Action Alert: Calpine Enters Agreement with Spectra

ACTION ALERT--ACTION ALERT

We received a communication from FERC yesterday (see below) that Calpine has "entered into an agreement" with Spectra for the North Parcel. This letter was dated July 15th. Please call the Mayor and your Town Councilor and ask:

1) Was the town made aware of this agreement? What is the agreement?

2) We are aware that the original contract with the town (MOA) states that Calpine must be given approval by the town for any disposition of this land. Did the town approve anything?

3) The agreement also seems to change the lot size--yet again. Did Calpine do the proper applications for subdividing the property? If so, were the permits approved by the town planner?

Calpine has not been a good neighbor. They have received huge tax breaks from the town as part of the original agreement. If they broke the contract, we should demand back tax payments AND deny future tax breaks.

Your councilor's numbers:

Patrick O’Connor 781-335-0113
Michael Smart 781-331-8844
Robert M. Conlon 781-331-1177
Kenneth DiFazio 781-337-0687
Jane Hackett 781-331-2187
Ed Harrington 781-337-8488
Rebecca Haugh 781-205-4644
Thomas J. Lacey 781-331-2685
Arthur Mathews 781-331-2872
Brian McDonald 781-331-2641
Michael Molisse 781-331-4339

The Mayor:

Robert Hedlund 781-340-5012 or email
(RHedlund@weymouth.ma.us)

The argument of eminent domain does not hold up for a multitude of reasons and should not be used by Calpine as an excuse for not upholding their end of the contract.

We know that it is late in the day, so calling or emailing tomorrow would be great.

Thanks for all that you do!

Obama Issues Environmental Guidance on FERC

This is a good step, but we will need more than just "guidance" when it comes to reviewing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel infrastructure.

Read the whole article below or here.

from NPR.org:

"The Obama Administration instructed federal agencies to factor climate change impacts into required environmental reviews of large projects. The White House Council on Environmental Quality released its guidance this week, six years after the original draft proposal. The move clarifies reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, projects such as interstate pipelines and LNG export terminals undergo environmental reviews known as environmental impact statements, before gaining federal approval.

“In many cases, Federal actions have the potential to contribute to climate change by producing greenhouse gas emissions or alternatively, be affected by many of the impacts of a changing climate, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather, drought and wildfires,” read a statement released by the White House.

The White House guidance on climate change is just that – guidance. It’s not a new law or regulation and does not require congressional approval. But environmentalists who oppose pipeline projects reviewed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for example, say it’s a step in the right direction. Raul Garcia is an attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice.

“Everybody has a boss,” said Garcia. “This is basically [FERC's] boss telling them this is how to go about doing this kind of analysis. And if they don’t, we hope there would be further measures to make sure that they do.”

The guidance instructs agencies like FERC to calculate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that will result from a project, and stipulate how to mitigate the damage. It includes both direct and indirect impacts.

On its own, large amounts of carbon emissions won’t necessarily make federal agencies reject projects. But Garcia says it does make important information public.

“Then the public can hold elected officials accountable,” said Garcia.

Republicans oppose the move, saying it will postpone or eliminate important infrastructure projects.

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), which represents the natural gas pipeline industry, had asked the administration to withdraw the guidance. In comments made regarding the draft, INGAA argued the proposed guidance would not legally comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. It also said any one single project could not be linked to global climate change impacts.

“The nature of climate change is such that there is no causal connection—much less a reasonably foreseeable and proximate causal connection—between a single project’s GHG emissions and a climate change-related effect like sea-level rise.”

The industry association also commented that requiring a federal agency to examine the climate change impacts of a pipeline, contradicts the Obama Administration’s support for new infrastructure to transport natural gas to new markets."