By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers
Broadwater Energy’s appeal to the U.S. secretary of commerce has been denied, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced this morning.
The commerce secretary’s denial marks the end of the administrative process for Broadwater. The fate of the energy company’s plan to build a natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound now rests with the courts. Several court actions are already pending and a new one challenging the commerce secretary’s decision today is expected, opponents of the proposal say.
Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of Shell Oil and Transcanada Pipelines, wants to moor a 1,200-foot-long floating natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound, about nine miles off the coast of Wading River. The terminal would receive shipments of liquefied natural gas from oceangoing LNG tankers, heat the LNG to return it to its gaseous state, then supply it to the metropolitan New York area via a new 23-mile subsea pipeline that would connect to an existing gas distribution system.
The Broadwater terminal would supply the region with about 1.3 billion cubic yards of natural gas daily. Proponents of the plan argue that the region needs to increase its natural gas supply, and Broadwater would add consistency and stability to the regional supply, resulting in lower consumer energy costs. Opponents argue that the facility would increase our nation’s dependence on foreign fossil fuel energy sources, industrialize L.I. Sound, disrupt water transportation, harm the commercial and recreational boating and fishing industries and damage the Sound’s ecosystem.
Opposition to the Broadwater plan was swift and widespread upon its announcement in Nov. 2004. Suffolk County, as well as the towns of Riverhead, Southold and East Hampton brought lawsuits attempting to block the proposal. Although the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved Broadwater’s permit application in March 2008, it was subject to a ruling by the N.Y. secretary of state that the plan is consistent with the state’s coastal management policy. One year ago, Gov. David Paterson announced the state’s rejection of Broadwater’s proposal. The energy company then appealed to the U.S. commerce secretary to override the state’s objection, as federal law allows.
Opponents hope the secretary’s much-anticipated decision will be the death knell for the Broadwater plan. One leading opponent of the proposal, Adrienne Esposito of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Farmingdale-based environmental advocacy group, hailed the decision as a triumph for democracy.
“This truly is David winning over Goliath,” Ms. Esposito said.
Broadwater could appeal the commerce secretary’s decision in federal court. Broadwater senior vice president John Hritcko Jr. could not immediately be reached for comment.
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), long an outspoken opponent of Broadwater, said the commerce secretary’s decision was “the final nail in Broadwater’s coffin.”
The Department of Commerce concluded that the project’s adverse coastal impacts outweighed its national interest, Mr. Bishop said in a statement. He said the decision was made in part because the terminal’s location in an undeveloped region of the Sound would “significantly impair its unique scenic and aesthetic character and would undermine decades of federal, state, and local efforts to protect the region.”
“I am delighted and I think we can finally put this behind us and address Long Island’s energy needs in a more acceptable fashion,” said Sid Bail, president of the Wading River Civic Association and a driving force behind the Anti-Broadwater Coalition. “This is great news,” he said. “Christmas has come early on Long Island.”
denise@timesreview.com
Copyright 2009 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Broadwater fate out of Bush's hands
This is probably very good news if you're an opponent of Broadwater:
Broadwater fate is out of Bush's hands
Decision on appeal will be made by Obama administration
By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Dec. 18, 2008
The fate of Broadwater's proposed floating natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound will not be decided by the Bush administration, after all.
A decision on Broadwater's appeal of New York's rejection of its plan has been postponed until at least mid-February. U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Dec. 10 issued a stay in the appeal proceedings that will keep the appeal record open until Feb. 13, effectively punting the decision to the incoming Obama administration.
“It's one more nail in the coffin,” Broadwater opponent Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We're hoping the new administration is going to keep its promises of advancing renewables and relieve us of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels,” she said. “The market for LNG is not good right now anyway. Broadwater would have been a giant white elephant floating in Long Island Sound.”
Broadwater Energy senior vice president John Hritcko said the stay was “not unanticipated” because of the scope of the review. “There is a large record to consider,” Mr. Hritcko said.
The N.Y. secretary of state on April 10 ruled Broadwater's proposal inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. That ruling would effectively block Broadwater's plans to moor a 1,200-foot-long floating natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, about nine miles off the coast of Wading River — in spite of the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Broadwater application. That's because the federal Coastal Zone Management Act gives the state the last word on activities that impact coastal areas. But the federal law allows the federal commerce secretary to override the state's consistency ruling, and Broadwater appealed to the commerce secretary to do just that.
Mr. Gutierrez's decision to keep the record open for an additional 60 days — to collect additional information from various federal agencies — means it's likely that President-elect Barack Obama's pick for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, will decide Broadwater's appeal.
Mr. Richardson served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration, from 1998 to 2001 and, as a candidate for president in the last campaign, declared he would be “the energy president.” In a key energy policy speech in May 2007, he pledged to lead “an energy revolution” as president, to wean the U.S. from foreign oil dependence and “free the U.S. from its status of international hostage of costly energy” by focusing on developing renewable energy sources. But in the same speech he also spoke of natural gas as a “relatively nonpolluting, plentiful, reliable energy source.”
Mr. Hritcko said the identity of the commerce secretary will not be the deciding factor in Broadwater's appeal.
“It's an administrative review by legal staff, based on the record, the merits of the arguments on both sides and legal precedent. It's a conclusion that's handed to the secretary by the staff. It's not a political decision,” he said. Mr. Hritcko noted that only two LNG appeals have ever been brought to the commerce secretary under the CZMA, and both were brought during the tenure of Secretary Gutierrez. The secretary upheld the state in one appeal and overrode the state in the other.
A spokesperson for the N.Y. state department was optimistic about the eventual outcome of the Broadwater appeal. “We've made our position vigorously to the Department of Commerce,” said Joel Barkin, deputy secretary for public affairs, in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We believe we made our decision properly and we are confident that ultimately we will be upheld.”
denise@timesreview.com
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Broadwater fate is out of Bush's hands
Decision on appeal will be made by Obama administration
By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Dec. 18, 2008
The fate of Broadwater's proposed floating natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound will not be decided by the Bush administration, after all.
A decision on Broadwater's appeal of New York's rejection of its plan has been postponed until at least mid-February. U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Dec. 10 issued a stay in the appeal proceedings that will keep the appeal record open until Feb. 13, effectively punting the decision to the incoming Obama administration.
“It's one more nail in the coffin,” Broadwater opponent Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We're hoping the new administration is going to keep its promises of advancing renewables and relieve us of our dependence on foreign fossil fuels,” she said. “The market for LNG is not good right now anyway. Broadwater would have been a giant white elephant floating in Long Island Sound.”
Broadwater Energy senior vice president John Hritcko said the stay was “not unanticipated” because of the scope of the review. “There is a large record to consider,” Mr. Hritcko said.
The N.Y. secretary of state on April 10 ruled Broadwater's proposal inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. That ruling would effectively block Broadwater's plans to moor a 1,200-foot-long floating natural gas terminal in the middle of L.I. Sound, about nine miles off the coast of Wading River — in spite of the fact that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Broadwater application. That's because the federal Coastal Zone Management Act gives the state the last word on activities that impact coastal areas. But the federal law allows the federal commerce secretary to override the state's consistency ruling, and Broadwater appealed to the commerce secretary to do just that.
Mr. Gutierrez's decision to keep the record open for an additional 60 days — to collect additional information from various federal agencies — means it's likely that President-elect Barack Obama's pick for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, will decide Broadwater's appeal.
Mr. Richardson served as energy secretary in the Clinton administration, from 1998 to 2001 and, as a candidate for president in the last campaign, declared he would be “the energy president.” In a key energy policy speech in May 2007, he pledged to lead “an energy revolution” as president, to wean the U.S. from foreign oil dependence and “free the U.S. from its status of international hostage of costly energy” by focusing on developing renewable energy sources. But in the same speech he also spoke of natural gas as a “relatively nonpolluting, plentiful, reliable energy source.”
Mr. Hritcko said the identity of the commerce secretary will not be the deciding factor in Broadwater's appeal.
“It's an administrative review by legal staff, based on the record, the merits of the arguments on both sides and legal precedent. It's a conclusion that's handed to the secretary by the staff. It's not a political decision,” he said. Mr. Hritcko noted that only two LNG appeals have ever been brought to the commerce secretary under the CZMA, and both were brought during the tenure of Secretary Gutierrez. The secretary upheld the state in one appeal and overrode the state in the other.
A spokesperson for the N.Y. state department was optimistic about the eventual outcome of the Broadwater appeal. “We've made our position vigorously to the Department of Commerce,” said Joel Barkin, deputy secretary for public affairs, in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We believe we made our decision properly and we are confident that ultimately we will be upheld.”
denise@timesreview.com
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
NY AG Andrew Cuomo sues FERC over Broadwater permits
By Denise Civiletti
Times/Review Newspapers, Mattituck, N.Y.
(Nov. 26) Two New York agencies are asking a federal court to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of Broadwater Energy's application to site, build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound.
Times/Review Newspapers, Mattituck, N.Y.
(Nov. 26) Two New York agencies are asking a federal court to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of Broadwater Energy's application to site, build and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal in L.I. Sound.
In a petition filed earlier this month with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City, the New York departments of state and environmental conservation claim that FERC violated the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the Natural Gas Act when it issued permits on March 20 to Broadwater Energy LLC and Broadwater Pipeline LLC to construct and operate the floating LNG terminal and a 22-mile subsea pipeline in New York waters of L.I. Sound, about nine miles north of Wading River.
Though the petition does not detail the state's arguments regarding the alleged violations of federal law by FERC, which will be contained in the state's subsequent brief and memorandum of law, at issue is FERC's practice of granting permit approvals prior to completion of review and approval by the appropriate state agencies under the federal Coastal Zone Management and Clean Water acts.
FERC has issued such permits expressly conditioned on approval by the required state agencies pursuant to the CZMA and Clean Water Act. At least two states, Washington and Delaware, already are challenging FERC's practice of issuing such conditional permits before state review is completed and approvals or certifications are issued by state agencies. Those actions are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
The question, according to a brief filed by Washington state in its lawsuit against FERC, is "whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can, through policy and practice, rewrite the terms of federal statutes" that require prior state approval.
The federal law was specifically crafted to allow states that are hosts to these projects and must live with their impacts a "protected" period of time to evaluate them, Joan Marchioro, an attorney in Washington State's attorney general's office, told The Suffolk Times in September. FERC's policy of issuing "conditional" licenses turns the statute on its head, she said, and "once FERC says to an applicant, 'You're good to go,' it puts all the pressure on the state."
A call seeking comment from the New York attorney general's office was not returned by presstime.
"It's a violation of the [federal] Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act for FERC to license the project prior to hearing from the state regarding CZMA and the Clean Water Act. Those must be decided by the state first," Peter Bergen, the attorney representing the towns of Riverhead and Southold on the Broadwater matter, said in September, when rehearing requests were denied by FERC.
"It violates the plain language of the statutes," he said. Mr. Bergen said section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, both federal statutes, plainly require the host state to approve the Broadwater plan before FERC may issue its permits. "We raised that issue in our rehearing request and FERC just blew us off," Mr. Bergen said.
Broadwater Energy LLC, a joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines, proposes to build a 1,200-foot-long floating LNG terminal in the Sound. The terminal, a storage and "regasification" facility, would be capable of supplying the New York metropolitan area with one billion cubic yards of natural gas each day. It would take delivery of supercooled liquefied natural gas from two to three oceangoing tankers a week, and heat the liquid to return it to a gaseous state. It would then supply the distribution network with gas via 22-mile subsea pipeline that would connect to the existing Iroquois pipeline that traverses the Sound and connects to a land-based distribution pipeline in western Suffolk County.
The Broadwater proposal drew fire from environmental and civic groups on both sides of the Sound, and was quickly opposed by the towns of Riverhead, Brookhaven, Southold, East Hampton and Huntington, as well as by Suffolk County and the Connecticut attorney general.
FERC approved Broadwater's permit applications in March over the broad opposition of local governments and citizen groups. But under federal law, the project must be ruled consistent with the state's coastal policy and the clean water act by the state DOS and DEC, respectively. The new legal challenge brought by the state addresses FERC's policy of approving permits before the state's consistency rulings are issued. Subsequent to FERC's permit approval, the New York State Department in fact ruled Broadwater's plan inconsistent with the state's coastal management policy. Broadwater has asked the U.S. commerce secretary to override the state's consistency determination in the interest of national security. A decision on that pending petition is not expected until 2009.
Copyright 2008 Times/Review Newspapers Corp.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, January 11, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
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."
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."
Saturday, December 22, 2007
How it all ends
This YouTube video about how we should assess and deal with global warming is worth watching.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Tallying LNG savings vs. cost
It's a huge chunk of change, no doubt about it. Broadwater's floating natural gas facility in the Long Island Sound would save New York consumers $14.8 billion over the course of a decade, according to a report prepared for the Long Island Power Authority by Levitan & Associates Inc., a Boston-based energy industry consulting firm.
The $14.8 billion figure is not a reduction in current energy costs. It represents our potential 10-year savings compared to what the equivalent natural gas would cost regional consumers without Broadwater's one billion cubic feet per day.
Still, it's nothing to sneeze at.
Heck, $14.8 billion is how much we're going to spend to wage war in Iraq between now and, oh, the beginning of autumn, approximately 56 days from today.
It's twice as much as Royal Dutch Shell, one of Broadwater Energy's owners, earns in one quarter of its fiscal year. (The company posted a second-quarter profit this year of $7.56 billion.)
Still, East End consumers don't know how much of that savings we'll see. According to the Levitan report, LIPA ratepayers will save $2.7 billion in natural gas costs between 2010 and 2020 if Broadwater goes online. LIPA CEO Richie Kessel — the one-time consumer advocate who, as an energy executive, has presided over what some irate ratepayers argue is a huge pricing scam on consumers, namely the imposition, without regulatory review, of "fuel surcharges" that equal or exceed energy use charges — says that 20 percent of Broadwater's savings for Long Island consumers is just not enough. As the host community for this behemoth, Long Island should get more, Richie says. Long Island should get more PILOT payments, and more "community benefits" — something of a code word for hush money. "Community benefits" help a company buy the silence, if not the support, of community segments that would otherwise oppose a proposed project. Community benefits often consist of cold, hard cash for schools, towns, community organizations. It's a euphemism for "community bribes," if you ask me.
But you can bet Richie will fight for benefits for LIPA — if not LIPA's ratepayers, whom he seems quite willing to skewer.
I've just read Levitan's 157-page "technical assessment" of Broadwater. It was interesting reading, even holding my attention into the wee hours of Wednesday morning.
As LIPA communications director Bert Cunningham noted, the report is "a compilation" and summary of documents from a variety of sources: FERC's DEIS, Broadwater's "resource reports" and responses to FERC's information requests, the Coast Guard reports, and LNG safety studies. As such, it's a handy little document.
LIPA engaged Levitan to prepare this report in April 2005. Originally, according to LIPA's April 20, 2005, board meeting minutes, LIPA was going to use the Levitan report, which Kessel said he expected to have by September 2005, to form a recommendation on Broadwater for the governor's office. LIPA has since backed off that idea. On Tuesday, Kessel said he didn't know if LIPA was going to make a recommendation one way or the other.
Levitan knows LNG very well; senior members of the firm specialize in consulting to the LNG industry and the firm has a long track record with the industry. Given the firm's background, resources and expertise as an LNG industry consultant, it's hard to understand why it took Levitan almost two years longer than first expected to complete its assessment. But it's not hard to understand why the energy industry consultant would focus on assessing the benefits rather than the costs — costs to the economy, the environment, and the government, which will have to provide expensive security for the operation.
What will the total of all those costs be? We still don't know, but it's no mystery who will foot the bill, is it? Open your checkbook.
I'm wondering what we've already spent just reviewing the Broadwater proposal to date. The preparation of the EIS, government staff time to review applications, documents and submittals, publication of notices, public hearings held, legal fees to firms retained by the county and towns to fight it, all of that. I wonder if anyone anywhere is keeping a tab.
One cost we know for sure: the $850,000 LIPA blew on the Levitan assessment report it was supposed to have two years ago, which LIPA now may or may not use for anything. This makes it a ratepayer-funded PR boondoggle for Broadwater Energy, resulting in headlines about multibillion dollar "savings" that don't factor in costs which may equal or exceed those "savings."
That's an awful lot of fuel surcharge money, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
