August 30, 2017
August 23, 2017
LBWL Agrees to Retire Erickson Coal Plant by 2025
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 23, 2017
Contact:Emily Rosenwasser, Emily.Rosenwasser@sierraclub.org, 720-308-6055 Ricky Junquera, Ricky.Junquera@sierraclub.org, (617) 599-7048
Sierra Club Welcomes Commitment to Cleaner EnergyLANSING, Mich. - The Lansing Board of Water and Light (LBWL) will stop burning fossil fuels at its coal-fired Erickson Generating Station by December 2025 and commit to specific clean energy investments, under a settlement agreement announced today by Sierra Club. The agreement settles claims of Clean Air Act violations at LBWL’s Erickson and Eckert Generating Stations in Lansing, Michigan.The agreement also makes enforceable LBWL’s previously announced plans to retire the Eckert plant by December 2020. Along with the confirmed retirements, LBWL has committed to adding at least 106 megawatts of new wind and solar energy generation by December 31, 2020.Under the agreement, LBWL is further required to achieve a combined renewable energy-energy efficiency goal of 30 percent of their total retail sales by December 31, 2020, and 35 percent by December 31, 2025. LBWL will also establish a sustainability program designed to promote energy waste reduction or pollution prevention in the City of Lansing and surrounding community, with funding of at least $300,000.“As an asthmatic who has suffered from the health impacts of burning coal for decades, I celebrate the positive impact today’s announcement will have on public health in our region. This settlement clears the way for Lansing and LBWL to live up to their potential to be Michigan’s leading city in reaching clean energy and climate goals in coming decades,” said Anne Woiwode, Michigan Sierra Club volunteer leader. “We look forward to working hand in hand with Lansing to achieve that goal.”Last year, Sierra Club conducted a groundbreaking public opinion poll showing that Lansing voters are strongly in favor of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Three quarters think their part of Michigan should be using more renewable energy (76%) and energy efficiency (75%).
“Today’s announcement is a positive step toward prioritizing Michigan’s clean air and water, as well as protecting public health in the Lansing area. We have an opportunity now to avoid environmental and health risks in a way we did not have when coal-burning power was the only option,” said Regina Strong, director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign in Michigan. “Over the past five years we have seen large-scale solar and wind outperform coal, and now we are seeing renewable energy become even more competitive. We are pleased to reach this agreement with LBWL, which will help meet Mayor Virg Bernero’s commitment to climate action consistent with the Paris climate accord. This will go a long way in moving Lansing area residents toward the clean energy future they deserve, one that puts public health first.”“This is good news,” said Aaron Stephens, East Lansing community activist. “Clean energy is important for the future of our region and I am pleased to see the Lansing Board of Water and Light take these critical steps that move us away from the harmful effects of burning coal and toward an increase in renewable energy.”“This agreement between the Lansing Board of Water and Light and the Sierra Club will vastly improve the health outlook for thousands of area residents,” said Kindra Weid, RN, MPH and Coalition Coordinator of MI Air MI Health. “Retiring both the Eckert and Erickson coal-fired power plants by the end of 2025 will drastically reduce releases of several toxic chemicals polluting Michigan’s air and water. These include sulfur dioxide, which is a known irritant to people suffering from chronic respiratory conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. This is great news for our air and water quality and for public health. A healthier and cleaner future is possible!”The Erickson plant retirement commitment accounts for the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign’s 257th announced coal plant closure since 2010.###About the Sierra ClubThe Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 2.7 million members and supporters. In addition to helping people from all backgrounds explore nature and our outdoor heritage, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org.
August 14, 2017
Sierra Club Statement on White Supremacist Terrorism in Charlottesville, Virginia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 12, 2017
Sierra Club Statement on White Supremacist Terrorism in Charlottesville, Virginia
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Sierra Club’s Executive Director Michael Brune released the following statement after violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia left at least three people dead and 19 injured.
“The Sierra Club condemns this act of white supremacist terrorism in the strongest possible terms. Our thoughts are with those injured and killed and our hearts are with those who are peacefully speaking out to stop hate from gaining another inch in our country and those who are living in fear because of that hate. No one who took to the streets of Charlottesville fueled by bigotry and brandishing the symbols of fascism that so many Americans fought and died to tear down has any claim on the mantle of patriotism. Instead, it is more important than ever that they be called out for exactly what they are: vile and unacceptable racists preaching division and hatred that stands in opposition to the values of equality and justice that must drive our nation forward. Hatred and racism have long played a disgraceful part of American history, but there can be no doubt that those who spew white supremacy feel empowered right now when they see allies in the corridors of power. These bigots must be condemned, not coddled, and we are in solidarity with those elected officials, residents of Charlottesville, and people all over this country who are speaking out for an America that pushes forward toward justice, not slides backward into hatred and fear.”
###
About the Sierra Club
The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with more than 3 million members and supporters. In addition to helping people from all backgrounds explore nature and our outdoor heritage, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org.
Sierra Club President Blackford encourages Sierra Club members, supporters and staff to join the events being held in solidarity with those in Charlottesville tonight and tomorrow.
August 11, 2017
Washtenaw County Road Commission Accuses Nexus Pipeline of “Bullying” Tactics
Complaint submitted to FERC urges denial of Nexus
application
August 11, 2017
Contact: Nancy Shiffler, (734) 971-1157 nshiffler@comcast.net
Lansing, MI – Just as a US Senate
confirmation vote re-established a quorum on the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), the Washtenaw County Road Commission Managing Director, Roy
Townsend, submitted a comment letter to FERC urging the commission to deny the
current application for the Nexus natural gas pipeline. The proposed pipeline route runs through Ohio
and into Michigan’s Lenawee, Monroe and Washtenaw County.
The letter notes Nexus’ refusal to
honor the County’s safety, operational, and maintenance concerns for the
numerous roads the pipeline would cross: “Nexus
also insists on creating driveway access points at improper, unsafe locations,
even where nearby, safe locations exist, and in violation of all published
safety standards.” While noting the
company’s claims that a FERC certificate would allow it to pre-empt and
override local regulations, Townsend states, “Nexus repeatedly and vastly overstates the breadth of pre-emption, to
the point of literally claiming Nexus can do whatever it wants, whenever it
wants.” The full text of the letter
can be found at
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/
The Road Commission is not alone in
receiving this kind of treatment from Nexus.
Kathy Schoen, owner of Washtenaw County farmland along the proposed
pipeline route, states, “This is the same
kind of arrogant and dismissive treatment landowners and local communities have
received for their safety and property concerns. Nexus does
and says whatever it takes to get what they want.”
The Road Commission letter also
addresses the issues of road clean up and repair: “Most
shockingly, Nexus has refused any responsibility even to assure that our public
roads are cleaned up and repaired after Nexus’ construction is completed.” The Road Commission’s concerns about road
damage are well founded considering the collapse of M-50 in Lenawee County
during Energy Transfer Partner’s construction of the Rover pipeline.
###
August 10, 2017
Canada chooses to ignore Line 5 risk, omits dangerous pipeline from new report
Canada chooses to ignore Line 5 risk, omits dangerous pipeline from new report
Canadian agency removes any reference to Line 5 risk from key environmental planning report
LANSING – Oil & Water Don’t Mix voiced concern today that the Government of Canada omitted the massive risk posed by Enbridge Energy’s 64-year-old Line 5 pipelines from its Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP), a comprehensive plan for restoring and protecting Lake Huron.
“It is clear that Canada is committed to maximizing profits for Canadian oil companies by skirting the facts about the Line 5 pipelines, regardless of the devastating impact of a Line 5 oil spill on our Great Lakes,” said David Holtz, chair of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and campaign coordinator forOil & Water Don’t Mix. “Michiganders bear all the risk of an oil spill while Canada keeps pumping oil through the aging pipelines, which is why we’re counting on Attorney General Schuette to stand up for Michiganders and shut down Line 5.”
The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States requires both governments to work together to develop a protection plan for each of the Great Lakes that identifies threats to each lake.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, a Canadian government agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for developing the LAMPs. The draft report that omits Enbridge Line 5, follows a letter sent last week from the Ontario Minister of Energy to the state of Michigan requesting Gov. Rick Snyder keep oil flowing through Line 5 – a clear sign that Canada is working hard to keep Line 5 pumping, no matter the risk to Michigan.
The deadline for public comment on the Lake Huron plan is Sept. 5. Comments can be submitted at https://binational.net/2017/07/21/lhlamp-pddplh/.
###
Oil & Water Don’t Mix is a broad campaign of organizations, citizens and businesses across Michigan who are working to keep oil out of our Great Lakes by shutting down the dangerous, 64-year-old Line 5 Pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. The campaign fights for clean water and air, Indigenous rights, reducing pollution, sustainable economies and protecting sporting, tourism and jobs that are dependent on our water and Pure Michigan way of life.
Learn more at www.oilandwaterdontmix.org.
August 5, 2017
Sierra Club Line 5 Comments to MDEQ, Michigan AG and Michigan DoE
August 3, 2017
|
Director Heidi Grether
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30458
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958 |
Ms. Valerie Brader
Executive Director
Michigan Agency for Energy
Attn: Line 5 Pipeline Study
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7958 |
|
Director Keith Creagh Michigan Department of Natural Resources Executive Division P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 |
Attorney General Bill Schuette G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor 525 West Ottawa Street P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, Michigan 48909 |
VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION
RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DYNAMIC RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS, INC.’S JUNE 27, 2017, DRAFT FINAL REPORT – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR THE STRAITS PIPELINE
We are writing to submit public comment on the Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc.’s June 27, 2017, Draft Final Report – Alternatives Analysis for the Straits Pipeline (“Line 5 alternatives draft report” or “draft report”) prepared for the State of Michigan concerning the Enbridge Line 5 pipelines in the Mackinac Straits. This submission is in addition to comments submitted on behalf of Sierra Club and other organizations by the Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign.
In these supplemental comments, Sierra Club will focus on the following three errors and omissions in the report:
- Failure to recognize that decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac is the only alternative that will prevent an oil spill with catastrophic consequences for the Great Lakes and the State of Michigan.
- Unfair bias towards building a tunneled pipeline.
- Serious conflict of interest concerns and failure to provide the state with an independent, fair analysis of the alternatives to Line 5.
Decommissioning Line 5 is the only alternative to prevent an oil spill
As stated in comments submitted on Sierra Club’s behalf by Oil & Water Don’t Mix,
we believe the state must end its delay in taking action on Line 5 and exercise its
authority through enforcement of its 1953 easement, an agreement that Enbridge
has consistently violated. Moreover, the Alternatives Analysis itself makes a strong
case for decommissioning Line 5 if the interests of Michigan’s citizens are a priority
over the commercial interests of Enbridge.
Despite the study’s bias toward Enbridge’s interest, the draft report clearly
documents the fact that less than 5% of crude oil and natural gas liquids transported
through Line 5 remain in Michigan and that feasible options exist for Michigan to
replace any loss of transport from Line 5. In other words, despite their apparent
effort to downplay decommissioning as the best alternative, the report’s authors
document how little Michigan benefits from Line 5 and that there are readily
available and preferable options for Michigan to access energy through other means.
Moreover, the draft report ‘s analysis of risk supports Sierra Club’s position that
immediate action is needed to decommission Line 5 because of the threat of an oil
pipeline rupture. The draft report prepared by oil industry firms claims the risk of a
Line 5 pipeline rupture in the Straits presents a 1 in 60 chance of a spill by 2053.
The flaws in this analysis that result in the study’s lowered risk assessment are
thoroughly discussed by Dr. Ed Timm and other commenters. Dr. Ed Timm, whose
analysis takes into account the age and likely condition of the pipeline, documents a
46% likelihood of an oil spill in the Straits over the next 36 years. But the bottom
line is that both estimates of the risk of a pipeline rupture are unacceptable to
anyone whose primary interests are protecting Michigan and the Great Lakes.
Which brings us to comment on a major flaw in the study that undermines its
usefulness and purpose in comparing and analyzing alternatives.
In a March 7, 2017 letter we wrote to the governor’s Pipeline Safety Advisory Board,
Sierra Club raised concerns with the Scope of Work for the Alternatives Analysis.
Instead of comparing alternatives on the basis of impacts on Michigan and its energy
economy, the draft report would undertake a regional analysis, which, we said,
would “skew the analysis toward Enbridge’s interests.” It was as inexplicable to us
then as it is to us now why the State of Michigan approved a Scope of Work for Dynamic Risk that required Michigan to take into account Enbridge’s vast regional
transport network and needs using an analytic approach certain to favor Enbridge’s
private interests over the public interest in protecting the Great Lakes and
Michigan’s tourism economy. Predictably, the draft report clearly favors outcomes
that would continue and potentially expand Enbridge’s transport capacity—
something that is, at best, only incidental to Michigan’s interests. The study fails to
objectively assess the availability of viable alternatives using the existing regional
Enbridge pipeline infrastructure, instead relying on Enbridge's assertions that there
is no capacity to offset the transport of products through Line 5.
If Michigan’s interests are paramount, the weight of evidence in support of
decommissioning Line 5 is overwhelming. The State of Michigan must correct its
original sin of allowing oil industry consultants to study what’s in Enbridge’s private
interests by eliminating from consideration in any final decision-making on Line 5
any alternative that does not prioritize protecting Michigan and the Great Lakes.
Dynamic Risk also failed to fulfill the state’s scope of work by assuming that there
was a requirement to study only alternatives that continued to allow the same
amount of product to be moved from oil fields to refineries. A full range of
alternatives would have required consideration of the time frame for continued
production of oil and gas from the Bakken field and others that produce the light
crude which the state of Michigan and Enbridge have agreed is the only type of oil
allowed through Line 5. The Bakken field has already passed its peak production
point, yet there is an assumption in all of the alternatives that comparable amounts
of oil will be produced and shipped from there to the refineries indefinitely. An
unbiased alternatives analysis demands fully factoring in the inevitable decline in
products flowing through this regional system, and ensuring that Michigan is not
seeing either the replacement of the existing pipelines nor alternatives such as a
tunnel that would impose a burden on the state in the future when they would be
abandoned. In addition, the state must request from Enbridge what their plans are
for decommissioning any existing or proposed new pipelines and what other
products they plan to run through the Line 5 pipeline when the Bakken field is
played out.
Unfair Bias Toward Building A Tunnel
Dynamic Risk showed a bias toward building a tunnel in its original proposal to do
the report, and its analysis of costs and risks appears to be both cursory and flawed.
- They note in their report that a large risk to the project would be inadequate exploration of the subsurface along the excavation route. They admit their report was based on existing data, primarily from the bridge construction, and represents only a preliminary screening; they were unable to do an adequate study of the specific tunnel route. The report does identify a deep trough running through the middle of the Straits, either from a fault zone or an ancient river channel, but was unable to determine its actual depth. Even without this information and with limited knowledge of the rock characteristics, they advocate crossing the trough using extra grouting for support as adequate and less costly than tunneling under the full depth of the trough. Considerable more analysis is needed to determine the geologic suitability of a tunnel.
- Tunnel construction is estimated to take 27 months, require 4 to 7 acres for the staging areas at each end of the tunnel, and will use both drilling and blasting to penetrate and remove rock and soil. The report notes that this process will require trucking the extracted material for disposal, impacting roads, traffic, noise, and air quality. However, beyond an extensive analysis of the impact construction crews would have on seasonal rental housing, there is little effort to actually quantify these community impacts. Nor is there any mention of the impacts blasting, noise and dust might have on historical sites such as nearby Fort Michilimackinac or on Native American fishing right protected by treaty.
- A number of other risks are mentioned – construction accidents, groundwater intrusion during construction, breakout of drilling hydraulic fluids, leak detections during operations. However, the report simply assumes that proper safeguards will mitigate these risks, without quantifying the risks and the costs of mitigating them.
The report’s analysis of this alternative provides a very preliminary description of the process and issues and an inadequate and flawed quantification of its operation. The result is a rosy scenario in favor of a tunnel with cost estimates that lack credibility.
Conflicts of Interest and A Failed Process
Sierra Club believes two related, major barriers exist that may unnecessarily result
in months or years of delay in addressing the threat of Line 5 pipelines to the Great
Lakes. This is on top of what has already been more than three years of failure by
Gov. Snyder and Attorney General Schuette to take action after the urgency of the
Line 5 threat emerged. One barrier is the Pipeline Safety Advisory Board Line 5
study process. This process is without any criteria for decision-making, has no
defined timeline for making a decision on alternatives and is being conducted
outside any legal framework such as the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and
Michigan Environmental Protection Act that could form a basis for evaluating
alternatives. The other, related process failure is a conflict of interest.
In November 2015 Sierra Club wrote Gov. Snyder asking him to remove Enbridge
Energy and Marathon from his Pipeline Safety Advisory Board. We pointed out that
having Enbridge and Marathon as part of the official process of evaluating
Enbridge’s Line 5 presented obvious conflicts of interest and threatened the
credibility of the advisory board. We also asked the governor to ensure that
Enbridge’s influence over the state’s Line 5 work would not extend to paying for
studies. In a March 2017 letter to the Pipeline Safety Advisory Board Sierra Club
also raised significant concerns about conflicts involving the project team working
on the Line 5 draft reports.
Instead of removing these conflicts, the governor and state officials continued along
a questionable path that has resulted in a failed process. The state allowed Enbridge
to pay for the $3.6 million studies. In addition, the Line 5 risk analysis failed to be
completed on time because of a conflict of interest involving an employee who was
simultaneously working for Enbridge while being paid to provide an “independent”
analysis of Line 5.
Moreover, the draft alternative report’s lead contractor, Dynamic Risk, was
reportedly working for Enbridge on a related pipeline and doing the Line 5
“independent” alternatives study for the State of Michigan. Other questions have
been raised regarding relationships between Enbridge, Dynamic Risk and other Line
5 study project team members and there is credible evidence that the draft
alternatives report is biased in Enbridge’s favor.
Much or all of this could have been avoided if the state had chosen a more credible
Line 5 study process—one reflecting the seriousness of the endeavor to protect the
Great Lakes. One that certainly would have required funding from the state instead
of Enbridge and one headed by one of Michigan’s premier research universities or
other qualified, independent entities working with and holding accountable other
project team members. One that was conducted within existing Michigan laws.
What would be a mistake is if state officials compound these errors by allowing
this failed study process to slow if not stop progress toward removing Line 5’s
threat. The best—perhaps only—way to do that is to bring Enbridge under the
rule of law and evaluate risks and alternatives under the Great Lakes Submerged
Lands Act for its current anchor permit request, and begin the process of
decommissioning Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac to protect the Great Lakes from
a catastrophic oil spill.
Respectfully submitted,
David Holtz, Chair
Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Executive Committee
Anne Woiwode, Chair
Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Conservation Committee
Nancy Shiffler, Chair
Sierra Club Michigan Chapter Beyond Natural Gas & Oil Committee
August 4, 2017
Detroit News: DNR Says Line 5 Study Flawed
Lansing — A company hired to look into alternatives and risks associated with running the Enbridge Line 5 oil and natural gas pipeline running under the Straits of Mackinac left out key environmental information, according to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Environmentalists who want Line 5 shut down over the potential for a spill or leak were quick to highlight the state’s comments.
“Our state’s Great Lakes, shorelines and ecosystems are what make Michigan unique, and a catastrophic oil spill from the 64-year-old Line 5 pipelines poses a totally unacceptable risk to our natural resources,” said David Holtz, chair of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and campaign coordinator of Oil & Water Don’t Mix.
“The fact that a state agency has pointed out serious shortcomings in the study only reinforces the need for the state not to allow this flawed study to continue delaying action to decommission Line 5 in the Straits. Attorney General Schuette has the legal duty to protect our Great Lakes.”
Also upmatters.com reported on the OilandWaterDontMix press release
August 3, 2017
More than 21,000 call on AG Schuette to shut down Enbridge Line 5 in Straits
More than 21,000 call on AG Schuette to shut down Enbridge Line 5 in Straits
As state’s official comment period for Line 5 Alternatives Analysis closes, public demands immediate shutdown of oil pipelines in Straits
LANSING – Oil & Water Don’t Mix today announced it expects to submit more than 21,000 comments by a Friday deadline demanding Attorney General Bill Schuette shut down Line 5.
“The Alternatives Analysis downplays the massive risk and catastrophic impact of a Line 5 oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac, and Attorney General Schuette must act now to protect our Great Lakes,” said David Holtz, chair, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and campaign coordinator for Oil & Water Don’t Mix. “The overwhelming response delivered by more than 21,000 people who care about protecting the Great Lakes sends a clear message: Line 5 must be shut down immediately.”
Last month, the State of Michigan held public feedback sessions across the state, where hundreds of Michigan residents attended to call for a Line 5 shutdown. Five of Gov. Snyder’s appointees to the Pipeline Safety Advisory Board signed a letter in July voicing concerns that the Alternatives Analysis was solely designed to support Enbridge’s interests.
“Responsibility for Line 5 falls on our elected leaders, and they must take full responsibility for the health of our Great Lakes by shutting down Line 5,” said Sean McBrearty of Clean Water Action. “Our Great Lakes are too precious to risk a catastrophic oil spill any longer, and the thousands of comments submitted by Michiganders should serve as a wake-up call to Bill Schuette.”
“The Alternatives Analysis was a missed opportunity to reveal to the public the dangers and risks of Line 5,” said Liz Kirkwood, director of FLOW. “The state should not waste any more time on this flawed alternatives study. Instead, it should conduct a thorough, independent analysis of the condition of Line 5 and immediately shut down the flow of oil through the pipelines in the meantime.”
###
Oil & Water Don’t Mix is a broad campaign of organizations, citizens, and businesses across Michigan working to keep oil out of our Great Lakes by shutting down the dangerous, 64-year-old Line 5 Pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. The campaign fights for clean water and air, Indigenous rights, reducing pollution, sustainable economies, and protecting sporting, tourism and jobs that are dependent on our water and Pure Michigan way of life. Learn more at oilandwaterdontmix.org.
David Holtz
david@davidholtz.org
Mobile & Text: 313-300-4454
david@davidholtz.org
Mobile & Text: 313-300-4454
Exploring, Enjoying,
Protecting Michigan
Protecting Michigan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)