All of the strategies undertaken by our incredible team of allies led to a proposed sea-change by this Air Board toward actual protections in the policies Virginia has signed and agreed to. Environmental Justice [EJ] was the key linchpin. For those of us who worked on that directly, we are forever in the debt of Mary Finley-Brook who mobilized the ACEJ [The Governor’s Advisory Council on Environmental Justice] on our behalf. This brought the demographic and historic research, that gives the evidence to counter the erasure out of the permitting processes and media black hole, to the light of day and public outrage.

Wonderfully, very compelling, was Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s comments by Jon Mueller that included expert technical details about the effects of the CS air emissions on the Chesapeake Bay. Apparently it helped a lot that FoB /grassroots met with Nikki Rovner, [the only air board member to meet with us], on Monday 11/5. She also met with SELC [Southern Environmental Law Center] / legal experts the next day on Air Board powers from key policies and legislation signed onto.

Both EJ and air emission’s impact on water left Mike Dowd [Director of DEQ Air Division] sputtering that they had never been considered before in an air permit. MIke tried to put forward precedence (he’s a lawyer) that site issues are entirely left to local BoS’s and City Council’s review. But, as I and others pointed out in local-based comments, if EJ is the issue, how can the place, where the legacy of slavery lives on in daily discrimination, be able to change that legacy to stop an air permit that Dominion wants? Also note the absurdity of the DEQ saying that the BoS granted the SUP, so the BoS approved the site. Whereas the BoS relinquished their power to deny the SUP, claiming they had no power to say no to the state or the federal governments.

Never had DEQ considered air emissions’ impacts on our waters. Mike Dowd couldn’t even speak — he was so taken aback and kept sputtering that Air Division does not have the regulatory authority to include this in a review of an air permit. Anyone who was not present must imagine the open-mouthed disbelief on Mike Dowd’s face when Sam Bleicher, [air board] asked him how is it possible to not consider air emissions’ impacts on water?

Thankfully, several of us in our expert comments also had made that point about the air permit. The segmenting of parts, water or air, etc was part of our co-authored EJ Collaborative letter to the agencies, DEQ and more.

Many of us felt that if they had held the vote Friday, it would have been 4:2 against the air permit. Dominion’s last minute submission of a hefty tome of new information including the $5.1 M Union Hill “revitalization package arrived at over years of being good neighbors”  and new promises of monitoring in face of excellent, technical comments made publicly on Thursday kept Dominion writers up all night.

After Board adjournment and decision to postpone on Friday, I talked with Matt Gooch, the Air Board’s consulting lawyer [with Rebecca Rubin sitting there]. I addressed all comments to Matt, following the Board Chair’s strong declaration that no new info could be submitted to the Board by the public). Matt made no effort to advise Rebecca to leave. He was very open to my question about making a formal procedural complaint — said he could not comment but that “you are in good hands with SELC.”

My procedural question is: how can Dominion enter new monitoring information details into the permit on the day of the vote when there is no opportunity for public response? When, we, the public are constrained by no-new-info submission after 9/21/18, the date of the close of public comment? And, how can the Board vote with that new information as part of the permit, when DEQ’s Friday comments included misinformation and erasure/mashup calculation of 1-mile radius demographics? And, the “new info” of Dominion’s promises of more monitoring of the CS site and $5.1 M “revitalization project” and record of community involvement for years with Union Hill? Yet, no procedural way to counter through public comment those “technical” changes?

FoB wants to express gratitude to Tom Hadwin who jumped in at last moment to come to hearing on Thursday when in working with our roster of commenters FoB realized that no one was going to have time to present his evidence of no-need for the ACP — thus for the compressor station — and the gas market update. The Board cited this information about Dominion taking all new gas fired power plants off the table. Sam directly asked Dominion about that, and whether the intersection of the Transco is for export?  Two Dominion staff tried to wriggle their way out of both questions. (Suprisingly, they were so taken on the back foot on those points.) One was called up to sputter that perhaps they would convert a coal-fired plant to gas, question mark? “NOT FOR EXPORT!” they declared.

Yet I for one in my comment had cited the stockholder meeting when CEO Tom Farrell proudly began with images of the LNG at Cove Point’s new facility, and Japanese tanker loading up. Mr Farrell told me in a comment/question period, that “no, he would not change the application to include the actual population at the CS site.” After stating he was aware of the study findings. The contradiction is evident: 1] convince stockholders this is a great deal and 2] try to erase the fact to Virginia regulatory bodies and ratepayers that this is for export .