at this time, it is our belief that public opinion will come around on this topic as more people locally realize and understand the profound and urgent challenges we face in reducing carbon emissions here in New England.

As public sentiment grows in favor of offshore wind and as the market for such projects becomes more attractive, SAFE wants to ensure that this current plant will be “wind farm ready.” This plant will be situated right next to a major hub in the regional power grid. This is an ideal point of interconnection for a large-scale renewable energy project, especially when accompanied by a generation facility that can ramp up and down its generation relatively quickly and readily “firm” power generated from an offshore wind farm.

Community Benefits and Issues

A gas plant like this one can be a part of the larger transition to a low carbon economy and society, but this will not happen automatically.  Decisions and agreements now will frame the path of future development.  There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine and tides are not flowing.  During such moments, we will need reliable power generation over the next 50 years.  If this plant can allow, over the long run, an increased reliance of renewable energy here in eastern New England, then we support its construction with the provisions outlined below.

SAFE’s support for the proposed high-efficiency, combined-cycle gas plant on Salem Harbor is conditioned on the following:

1) There is an investment in infrastructure on the site now to make the proposed plant “maritime wind farm ready.”  This includes reviewing the proposed design to ensure that no new construction would make it more difficult to connect to a wind farm later.

2) The sound and emissions impacts on neighboring properties and the immediate area are measured, and estimated by a reputable independent engineering firm to be minimal or negligible.

3) Footprint agrees to provide a detailed description of the condition in which the remainder of the former power plant site will be left upon the final completion of the proposed new gas plant and before any other additional development commences.  If 20 acres of the 58 acres will be used for the gas plant, what will the remaining approximately 38 acres look like when the proposed plant is completed?  There is a concern that the portions of the property not be used for the new plant could be “fenced off” as an unattractive post-construction zone until other development projects are identified.

4) There is an agreement to create a robust and binding community benefits agreement (CBA) with the City that transfers with ownership of the plant.  Elements of this CBA would most likely need to include:

  •  A clear and legally binding dispute resolution process between the City and the Plant owners;
  • The assurance that the community will have input of how the remaining 38 acres of the larger site is developed;
  • The formation of a community foundation funded by the developers and owners of the facility but managed by an independent board of directors (as is called for in CBAs prepared for other cities hosting new, gas-fired generation plants.)
  • The identification of future opportunities to share heat processes with South Essex Sewage District (SESD), the largest user of power in Essex County. If waste heat from the power plant were used by SESD, there would be less need for cooling fans, reducing noise and local impacts. This is a potentially “low hanging piece of fruit” that would be tragic to ignore; conversely, a mutually beneficial, energy-saving relationship between the two facilities could result in significant energy savings.

5) The developers publicly pledge to advocate for strong oversight and regulation of hydrofracking. The process is now exempt from provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act that serve to protect underground sources of drinking water; and, as noted above, must reduce its methane emissions.

6) The proposed facility design meets green building and sustainable landscaping standards.

7) The plant offsets its carbon emissions locally, by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects that reduce the carbon footprint of the City of Salem. This could include supporting home weatherization, retrofitting public buildings, solar panels for all public buildings and residences that can make effective use of solar energy, small and large scale wind projects.  Some of this could be covered in a Community Benefits Agreement.
Ultimately, SAFE supports this proposed plant with the above qualifications because we see the potential for this plant to be part of one solution for meeting the problem of carbon emissions regionally and globally. This will only happen, however, if local and regional leaders and community members insist upon it. As sea level rises and storms grow more extreme and agricultural systems become compromised, concern about Climate Change will grow in urgency over the next 10 to 20 years. It is up to us as a society and a community to embrace that potential and support and pursue ways to live more lightly on this planet.

Footprint: Community Benefits Agreement

On June 13, 2013, SAFE presented a proposal to Mayor Driscoll to pursue a Community Benefits Agreement with Footprint Power, the developer that now owns Salem Harbor Station. The proposal focuses on two key community concerns: mitigating carbon emissions which contribute to climate change and therefore sea level rise, which could devastate our community, and a dispute resolution process. Read the full proposal here.

Senators introduce climate change bill

From Politico:

Riding the momentum of President Barack Obama’s pledges to tackle global warming, Senate liberals are giving climate legislation another try — despite the seemingly insurmountable odds of winning congressional approval.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) unveiled a climate bill Thursday that would put a price on carbon and rebate 60 percent of the revenue to U.S. citizens. Read more.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/forecast-for-new-climate-bill-gloomy-87686.html#ixzz2L0mc0Yyb

State official: Power plant will be cleaned up

by Tom Dalton

Staff Writer, Salem News

September 28, 2012

SALEM — The state will make sure that past and current owners are held responsible for the cleanup of the Salem Harbor Station power plant, the state’s top energy official said yesterday.

“We are not going to let any responsible party off the hook,” said Richard Sullivan, secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. “We need to hold everybody responsible.”

Read more.

September 19 Public Hearing: Energy Siting Board

The Siting Board will conduct a public comment hearing to receive public comments on the proposed Footprint Natural Gas Facility, which will replace the current coal facility at Salem Harbor Station.

The hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at Salem High School, 77 Wilson Street, Salem, Massachusetts. This is an important opportunity to hear from the developers.

At the public comment hearing, Footprint will present an overview of the proposed facility. Public officials and the public will then have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments about the proposed facility.  The Siting Board will also accept written comments on the proposed Facility at the public comment hearing.  Written comments also may be filed with the Siting Board at the address below, until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

The public comment hearings will be recorded by a court reporter.  Interpreters for both Spanish and Portuguese will be available at the public comment hearings for any members of the public who need translation in order to ask questions or make comments.