EPCAL follies: the last act

Riverhead Town is in over its head at EPCAL, as various town administrations have demonstrated again and again. The proof is in the pudding. The town has presided over one bad idea and botched project after another at the former Grumman site.

The false starts and bad deals at EPCAL are for two disparate reasons, connected by one theme: short-sightedness.

First, the town has looked upon the 2,900-acre gift from the U.S. government as a cash cow, land to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Second, the town has let its fear of an airport there color everything it's done -- and not done -- with the site.

So, before the town even got title to the property, it sold off the so-called industrial core of the site -- the existing buildings and much of the infrastructure -- for just $17 million to one "developer" who turned out to be not very interested in development at all. Jan Burman was more of a middleman. He flipped the property to others so quickly -- at a handsome profit -- he didn't even bother to wait for his subdivision map to be approved.

Then the town created a bizarre patchwork of zoning for the property outside the "industrial core." This anything-but-an-airport zoning scheme is what's made the rest of the site virtually undevelopable. It calls for things like theme parks, sports stadiums, hotels and golf course condominiums. All this on a site that has no road access capable of moving thousands of cars at once, something necessary for a sports stadium or theme park. Duh.

Remember the colossal traffic jam for the air show in September 2003? There was bumper-to-bumper traffic for miles, stretching west on Route 25 from the park entrance all the way to William Floyd Parkway in Ridge, and then miles south to the Expressway. The only way to bring tens of thousands of people to a theme park at EPCAL is a direct-access road to the site from the LIE -- which requires cutting a new road through preserved Pine Barrens. Yeah, right. Maybe with climate change, hell will eventually freeze over. But that road ain't gettin' built.

The town's inability to properly develop the Calverton lack-of-enterprise park is so complete that the open fields next to the runways where Grumman used to test its F-14 Tomcat fighter jets have overgrown and are now foraging habitat for protected species. In other words, the town's paralysis over the years since it's controlled the site has been so thorough, it managed to effectively turn the former naval weapons reserve plant -- officially a "brownfields" site in need of environmental remediation -- into a nature preserve.

Congratulations, Riverhead.

Dick Amper and the environmental folks would be giving the town a conservation award for its stewardship of the site and creation of new "critical habitat" were it not for the town's insistence on selling off the rest of its holdings at EPCAL to a developer who plans to build "eight themed resorts," including a 350-foot-tall indoor ski mountain, smack in the middle of the "grasslands."

State Sen. Ken LaValle, fed up with town's shenanigans at EPCAL, is calling for regional management of the site. The town, he says, should come to grips with the fact that developing EPCAL properly is beyond its capability. He's right. The senator wants to broker a deal where the town will retain "the right to say yes or no" to development proposals at the site, but where stewardship and oversight will rest in a regional entity that has the resources to do the job correctly.

That means tax base and meaningful jobs from development compatible with the site's ecosystems and its supporting infrastructure. It can be done. Look at what's going on in and around county-run Gabreski Airport, where the county is using the Empire Zone designation (transferred out of EPCAL in 2004, by the way) to develop the Hamptons Business and Technology Park -- also in the Pine Barrens region.

Why, then, in Riverhead, do we insist on trading meaningful economic development for minimum-wage amusement park and hospitality jobs?

Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.

Scare them with hard facts

Note: I know how totally lame I've been about blogging, and I apologize. I wish I could figure out how to post every day, or at least a few times a week. Thank you for the notes and expressions of concern. All is well. I have too much on my plate and I've just been too busy to write. I hope to get back into the groove soon. Meanwhile, here's my column from this week's Suffolk Times and News-Review.
All the best- Denise

"Scare them with hard facts"

It's every parent's nightmare.

An inexperienced kid behind the wheel, perhaps driving too fast. Maybe there's alcohol involved, but maybe not. The lack of experience, the other kids in the car, music blasting, friends laughing. Kidding around.

In an instant, everything changes.

Screeching tires, the sound of metal being crushed against a fence, glass shattering, and the laughter turns to screams. Or silence. Dead silence.

Hardly a week passes at the newspaper when our fax machine doesn't spit out a press release from the county police department announcing the premature and violent death in a car crash of one or more people between the ages of 14 and 22.

As the mother of two teenage girls, I take a special interest in these notices.

On Saturday morning, I found a press release from Southold Town police in my e-mail in-box, advising that five teenagers were involved in what sounded like a very serious car accident on Route 25 in East Marion. Four of them were ejected from the car, a Toyota convertible, which flipped after swerving and leaving the roadway. The driver was a 17-year-old. Her passengers ranged in age from 13 (her younger sister) to 16. One child was airlifted to Stony Brook University Hospital, the press release said. That's never a good sign.

I was still at the computer when my soon-to-be-16-year-old woke up. "Look at this," I told her, opening the police e-mail message -- hoping friends of hers weren't involved in the incident.

This hit very close to home. All week, she'd been lobbying to go out with her new boyfriend, who'd just turned 17 and was the brand-new holder of a New York State driver's license.

"No," I said.

"You're so overprotective."

"No."

"He's very responsible."

"I know, but still no. Sorry."

"Sooner or later, you've got to let go."

She's right. I will. I know. Maybe I am overprotective and maybe he is the most responsible 17-year-old boy in the world.

But this is my baby we're talking about here. And I'm just not ready for this.

Enough with the emotion, though. How about some facts and stats?

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teens in the U.S., accounting for 36 percent of all deaths in this age group, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control.

The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16- to 19-year-olds than among any other age group. Teens 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash.

The presence of teen passengers increases the crash risk of unsupervised teen drivers; the risk increases with the number of teen passengers.

Crash risk is particularly high during the first year that teenagers are eligible to drive.

Teens are more likely than older drivers to underestimate hazardous situations or dangerous situations or not be able to recognize hazardous situations.

Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed and tailgate.

Among male drivers between 15 and 20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes in 2005, 38 percent were speeding at the time of the crash and 24 percent had been drinking.

Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use.

In 2005, 23 percent of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in motor vehicle crashes had a blood alcohol content of 0.08 (the legal limit in New York) or higher.

In 2005, half of teen deaths from motor vehicle crashes occurred between 3 p.m. and midnight and 54 percent occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.

Teen drivers are much more willing to use cell phones, text messaging and PDAs while driving.

Text messaging while driving. As if making or receiving cell phone calls weren't bad enough!

It's a miracle those five North Fork teens weren't killed or more seriously injured. Thank God. They got a tough but no doubt long-lasting lesson about driving, risk-taking and the fragility of life this weekend.

How do you and I, people who've been around the block a few times, share this lesson with other youngsters? One EMT, a 10-year veteran of the emergency service corps who responded to the scene of the horrific crash Friday night, said she gives her kids "a scared straight lesson every day."

If you, like me, have teenage children, what have you done to scare your kids straight today? If you're like me, you probably haven't done enough. Worrying is not enough. Plain talk about risks and statistics -- early and often -- is the minimum we must do. Forcing them to read this column is probably a good place to start.

For more information, go to the state Department of Motor Vehicles Web site about teen drivers: http://www.dmv.org/ny-new-york/teen-drivers.php.

What was on his mind? Not Broadwater!

While we were fretting over what Gov. Eliot Spitzer was thinking about the Shell/TransCanada plan to build a floating natural gas terminal in the middle of our estuary, Mr. Spitzer, it turns out, had other things on his mind.

Our busy governor was so busy it was hard for him to carve half an hour out of his schedule to meet with environmentalists about his Broadwater position. But he wasn’t too busy to find time to make complicated arrangements for the delivery of $4,000 or so in cash to his call-girl service.

It’s ironic that, on the very day Mr. Spitzer finally granted an audience to Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment — Feb. 11 — he was apparently quite preoccupied arranging his transaction with the Emperor’s Club for his “date” with a high-priced hooker two days later. He was on the phone with the “booking agent” that day, making arrangements for the delivery of cash the following day, to pay a prostitute’s fee for sex in a Washington, D.C., hotel room on Feb. 13, according to documents published on The New York Times Web site this week. Presumably he had to personally withdraw the cash from his bank that day, too. No wonder he was too busy to spend a lot of time with Ms. Esposito in Albany that day. She reported after her meeting, which lasted all of 20 minutes, that the governor didn’t do a lot of talking, which surprised her. Going into it, she said, she was concerned that he’d talk more than listen.

But was he listening or was he distracted with the other matters on his mind that day?
Did the governor seem preoccupied on the day of your meeting? I asked Ms. Esposito yesterday. She hadn’t thought about it, she said. In fact, she hadn’t made the connection between the timing of her meeting with the governor and his preparations to meet the prostitute called “Kristen” in a Washington, D.C., hotel room two days later.
What does all this mean for Broadwater, anyway?

I was told by a source inside the agency more than two months ago that the N.Y. State Department had already completed its consistency review of the Broadwater plan. I’ve been told the agency found the Broadwater natural gas terminal proposal inconsistent with the state’s adopted waterfront management policy. The DOS determination of inconsistency could be the death knell for Broadwater. So Shell and TransCanada put the full court press on Mr. Spitzer, meeting with him and apparently convincing him to agree to a 60-day extension of the consistency ruling deadline, to allow the energy companies time to woo public opinion and allow the governor enough wiggle room to reverse his agency’s decision. Mr. Spitzer, reeling from a tough first year in the governor’s mansion — what with the “troopergate” scandal and the driver’s license fiasco — was understandably reluctant to further irritate voters.
So much for that.

Now, it seems, all the energy and effort that’s gone into convincing Mr. Spitzer to do the right thing for L.I. Sound was probably for naught, as the state’s decision on Broadwater will probably be made during the Paterson administration. There is a chance, I suppose, that Mr. Spitzer could see to it that the DOS decision — up or down — is issued before his March 17 departure date. Incoming Gov. David Paterson, if he’s got any political sense, would want this one to hang on his predecessor’s head, don’t you think?

But assuming the Broadwater decision does not make Mr. Spitzer’s short list of to-do items to be tidied up in the next four days, the attention of everyone on both sides of the Broadwater controversy must now focus on Mr. Paterson, to whom most people have not paid very much attention before Monday.

Mr. Paterson, to his credit, has a strong interest in renewable energy, and lists among his priorities as lieutenant governor increasing the use of renewable energy in New York. That has to be a plus for Broadwater opponents.

On the other hand, the former State Senate minority leader is a NYC guy, with NYC political connections and interests. That will be a plus for Broadwater, which is seen by NYC officials as a needed source of new natural gas.

Around and around and around it goes. Where it stops, nobody knows.

The burden of bearing bad news

No one said this job was going to be easy.

Just about everything you do, every decision you make, is scrutinized by thousands of people. You lay yourself on the line every week, opening yourself to the criticism that comes along with that kind of scrutiny. And you do it in the context of a small-town community, a place where everybody knows everyone else.

And every mistake you make is made on the public stage.

All of that comes with the territory.

Assessing my perceived thick skin, a coworker recently remarked, "You don't care if people don't like you." That's not exactly true. I'm no different from everyone else; I want to be liked. But I understand that the job I have to do often requires me to make decisions that get people mad at me, even make them dislike me (or worse).

So, you steel yourself for it. Buck up and take it. You do it because you believe in your work, believe in the inherent value of what you do, you believe in the importance of good community journalism. You do your best to do the right thing, present the facts, tell the truth -- because that's what you're supposed to do.

At no time is this job tougher than when it requires you to make a decision like the one I had to make last week, when a local woman, a woman employed in the classroom in our local public school system, was arrested and charged with statutory rape as a result of an alleged sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy.

All sorts of things go through your head when you hear something like that.

As the mother of a 15-year-old myself, I admit to having a visceral protective reaction. Child sexual abuse angers me.

As the editor and co-publisher of the local newspaper, I have to deal with it on an entirely different level. It is our job to report the news -- fairly, truthfully, accurately. And this is the kind of news that is especially difficult and tricky to report. Because what is alleged to have happened is a tragedy for all involved -- for the child, the abuser, their families, the school district, the community. It's difficult and tricky because we are a small, close-knit community and this news (like almost all the news we report) affects our neighbors, colleagues, friends and the people we work for -- you, our readers. It's even more difficult and tricky for us, as your local newspaper, when the story, like the one in question, is one that's picked up by the wire services and published by print and broadcast media across the country. And then there's the Internet, of course, where it's been a topic of much discussion on message boards far and wide. And all of that dissemination happens in between the weekly newspaper's regular publication days.

There are those who argue that The Suffolk Times should not have printed the story. We've got some letters on these pages today criticizing us for doing so. We've also got a few we can't print here, because the people who wrote them lacked the courage to sign their names to them.

Some people believe the local newspaper should react to horrors like the Commins rape charge as a family member might react. You circle the wagons, close ranks, protect your own. You don't wash your dirty laundry in public. But if we did that in circumstances like these, we wouldn't be a newspaper -- we'd be a community cheerleader. The Suffolk Times would quickly become irrelevant in this age of immediate, free-flowing news and information. If our newspaper last week did not include a story that had been plastered all over newspapers, TV and radio for nearly an entire week before, wouldn't you, as a reader, forever wonder what else wasn't being printed in The Suffolk Times?

That's the heart of it. Our readers need to know that they can count on The Suffolk Times to report the unvarnished truth fairly, accurately and completely. That's not to say we will never make a mistake. Journalists are, in fact, human. But The Suffolk Times will never sugarcoat the news or spike a news story in order to be polite or loyal to family, friends, advertisers or the community at large. Some days, that's a really hard mission to fulfill. But no one ever said this job was going to be easy.

Send me an e-mail: denise@timesreview.com.

A matter of black and white

Racial segregation is alive and well in Riverhead.

It's true. Neighborhoods are mostly segregated by race. So are churches. And social circles.

And while our school system is integrated, legally and technically, the student population is, de facto, quite segregated.

There are exceptions, but they are minor. By and large, we live in a world -- and in a community -- where whites and blacks live side by side, but inhabit two very separate and distinct universes.

This has been driven home for me with disturbing clarity since the day my children started Riverhead High School. Attending various school programs, concerts and plays, you'd never know that you were in an ethnically and racially diverse school. The children on the stage and the people in the audience are nearly all white. All the time. We could be in Miller Place or some other almost-all-white community, not Riverhead.

I've peppered my daughters with questions about race relations among the students. They think I'm weird, maybe even a little obsessed. Blacks hang around with blacks, whites with whites, Hispanics with Hispanics, they report. The division is almost exclusive. They find this unremarkable. I find it astonishing. They point out that I don't have many black friends. I'm sorry to say, they are right.

But racial integration, while a technical reality, isn't any more of a social fact than it was when I was in high school in the early 1970s.

Every time I attend an event at the high school I look around at the nearly all-white audience and the nearly all-white cast or chorus or concert band or orchestra, and I wonder: why?

But at no time was this phenomenon more disquieting than last week, at a Black History Month celebration at Riverhead High School. There were four black people in the entire auditorium: one member of the chamber choir, two students -- both of whom were being honored for receiving awards from the African-American Advisory Board -- and an adult accompanying one of the student honorees. That was it.

As we sat through a slide show of photos of famous blacks -- from Frederick Douglas to Nelson Mandela to Tiger Woods -- curiously, Barack Obama was conspicuously absent -- my eyes wandered around the auditorium and I turned over the possible reasons for the all-white audience at the black history celebration at the high school last Thursday. All I could think was, "How bizarre."

OK, maybe we white people are truly more in need of black history lessons. Or maybe a black history celebration sponsored and presented by our white school district administration and teachers, complete with Negro spirituals sung by a nearly all-white choir, is something blacks would take a pass on. And why not? I can buy that. But that doesn't explain why there are so few black children in the music and drama programs at Riverhead High School.

It also says nothing about why my children's classes are almost entirely white. They are in a lot of honors and AP classes. Why is the enrollment in these courses so homogenous, so white? You can't tell me it's because minorities can't do the work. Something is wrong. There is a disconnect in our schools where race is concerned. And there has been forever. The point is, it continues. Even today. Maybe it's a reflection of the larger community, but it serves to perpetuate the status quo -- a status quo of racial, social and economic injustice.

Segregation is wrong. It is unhealthy for a society, whether it's "official" or de facto. But it's a fact of life in Riverhead even as we close out the first decade of the 21st century. The sooner we face it and come to terms with it, the sooner we can eliminate it, the better off we'll all be.

CCE reps met with Gov. Spitzer today

I just got off the phone with Adrienne Esposito of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, who's on her way back to Long Island from Albany, where she met face to face today at noontime with Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

The meeting lasted 20 or 25 minutes, she said. It took place in the governor's office.

Ms. Esposito said the governor listened attentively to everything she and CCE staff members, Maureen Murphy, executive programs manager and Bill Cooke, legislative liaison, had to say.

"Our goal was to bring the voice of the public to the governor. We feel we accomplished that goal, bringing the collective concern and voice of the people to the governor," Ms. Esposito told me. I feel like we did the best we could.

"It really is in the governor's hands now. Either he has to find an alternative or side with Shell," she said.

"I told him New York needs him to be our Eli Manning," Ms. Esposito said. The governor responded that Manning had a very inconsistent year. As she recounted the conversation, Ms. Esposito laughed at the governor's apparently unintentional but accurate analogy.

Meanwhile, the debate between Esposito and Shell CEO John Hofmeiser was cancelled at the last minute, because something came up for Hofmeister that took him out of the country.

I think he was reluctant to get into a debate situation with the very feisty CCE director. Can't say I blame him.

News 12 Broadwater debate tonight is cancelled

Shell CEO John Hofmeister has begged off tonight's "LI Talks" debate on News 12 with Citizens Campaign for the Environment executive director Adrienne Esposito, according to Ms. Esposito.

She said News 12 called to tell her Mr. Hofmeister sent his regrets today in an e-mail to the cable news station, indicating he was called out of the country on business.

The 60-day difference

What does the 60-day extension of the deadline for the N.Y. DOS really mean, anyway?

Gov. Eliot Spitzer's office: It's an opportunity for more dialogue on a complex issue.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal: Broadwater still hasn't provided N.Y. with enough information to make a decision.

Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko: It's just part of the normal review process. (That's about all Hritcko ever has to say about anything.)

Citizens Campaign for the Environment executive director Adrienne Esposito: It's an opportunity, granted to Shell Oil and TransCanada by Spitzer, to mount a massive PR campaign to change public opinion about Broadwater, so that an OK by NY wouldn't spell political suicide for Spitzer.

I think Esposito's assessment is on target. The media blitz has begun. Last night, I went out for a late dinner with my husband. We were at The Birchwood in Polish Town, here in Riverhead. They have several TVs positioned around the pub-style restaurant. The one facing my seat was tuned to Channel 12. In the course of about an hour, four Broadwater commercials aired.

Dick Amper of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society says Broadwater is spending $100,000 on its media campaign. That's barely a drop of oil in the barrel for Big Energy companies like Shell and TransCanada. They could spend 10 times that without blinking. And they just might.

The DOS has already written its decision (74 pages long) and was prepared to issue it on time, according to a source I can't name, but who is in a position (inside government) to know. The DOS does not believe the floating gas terminal is consistent with the state's coastal resources management plan and its decision letter rejects the plan.

It is possible the delay allows the DOS to dot every i and cross every t, just to make sure the decision can withstand the inevitable legal challenges, my source says.

But this delay is awfully convenient for Broadwater, a chance to blanket the air waves with ads, and distribute checks to local charities (like United Way of Long Island, which got $150,000 from Shell and Broadwater, announced at a press conference in Deer Park Tuesday, which I covered for Times/Review Newspapers.)

The delay also allows Big Energy, including the nuclear crowd, to circle the wagons and apply pressure on the ultimate political decision maker, Eliot Spitzer.

Yesterday afternoon, I got a press release from the N.Y. Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, or NY AREA, announcing "NY AREA calls for state to approve Broadwater: Essential, clean energy is needed now."

NY AREA is a pro-nuclear group partly funded by the owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Its mission, according to its Web site, includes keeping the Indian Point power plant operating.
NY AREA's chairman, according to the press release, is Jerry Kremer — that's Arthur J. (Jerry) Kremer, former Democratic member of the State Assembly (for 23 years), lawyer and registered lobbyist. Clients for whom he has lobbied government include the tobacco giant Phillip Morris, LIPA, and, according to records on the Web site of the state temporary commission on lobbying, NY AREA. (Click here and type in Kremer in the "lobbyist name field" for records 2004 and later.) Jerry Kremer, his law firm and his various lobbying firms (I counted three) have, collectively, given upwards of $50,000 to Eliot Spitzer's political campaigns since 2003 — including donations to "Spitzer 2010," the governor's re-election campaign committee, according to records on the state Board of Elections Web site.

While Broadwater engages in its PR campaign and spreads "good will" by doling out checks to local charities, you can bet political powerhouse lobbyists like Kremer will be working Spitzer behind the scenes to get the State Department's consistency letter rewritten to approve this behemoth gas terminal.

Esposito, meanwhile, after squawking about Spitzer meeting with Shell Oil but declining to meet with "the people," as been granted an audience with the governor himself Monday at noon in Albany. She's already been warned by his staff that the meeting will be "short."

She'll be rushing back to Long Island in time to debate the merits of Broadwater with Shell CEO John Hofmeister on Channel 12 live at 7 pm.

State and Broadwater agree to 60-day extension

From www.timesreview.com
By Denise Civiletti
Broadwater Energy and the N.Y. Department of State have signed an agreement extending by 60 days the state agency’s deadline for ruling on whether Broadwater’s plan to build a floating liquefied natural gas terminal in the L.I. Sound is consistent with the state’s coastal resources management plan.
The agreement was signed Thursday (Feb. 7), according to Froydis Cameron, a spokesperson for Broadwater. The extension, she said, was requested by the state.
The state’s consistency determination was due by Feb. 12. The deadline for the DOS decision had already been pushed back several times by agreement between Broadwater and the DOS, in order to allow the DOS the opportunity to review the final environmental impact statement issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before making its consistency determination.
The FEIS was issued by FERC Jan. 11. FERC staff concluded that, with specified mitigation measures in place, Broadwater would have minimal adverse environmental impacts.
The State Department’s decision is a crucial one for the project. If the agency determines Broadwater’s plan is inconsistent with the state’s coastal resources management plan, the only way the project could move forward is upon the U.S. secretary of commerce ruling that its construction is in the interests of national security.
Less than three weeks ago, the chief executives of Shell Oil Company and TransCanada Corp., joint venture partners in Broadwater Energy, met with Gov. Eliot Spitzer, according to John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil.
Mr. Spitzer has been conspicuously silent about the Broadwater proposal, which has drawn the opposition of most elected officials on Long Island and in Connecticut, including Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell.
“We wanted to make sure he was fully apprised of our views of the FEIS and our efforts to meet the FEIS terms and conditions,” Mr. Hofmeister said in an interview Tuesday morning.
Mr. Spitzer was “very clear to explain his current neutrality” on the Broadwater plan, Mr. Hofmeister said. The governor told the energy chiefs “he would review the Department of State’s recommendation and make a decision from there,” Mr. Hofmeister said.
Mr. Hofmeister denied that he and TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle asked Mr. Spitzer for an extension of the DOS consistency review deadline in order to have more time to sell their plan to the public.
On Tuesday, spokespersons for Mr. Spitzer and for Secretary of State Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez declined comment on whether discussions were held regarding extending the Feb. 12 deadline. But after the extension was announced yesterday, Mr. Spitzer’s office issued a statement that said “We support the mutual decision of the Department of State and Broadwater to take the appropriate time for dialogue without the looming pressure of a deadline.”
Last week, Broadwater Energy began a campaign aimed at winning public support for its project. In print, television and radio ads now running in the New York metropolitan area market, Broadwater says its proposed terminal will lower heating and electric costs for Long Islanders without damaging the environment.
Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko said Tuesday this is “the appropriate time” for the company to get its message out to residents, with the deadline for the state department’s coastal consistency determination looming and the possibility that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may vote on Broadwater’s permit application as soon as Feb. 21.
“If the deadline is extended, Broadwater wins,” Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said Tuesday. CCE, a Farmingdale-based nonprofit organization has led public opposition to Broadwater’s plans. Ms. Esposito said she fears Mr. Spitzer might support Broadwater if the energy company could garner more support from the public through its current media campaign and other community-outreach efforts such as corporate giving.
Mr. Hofmeister came to Long Island Tuesday to announce a $150,000 gift to United Way of Long Island. The gift on behalf of Broadwater won the company accolades from United Way of Long Island CEO Chris Hahn, who said the donation to the organization’s Project Warmth would provide emergency heating assistance to families in need on Long Island. “It really does show Broadwater is committed to Long Island,” Mr. Hahn said at a press conference called to announce the gift. “They are good corporate citizens on Long Island,” he said. “We’re very grateful that Shell Oil and Broadwater have stepped up to the plate.”
Ms. Esposito, who did not attend the press conference, said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon that the donation to United Way of Long Island was part of a “public relations scheme” by the energy company, and called the donation amount “pocket change.”
“With $27 billion in profits for 2007, it took Shell Oil less than three minutes to generate that $150,000. That’s not much of a peace offering,” she said.
The Broadwater facility and its 22 miles of new underwater pipeline will cost upwards of $800 million to build. It will be capable of supplying the region with 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily, an influx of new energy that the developer says will result in a median household energy savings of $300 per year for Long Islanders.
Suffolk County and several towns have also filed a lawsuit in an effort to stop the plan, which would moor a 1,215-foot-long floating liquefied natural gas storage and regasification terminal in Long Island Sound, nine miles off the coast of Wading River, in the Town of Riverhead.
Copyright 2007 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Is the Sound up for sale?

Valentine’s Day is coming and Broadwater Energy wants to win your heart. And it’s come calling with more than a box of chocolates and a dozen roses. The would-be natural gas provider has an open checkbook and the deep pockets of its owners, Shell Oil Company and TransCanada Corp., to tap for cash to influence public opinion.

Broadwater has initiated a media blitz in what might be — should be — the last days of opportunity to gain New York’s approval for its plan to moor a huge floating LNG terminal in the waters off the coast of Wading River. In TV, radio and print ads throughout the metropolitan region, Broadwater is crowing about its purported benefits to the Long Island economy and local residents, including a $300 “median household annual savings” on energy costs for Long Island residents.

Why now?

According to John Hritcko, Broadwater’s senior vice president, Broadwater is in the public eye right now, with the Feb. 12 deadline for a decision by the state department coming up and the possibility that the company’s permit application might be on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s agenda for approval at its Feb. 21 meeting. Time for some good PR. And Broadwater is willing to spend a pretty penny to get it, though Mr. Hritcko won’t divulge the amount.

The PR campaign includes well-timed check-passing events like the one staged in the Deer Park headquarters of United Way of Long Island Tuesday morning, where Shell Oil CEO John Hofmeister joined Mr. Hritcko and United Way board members to announce a gift of $150,000 to the organization’s Project Warmth, which provides emergency assistance to residents who need help meeting their heating bills.

United Way of Long Island board members gushed with love and appreciation for Shell, TransCanada and Broadwater, declaring the energy behemoths “good corporate citizens,” and “friends and neighbors.” Bill Savino, chairman of the board, vigorously pumped Mr. Hofmeister’s hand as he proclaimed, “Welcome to Long Island.”

Yep, money talks.

Money wins friends and influences people in high places. Money no doubt explains why Mr. Hofmeister and TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle got some private face time with Governor Eliot Spitzer a few weeks ago. Mr. Hofmeister told me they wanted to make sure Mr. Spitzer understood their proposal and their commitment to protecting the Long Island Sound. Mr. Hofmeister said the governor was “very clear about his neutrality” on Broadwater in his meeting with the chiefs of the two multi-billion-dollar multi-national corporations.
Another thing that’s very clear about Mr. Spitzer is his reluctance to accord the same opportunity for an audience to anti-Broadwater citizen activists. He delegated the task of meeting with “the little people” on this issue to his staff. When the feisty executive director of Citizen’s Campaign for the Environment, Adrienne Esposito, heard last week about Mr. Spitzer’s confab with Shell’s CEO, she blasted him on it publicly. Her complaint was picked up by Channel 12 News last Tuesday and the very next day, the governor’s deputy energy secretary called Ms. Esposito to say the governor would, in fact, meet with her. She’s still waiting for his appointments secretary to call to set it up, as promised.

Mr. Spitzer is in a bind. Both of the state agencies charged with reviewing the Broadwater plan hate it, but he’s under pressure from people like NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to clear the path for its approval, according to sources inside the Spitzer administration. Word is the energy execs sat down with the governor to propose another extension of the state’s consistency review decision deadline. Broadwater will use the time to win the hearts and minds of the public with a slick ad campaign and the spreading of its partner’s corporate largesse. If Broadwater can sway public opinion and the governor can avoid another public relations debacle — he’s already had his share — he’ll go along with it. Shell and TransCanada also reportedly offered to “sweeten the deal” for the Empire State.

Following Tuesday’s PR ceremony, I asked Shell CEO Hofmeister and Broadwater vice president Hritcko if a deadline extension is being sought and if the company had upped the ante for the supposedly still-undecided Gov. Spitzer. Denials all around. No comment from the governor’s spokesperson or his counterpart at the department of state. By this time next week, we’ll know.

Yet even as the state considers giving a pass to a project that will destroy more than 200 million fish eggs, larvae and small fish in L.I. Sound each year, with the unavoidable impacts that will have on the commercial and recreational fishing industries — not to mention the fish — the DEC on Tuesday issued stricter catch limits for tautog, or blackfish, citing the fishery’s depletion in state waters, including the Sound. Knowing the current condition of local fisheries like this, how can the state even consider approving Broadwater?

If reliance on foreign fossil fuel products like LNG is unavoidable, and some number of the 42 planned new LNG facilities is needed to meet America’s energy demands, surely there’s got to be a better place to build one than the fragile, already-stressed estuary of Long Island Sound.

Attention, Mr. Spitzer

Editorial from The Suffolk Times/News-Review/North Shore Sun

January 17, 2008

If you've been paying attention to the Broadwater plan, it's no surprise the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has concluded Broadwater's proposed natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound would have minimal adverse environmental impacts. (See story, page 1.) FERC's very mission is to carry out the Bush administration's wrongheaded energy policy, which increases America's reliance on fossil fuels and enriches the president's and vice president's friends, family and colleagues in the oil and gas industries. FERC is working hard to permit and site more than three dozen new natural gas terminals in the U.S., Broadwater among them.

With that knowledge, observers and opponents of Broadwater's plans have long said the outcome of the FERC review process was a foregone conclusion: Broadwater would get FERC's blessing. Now that the FEIS is done, Broadwater's FERC permit is in the bag.

But the process is far from over. Even with its FERC permit approved, Broadwater Energy can't develop its behemoth LNG terminal in the Sound unless and until the U.S. Coast Guard signs off on the plan, certifying that it is able to provide security for the terminal and the tankers that will deliver LNG to the terminal; the state DEC issues an air emissions permit and a wastewater discharge permit; and the N.Y. secretary of state rules that Broadwater is consistent with the state's coastal resource management policy.

The Coast Guard already has reported it cannot protect the new terminal or the LNG tanker traffic from attack without more equipment and resources. A report by the federal government accountability office made public last week reached the same conclusion about the Coast Guard, increased LNG tanker traffic, and security (see story, page 3). So far, those additional resources have not been forthcoming.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who has the final say on whether New York finds Broadwater consistent with its coastal management policy, has not said a thing about Broadwater -- publicly -- since he took office in 2007. His position will soon be known, since the state's consistency determination must be made by Feb. 12. We urge you to tell Mr. Spitzer to reject Broadwater's plan to turn the L.I. Sound, a designated estuary of national significance, into an LNG import terminal for the profit of international energy companies Shell Oil and TransCanada.

Let Mr. Spitzer know that Broadwater's LNG terminal and its international tanker traffic are inappropriate uses of the pristine waters of the eastern L.I. Sound. Broadwater's terminal and tankers will pollute the water and air with emissions and discharges; deplete the Sound's fisheries by killing millions of young fish, larvae and eggs annually; wreak havoc on the local commercial fishing and lobstering industries, which won't be able to fish the eastern Sound when tankers are in transit; disturb recreational boating activities with "no entry" security zones that will, among other things, shut down the Race every time a tanker is in transit; and pose a safety and security threat to New York residents that simply can't be addressed.

The state holds the waters of the L.I. Sound in public trust. Allowing those waters to be used by international energy companies for private profit, to the detriment of the environment, the economy and the enjoyment of this natural resource by the people of the state, is a violation of the public trust.

Tell Mr. Spitzer you object. Write to: Governor Eliot Spitzer, the State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224. Call his office at 518-474-8390. Or send an e-mail by going to the governor's Web site at www.ny.gov/governor and clicking on "CONTACT THE GOVERNOR."

Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

Relax, this is no big deal

Hey, guess what?
You know that 1,215-foot-long gas terminal Shell Oil wants to build in a public waterway in the Long Island Sound off the coast of Wading River?
The terminal that will receive, store and “regasify” liquefied natural gas at the rate of about a billion cubic feet per day and ship it through a brand-new 23-mile seabed pipeline to consumers in New York City and New Jersey?
The one that will take in between 5.5 million and 8.2 million gallons of seawater daily, together with every living organism unfortunate enough to be sucked up with that water into the hull of the floating terminal and either be killed by its mesh screening system or by poisonous chlorine?
The terminal that will receive shipments of LNG from an estimated 104 to 150 foreign-flagged international tankers every year — tankers that will take in an additional 23 million gallons of seawater, also killing the unfortunate organisms that happen to be living therein?
The one whose operations will destroy hundreds of millions of fish eggs and larvae each year, plus an unknown number of small fish, having a potentially disastrous impact on a fishery the state and federal governments have gone to great lengths — and huge expense — to rehabilitate and protect over the past two decades?
The terminal the state DEC concluded would have significant adverse environmental impacts?
The one that will forever appropriate to Royal Dutch Shell and Trans-Canada a one-square-mile chunk of the Long Island Sound, public land and sea, which will be closed to boating and fishing — and theoretically protected from terrorist attack — by armed security boats supplied by the energy giants’ private contractor?
The terminal the U.S. Coast Guard said it doesn’t have the equipment or manpower to protect from attack? The terminal that will more than double the existing tanker traffic in L.I. Sound — which the Coast Guard already can’t protect?
The terminal whose tanker traffic and security escort will shut down the Race for hours at a clip at least six times a week, and will force lobstermen to relocate their pots, and fishing boats to pull in their lines, each time the 900-foot-long deep-draft international tankers traverse the length of the eastern Sound?
You know the one I’m talking about, don’t you? You’ve seen the pictures and the Power Point presentations, right?
Then you know there’s nothing to worry about. This appropriation of public property for private profit by Royal Dutch Shell and TransCanada, with more than a little help from their friends in Washington, will be good for us. After all, it will provide “a reliable supply of clean, safe natural gas” for the region (west of here) and possibly save L.I. ratepayers more than $2 million a year, according to an LNG industry consultant.
And those troublesome environmental impacts? Not to worry, folks. There are plenty of fish (and eggs and larvae) in the sea. Killing a few hundred million of them each year won’t put a dent in the supply. And pumping 28 million gallons of chlorine-treated seawater back into the Sound won’t matter, either. Heck, that’s only .005 percent of the “total daily seawater inflow to the Sound.” The little fishies will hardly notice the elevated chlorine levels.
Air pollution from the terminal’s smokestacks? Sure, the ambient air around the terminal won’t meet Clean Air Act standards because of the terminal’s emissions. But since the public will be banned from entering a one-square-mile area around the floating terminal, it doesn’t really count.
And so what if lobstermen will have to move their pots, and fishermen can’t drag their nets because the eastern Sound’s traditional shipping channel will be shut down every time an LNG tanker comes through, say, six times a week, forcing vessels into the area traditionally worked by local fishermen for, oh, a couple of centuries. No biggie.
Recreational boaters and fishermen will experience minor inconvenience, sure.
But all told, the Sound really is the best place for Shell and TransCanada to set up shop.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says so. And not just FERC, you know, but Entrix Inc., the “independent” environmental consultants that prepared the final environmental impact statement for FERC. And they really know what they’re doing. After all, when they’re not working for FERC reviewing and analyzing LNG permit applications, they’re working for energy companies, like Chevron, preparing LNG permit applications to submit to FERC. So they’ve really got this stuff nailed.
Relax. The fate of the Sound, the stability of our local economy, our safety and security are all in the best of hands, tended by people whose only concern is our welfare and the greater good.
If there’s one thing we know by now, it’s this: What’s good for Big Energy is good for us all.

FERC ISSUES BROADWATER FEIS

From Times/Review Newspapers www.timesreview.com

By Denise Civiletti

Broadwater’s plan to build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound cleared a major hurdle today.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its Final Environmental Impact Statement on Broadwater’s controversial plan, concluding that, with recommended mitigation measures in place, the project “would result in limited adverse environmental impacts.”

FERC staff determined that the proposed location in central L.I. Sound, approximately nine miles north of Wading River, would be the “least environmentally damaging alternative that would still meet the purpose and need of the project.”

Now the five-member commission will determine whether to grant Broadwater Energy’s permit application as a project that is “consistent with the public interest,” according to the FEIS.

“We welcome the issuance of the FEIS,” said Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko in a written statement. “The attention to details by the federal and state agencies involved is clearly evident and we will be reviewing the findings and conclusions over the coming days,” Mr. Hritcko said. “We are pleased that this stage of the regulatory review is complete and, in the coming months, look forward to the Commissioners’ decision on Broadwater’s proposal.

The next major hurdle for the project is obtaining a determination from the N.Y. state department that the project is consistent with the state’s coastal zone management policy. The state department had postponed its ruling until the FEIS was issued by FERC. By law, the state had six months from the issuance of the DEIS to make its consistency determination. But Broadwater Energy agreed to several extensions of the deadline, to allow the state agency the opportunity to review the FEIS before making its own decision. The current extension agreement expires Feb. 12.

Stephen Resler, deputy bureau chief of the resources management bureau in the state department’s division of coastal resources, said today the DOS plans to issue its consistency determination on or before the current deadline.

Governor Eliot Spitzer has not said publicly whether his administration would support the Broadwater application.

“This is exactly what we expected FERC to do, it’s not a surprise,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, and a leader in the opposition to Broadwater’s plans. “This is why all eyes are on Gov. Spitzer. We need our governor to stand up for the environment. We didn’t expect FERC to. We do expect Gov. Spitzer to,” she said.

Broadwater Energy LLC seeks to build a 1,200-foot-long liquefied natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, approximately nine miles north of Herod’s Point, Wading River and 11 miles south of the Connecticut shore. The facility, resembling a large vessel, would be the first of its kind in the world. It would be permanently moored offshore and would connect with the existing Iroquois pipeline via a new 30-inch, 22-mile subsea pipeline. The terminal would have a capacity of eight billion cubic feet of LNG, and would take delivery from LNG tankers at the rate of two to three tankers per week, according to the Broadwater EIS. The LNG, which is shipped in a liquid state at minus 260 degrees Farenheit, would be heated at the terminal to return it to a gaseous state.

In addition to the FERC permit and the consistency ruling from the N.Y. state department, Broadwater needs to obtain other permits and approvals from various state and federal agencies. Among them are an air quality permit from the state Department of Environmental Conservation, a DEC wastewater discharge permit, a letter of recommendation from the U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port of Long Island Sound concerning the suitability of the Sound for the proposed project, and the agreement of N.Y. state to lease the underwater land on which the facility would be moored to a 7,000 square foot tower structure, as well as the land in which the new pipeline will be laid.

Broadwater’s construction timeline would have the new plant put in service in late December 2010.

GAO report finds tankers are vulernable

Tankers vulnerable to attacks
GAO report cites Coast Guard overload
from The Suffolk Times, Jan. 10, 2008

By Denise Civiletti

International tankers transporting liquefied natural gas, oil and other hazardous commodities are "threatened and vulnerable" to terrorist attacks and the U.S. Coast Guard lacks the resources to protect these vessels in international and U.S. waters, according to a report made public by the U.S. Government Accountability Office Wednesday.

The Coast Guard is having difficulty meeting its current "security workload," according to the GAO, and security demands on the Coast Guard will grow significantly over the next decade as more LNG import facilities come on line, the report said. By 2015, the amount of LNG imported into the U.S. will grow more than 400 percent. A total of 32 new LNG import facilities have been either proposed or approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Maritime Administration as of March 2007, according to the report.

The report says the Coast Guard at some ports, due to a lack of resources, has been unable to meet its own requirements for security activities such as escorts and boardings. The Coast Guard faces additional challenges in the future at some domestic ports, where workload demands are likely to rise substantially as new LNG facilities come on line and LNG shipments increase. The report released to the public does not identify specific ports due to security concerns.

"The Coast Guard is scrambling to meet its expanded post-9/11 mission," Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton) said in an interview Thursday. "When you layer in the burgeoning LNG industry, you can see the Coast Guard is stretched beyond its capabilities," Mr. Bishop said. The congressman, who serves on the Coast Guard subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee, said Coast Guard officials have told him they are "very concerned about their capacity to provide security for these additional [LNG] facilities." Mr. Bishop said there are now 42 new LNG applications "in various stages of development."

Indeed, in its September 2006 Waterways Suitability Report for the proposed Broadwater LNG facility, the Coast Guard concluded the Long Island Sound Coast Guard sector could not "effectively manage the potential risk to navigation safety and maritime security associated with the Broadwater Energy proposal" at its current levels of responsibilities and resources.

Mr. Bishop pointed out that the Coast Guard must sign off on any construction permit issued for a new LNG facility, like the proposed Broadwater terminal in Long Island Sound, and the Coast Guard would not do so unless it can secure the facility.

But the congressman called on the federal government to "stop the clock" on all new LNG applications. While LNG will undoubtedly become a more prominent part of our energy supply in the future, Mr. Bishop said, "we have to go about it in a sane and responsible way." He criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for reviewing and approving applications "in the order in which they arrive rather than taking a more holistic approach."

The GAO conducted its study on maritime security because the country's energy needs rely heavily on ship-based imports and that reliance will continue to grow as more LNG import facilities are approved and constructed. The global LNG fleet is expected to double from 200 in 2006 to more than 400 by 2010.

"This supply chain is potentially vulnerable in many places here and abroad, as borne out by several successful overseas attacks on ships and facilities," the report said. The ships bringing crude oil and LNG to U.S. ports are mostly foreign-flagged vessels, and the U.S. has limited oversight authority over these vessels' crews or condition, until they enter U.S. waters, at which point the Coast Guard bears primary responsibility of protecting them from attack with security boardings, escorts and patrols.

During transit into and out of port, these vessels travel slowly, which increases their exposure, the GAO report said. Tankers follow timetables that are easy to track in advance and they follow a fixed set of maritime routes.

In 2003 through 2005, according to the Coast Guard, there was an annual average of about 80 foreign-flagged deep draft vessels (ships of 800 feet or more in length) carrying liquid petroleum products or coal to port facilities within Long Island Sound.

If the Broadwater offshore terminal is built, it will take delivery from an estimated two or three LNG tankers each week, according to the project's draft environmental impact statement, adding between 104 and 156 vessel arrivals in the Sound per year.

A terrorist attack on any tanker carrying oil, gasoline or LNG would likely cause a spill, fire and, in the case of oil or gasoline, an explosion.

Local fire and police departments would be an integral part of the emergency response team in the event of an attack, according to the GAO report, but most local emergency response agencies lack the specialized equipment and training needed to handle the fires, explosions and spills that would most likely result from a terrorist attack, the report says. Another equipment concern, according to the GAO, is communication equipment used by law enforcement and emergency response personnel that isn't "interoperable." Interoperable communications systems "allow emergency responders to talk to each other to effectively coordinate their efforts," according to the report. The GAO found lack of fully interoperable communications systems among law enforcement agencies and emergency responders continued at ports visited by GAO staff in conducting their study.

The GAO report recommends more planning and more funding to complete plans and purchase necessary equipment.

Mr. Bishop said the federal government is in the "very beginning stages" of a $25 billion multiyear effort to upgrade the Coast Guard's fleet and equipment. Called "Deepwater," the project in its early stages has been "an embarrassment," Mr. Bishop said. A failed attempt to retrofit eight 110-foot cutters to add 13 feet in length rendered the vessels "completely unseaworthy," the congressman said. "Now they are on the scrap heap, being cannibalized for parts."

Super Tuesday. Then what?

Presidential primary elections have begun. And, by golly, they will soon be over.

By the end of next month, most of the primaries will be history — only 13 primary elections and caucuses will remain. In contrast, in 2004, 49 primaries and caucuses were scheduled after March 1.

It is likely that "Super Tuesday" — Feb. 5, when voters in 23 states, including New York, will go to the polls or caucuses — will effectively determine the nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties.

The pace of this year's presidential primary season is dizzying. Why are we in such a hurry? All right, maybe everyone is as anxious as I am for a new administration in Washington. Look at the president's approval ratings. But that isn't really what shifted the primary process into turbo-drive. The Democratic National Committee in 2006 allowed the change to give minority voters a voice early in the process, since the two traditionally early contests — in New Hampshire and Iowa — took place in very white states. A laudable goal, no doubt. But states rushed to push up their primaries so as not to become "irrelevant." Only 15 states didn't move up their primary dates.

The result of this compression: the campaign may well be over on Feb. 5.

Then what? What will the candidates do until the conventions (Aug. 25-28 for the Dems and Sept. 1-4 for the GOP)? What will we, the voters, do? After a smattering of contests in March and May, there's one primary on June 3, in South Dakota. These will be all but meaningless in the scheme of things, as far as Democrats and Republicans are concerned. Then... there's no activity until the end of August.

Will notoriously apathetic Americans completely lose interest during a long, lazy summer — especially after being burned out by the longest pre-primary campaign in history. "Voter fatigue" is a new buzz-phrase thanks to the 2008 presidential race — which started in 2006.

Will the anointed candidates lose momentum over the summer? Will one of the two "major party" nominees make a terrible blunder? And what if he — or she — does? Can delegates pledged to a candidate bolt from his or her camp? These possibilities could make for much drama at the conventions — something we haven't seen in decades.

Maybe the Democratic and Republican parties, by front-loading the primary elections this way, have unwittingly set the stage for an independent candidate to capture the hearts and minds of Americans who are sick and tired of the status quo in Washington and who don't see any of the "major party" candidates as anything but more of the same, more or less. Tuesday's "record high" turnouts in New Hampshire — more than 500,000 people — topped 50 percent of registered voters. It may have even approached 60 percent. It's sad that a 50-percent-plus turnout is something to get excited about. But it is. As a nation we are disillusioned with our government and political process. And we should be.

Maybe the long stretch of "major party" inactivity between March and November is the perfect opportunity for an independent candidate to become the next president of the United States. When they moved their primary dates up, most states didn't do the same with their filing deadlines for the November ballot.

It's ironic that the compressed primary season was triggered by the stated desire to give minority voters a greater say in the presidential primary process, and a black man ends up being the favorite to win the primary in one of the traditionally early, very white, primary states, New Hampshire.

It's doubly ironic that a woman won an "upset" victory over the black candidate in the very white state thanks to her "Muskie moment" on the campaign trail the other day. Television pundits were crediting Hillary's surge at the polls Tuesday to voters' favorable reaction to her show of emotion. Go figure. I guess people felt reassured to learn Hillary really is human. She never cracked during the Lewinsky scandal. Her stoic front made her seem cold and emotionless. When I first met the senator on a North Fork visit a couple of years ago, I was most impressed — and surprised — by her personal warmth. She's not the icy you-know-what she may seem to be. But then again, neither am I.

Ms. Civiletti invites you to join a discussion of this topic at civiletti.blogspot.com. Her e-mail address is denise@timesreview.com.

Wishes for a new year

2008 lies ahead in all its magnificent blankness, empty pages in a new notebook waiting to be written in. What will this year bring? What will fill these pages — joy and laughter, sorrow and tears, some of each?
This is the time for the annual taking-stock-of-our-lives assessment as we embark upon the new journey of a new year. It’s the time for new promises — resolutions — to take better care of our bodies, our families, our lives, our town, our planet.
It’s time to start over, our hearts filled with hope renewed. Maybe this year will be different. Maybe the failures and demons of the year just laid to rest won’t return to haunt us.
Maybe this year, humankind will find a way to live in peace — though we’re not exactly off to a promising start. Maybe this will be the year global leaders wake up to the reality of the world’s climate crisis and take the urgently needed steps to deal with it.
Maybe 2008 will be the year the revitalization of downtown Riverhead finally begins. Maybe this year the promise of EPCAL will begin to be fulfilled. This year, maybe state legislators will put aside parochial agendas and finally correct the state aid to education formula, which shortchanges Long Island school districts and has Long Island taxpayers carrying a disproportionate burden of the cost of public education.
There are so many lingering problems and issues, it’s mind-boggling.
Then there are the newer ones, like Broadwater. 2008 will be a year of decision for Broadwater, a proposal that could forever change the eastern Long Island Sound.
I used to wish for a crystal ball into which I might peer to see what lies ahead. Now, from the vantage point of my life’s experience — a half-century’s worth — I realize I prefer the tantalizing mystery and unabashed hope of the blank pages we stare at each January 1. It allows one to dream, to wonder, to hope. But then again, I was never one to peek at the last page of a mystery novel to find out how everything works out. I much prefer the suspense of the unknown. And the promise it holds.
My New Year’s wishes for Riverhead in 2008:
o Shell Oil and TransCanada are sent packing and the Broadwater proposal is decisively rejected by the state and federal governments.
o Apollo either moves forward or bows out, expeditiously either way, so downtown revitalization can become a reality, with or without them. (Dare I wish for the opening of the Suffolk Theatre? No, I suppose not.)
o The Town Board stops entertaining unrealistic proposals for EPCAL, including mega-theme parks, like the Riverhead Resorts proposal, and concentrates instead on basic issues like vehicular access and site infrastructure while it revisits and updates the redevelopment plan drafted more than a decade ago.
o The infusion of new blood on the Town Board in the persons of Tim Buckley and James Wooten makes the board more functional and less political, and town government begins to live up to the motto, “putting Riverhead first.”
o Commercial property tax assessments, thanks to the downturn in the residential real estate market, rise, forcing commercial properties to pay a greater share of the tax burden and finally giving homeowners some property tax relief.
o All Riverhead schools come off the state’s “need improvement” list. The district’s new superintendent remains fresh and enthusiastic about her new assignment. The school district administration and faculty learn better communication and refocus their respective energies on the top priority for all: providing our children with an excellent education.
o People who live in or just pass through our lovely town put trash where it belongs and quit littering our streets and highways.
o And last, but not least, we all learn tolerance and understanding, and live together in peace and harmony, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
Hey, I can dream — can’t I?

How it all ends

This YouTube video about how we should assess and deal with global warming is worth watching.

LIPA's smoke and mirrors

Are you outraged by your electric bill? I know I am.

My bill is effectively doubled by LIPA's "power supply charges" — which the utility used to call "fuel surcharges" before it decided on the new euphemism.

Our cost-per-kilowatt-hour is just about doubled by LIPA's power supply charges. No matter what LIPA calls it, it's a RATE INCREASE, plain and simple. Yet this rate increase has been imposed by LIPA without review and approval by the (so-called) Public Service Commission.

Newsday business reporter Mark Harrington has an excellent article in today's edition: LIPA overestimates cost of fuel, overcharges customers.

In 2006, LIPA over-collected these bogus fuel surcharges by $197 MILLION.

LIPA has been refunding the 2006 excess revenue in 2007. But at the same time, LIPA is continuing to over-collect fuel surcharges to the tune of another $118 MILLION as of September.

LIPA is intentionally collecting more in fuel surcharges than it needs as a hedge against the "volatile" energy market. The result is the near doubling of its "cash, cash equivalents and investments" at the end of its operating year, from $413 million at the end of 2004 to $710 million at the end of 2006.

And last year, Harrington reports, LIPA "voted itself the right to overcollect more than three times the amount it previously could to hold in reserve."

LIPA operates without sufficient oversight. With a complicit PSC, it raises our de facto rates, changes its tariff to increase allowable "reserves" and manages a huge slush fund collected from us ratepayers -- who are struggling to pay our electric bills. Even as LIPA is jacking up our rates and padding its bank accounts to protect us against "volatility" it is shutting off customers who can't afford to pay their LIPA bills. "At last count," Harrington writes, "217,105 residential and commercial customers -- roughly one in five -- were late making payments, and LIPA's practice of shutting off electricity for non-payers spiked last year."

Why do we sit back silently and allow this to continue? This is our money. LIPA rates are effectively a tax. There are few realistic options for most of us but to buy electricity from this monopoly. The PSC was created to regulate utility monopolies and protect the public from abuse. It isn't doing its job. What will it take to get people to stand up and say, "ENOUGH! We demand change!" We have a governor who prides himself on being a crusader for consumer rights. When will we see that brought to bear on the PSC and LIPA? LIPA ratepayers are being shafted. And LIPA is allowed to do whatever it wants with our money with very little oversight. Meanwhile, we just keep footing the bill without a peep.

Hold on to your wallets

Times/Review Newspapers Editorial

November 8, 2007

Think your utility bills are killing you now? Well, get ready to dig even deeper into your pockets this winter, if the state Public Service Commission staff has its way.

The PSC staff is recommending that National Grid, which bought out KeySpan in August, be allowed to recover from ratepayers 100 percent of the cost of cleaning up the 83 contaminated manufactured gas production sites it got from KeySpan. Estimated price tag for the cleanup: over $1 billion. (See Times/Review story by North Shore Sun reporter Anna Gustafson, "Rate payers to foot the bill?") This could raise our utility rates — including the already sky-high cost of electricity — as much as 30 percent, according to local lawmakers. Even if you're not a primary natural gas customer, you're still going to pay. LIPA buys natural gas from National Grid to generate the electricity it sells you. LIPA passes its fuel cost increases directly to ratepayers by way of fuel surcharges, recently renamed "power supply charges," that have effectively doubled your electric costs by adding almost 10 cents per kilowatt to your bill — on top of per-kilowatt-hour charges that are already among the highest in the nation.

Legislators, including First District Assemblyman Marc Alessi, warned us this might happen when the National Grid deal was before the PSC for approval this summer. They implored the PSC to address the cleanup costs in the buyout agreement. Once again, the PSC proved itself more interested in preserving the utilities' profitability than in protecting ratepayers. It ignored the legislators' demands and approved a buyout agreement that was mum on the MPG remediation cost. The ink was barely dry on the deal when National Grid asked PSC for permission to pass the remediation cost on to us, and PSC now appears poised to give the giant utility exactly what it wants.

We urge the commissioners to put the public interest before special interests for a change. Don't make ratepayers pay for the utility's neglect or malfeasance. With crude oil prices hitting $100 a barrel this winter, driving heating and electric costs even higher, Long Island ratepayers simply can't bear this additional spike in utility charges, especially in an economic climate of grave uncertainty. The reverberation effect of this increase could shatter the local economy.

With history as our guide, it's clear the remediation cost pass-through is probably as good as done. National Grid, whose lobbyist is the former chairman of the PSC, has more sway with the commission than does the public whose interest it's supposed to serve. No surprise there. The real question is whether our state Legislature has the independence (from the utility/energy lobbies) and principle to enact meaningful legislative reform, putting the public interest in the forefront of utility regulation, where it belongs. Time will tell. Meanwhile, turn off the lights, bundle up and open your wallet. It's going to be a long, cold, costly winter.

Copyright 2007 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.

A cosmic joke

It was the fall of 1972. Richard Nixon was about to hand George McGovern a historic defeat.

I was a high school sophomore, not quite 15, but very tuned in to current events and national politics.

We all were. It was a tumultuous time: Vietnam, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement. The events of the day were not abstract concepts; they affected us directly. Older siblings were drafted into the service and sent to Southeast Asia. Too many came home in coffins. The streets of the nation's cities were teeming with protests, some of which turned violent. Young versus old, black versus white, women versus men, peacenik versus hawk. And it was all on the nightly news, from the jungles in Vietnam to urban riots and campus demonstrations.

In 1972, for the first time ever, 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds would be allowed to vote in a presidential election, thanks to the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified the year before. That was big. Huge, in my almost-15-year-old eyes. It meant I'd be voting in the next presidential contest, in 1976. And I was convinced that young people would turn the tide in American politics. (Wrong.)

I remember sitting around the lunch table one day discussing politics. (Yes, we really did have discussions like that in the cafeteria. And, no, we were not geeks.) I faithfully wore my McGovern button on my blue uniform blazer every day that fall. My leanings got me into arguments with pro-Nixon classmates, who far outnumbered us McGovernites at my small Catholic high school.

Passionate and outspoken, I found myself engaged in heated debates during lunch more often than not. On this day, following just such a discussion, a couple of friends told me they expected me to be the first woman elected president of the United States. My immediate reaction, after calculating that I wouldn't be eligible to run until 1994 (you have to be 35 — ancient! — to run for president): No way! We'll definitely elect a woman president long before then.

Truly, I have been wrong about so many things along life's winding path. But the spectacularly wrong belief I professed with such certainty that afternoon in 1972 must rank among my all-time worst prognostications. I was so sure. It seemed so clear. But, boy, was it wrong.

So wrong that I still remember it vividly, 35 years later — when, not only haven't we elected a woman president, but this is the first time in U.S. history a woman has a real shot at the presidential nomination by one of the major parties.

And we're still discussing the fact that she's a woman. At least we've gotten beyond talking about what she wears or how she styles her hair.

How ironic that in this race, when a woman is finally on the presidential short list, a black man is also a serious contender in the race, also for the first time in history. Now, I'm not sure I'm ready to vote for Barack Obama for president — but not because of his race. It's just that I don't know if I'm ready to vote for a presidential candidate who's younger than I am.

We're careening toward an inevitable, historic clash of the long-overdue deliverance on unfulfilled promises in America: gender versus race. As the 2008 race heats up — albeit prematurely, even before we can digest the results of the 2007 local elections — Hillary and Barack will beat each other up, neutralizing each other and guaranteeing the status quo.

This is a practical joke of cosmic proportions, and probably proof that God is a wealthy, white, male Republican after all.

But, hey, I could be wrong. After all, I've been wrong before.