With Govenor Patterson expected to reject Broadwater this afternoon, the question is whether the company will walk away or continue fighting to build the project.
Yesterday, I posed that question to Broadwater Energy's Regional Project Director, John Hritcko. We were sitting around a polished wood conference table at the company's Riverhead offices just off Old Country Road behind the Taco Bell.
"Until we see the decision and the basis for it, we can't decide," said Hritcko, noting that the company had just filed a new response to 17 environmental shortcomings pointed out by the state's Department of Environmental Conservation. The company may appeal if it believes "we can work with it," but would withdraw "if you don't think you'll ever reach agreement."
The appeal would be made to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, who would determine whether New York's decision is consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. New York has never had such a decision overruled, and Adrienne Esposito of Citizen's Campaign for the Environment believes the state would defend itself vigorously if challenged.
If the leadership does decide to withdraw, it will be a testimonial to the strength of public concern about Long Island's environment and the gut-deep understanding of the value of Long Island Sound to all of us. Broadwater pulled out all the stops to gain approval, as Karl Grossman points out in his latest column in East End newspapers. Former elected officials including even Rudy Giuliani couldn't throw enough political weight to override the opposition, even with skilled PR help.
The good news is that, unlike LILCO, Broadwater can't walk away and leave Long Islanders holding the bag. I'll never forgive the former LILCO execs for ordering a low-power test at Shoreham just before they were forced to give up on the project. With that low-power test, they were able to move more of the cost of the plant into the rate base for computing what we all pay for electricity, thus driving up our rates. And, at the same time, they contaminated the facility at Shoreham with radiation so that it became a hazard, unusable for other purposes, and requiring security measures for generations to come.
This time, at least, Broadwater's parent companies, Shell and TransCanada, will have to eat what they spent while underestimating the passion of Long Islanders for our environment.
Showing posts with label Shoreham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shoreham. Show all posts
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Cordaro: Broadwater opponents "emotional & hysterical"
Former LILCO engineering veep Matthew Cordaro didn't like it when I challenged him to prove that the Northeast needs not only the Broadwater Liquid Natural Gas project proposed for Long Island Sound but also 2 others that could be put in the Atlantic Ocean south of Long Island.
These days, Cordaro inhabits the world of academia as the head of Long Island University's Center for Management Analysis, and Newsday and other news media quote him as an objective expert on Broadwater.
When I told him that his projections for strong demand growth are contradicted by relatively low estimates made by federal agencies, NY State and Keyspan, he complained that I was debating him. But he finally explained his demand prediction of strong demand this way: "It's just knowing. My information goes beyond what's being projected." The Northport and Port Jeff electric plants would need lots more gas to switch from oil, he said, a desirable change because it is less polluting. I said a spokesperson for Keyspan had just told me they were already using gas at these plants because it's currently cheaper than oil, so where's the need for dramatically more supply? (They are capable of using either fuel, and make the decision based on price.)
He then talked about the fact that 2/3 of the homes on LI (and much of the Northeast) are heated by oil, and that when we all switch, we'll need lots more natural gas. I reminded him that this would require homeowners to invest in expensive new heating equipment, not something most folks will do unless it's cost-justified. Well, he said, he is talking about a long-term change. Indeed.
I asked him what he thought about U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop's idea that a national commission should decide which of the 40 new LNG terminals proposed nationwide should be built, rather than letting the "market" decide. Not necessary, he said, because private companies "wouldn't build these facilities if they weren't sure they needed them," and, anyway, "if they want to overbuild it's to the advantage of the consumer." But what of the downside, to the enviornment of the Sound, to the fishing industry, etc.?
"The downside is minimal," he contended.
I asked him if he is a paid consultant for Broadwater, and he insisted that he receives no money from them.
"My whole motivation is to prevent another Shoreham, and for Long Island not to shoot itself in the foot again. Everyone had the same kind of objections based on emotion and hysteria that caused Shoreham to be shut down."
Obviously, Cordaro is unrepentent about the Shoreham fiasco that has cost, and still is costing Long Islander's billions of dollars. It seems we simple folks just worry too darn much about fish and the people who catch them for us, and about our right to have a say over public property and what is done there. We should just leave our energy decisions to experts like him.
These days, Cordaro inhabits the world of academia as the head of Long Island University's Center for Management Analysis, and Newsday and other news media quote him as an objective expert on Broadwater.
When I told him that his projections for strong demand growth are contradicted by relatively low estimates made by federal agencies, NY State and Keyspan, he complained that I was debating him. But he finally explained his demand prediction of strong demand this way: "It's just knowing. My information goes beyond what's being projected." The Northport and Port Jeff electric plants would need lots more gas to switch from oil, he said, a desirable change because it is less polluting. I said a spokesperson for Keyspan had just told me they were already using gas at these plants because it's currently cheaper than oil, so where's the need for dramatically more supply? (They are capable of using either fuel, and make the decision based on price.)
He then talked about the fact that 2/3 of the homes on LI (and much of the Northeast) are heated by oil, and that when we all switch, we'll need lots more natural gas. I reminded him that this would require homeowners to invest in expensive new heating equipment, not something most folks will do unless it's cost-justified. Well, he said, he is talking about a long-term change. Indeed.
I asked him what he thought about U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop's idea that a national commission should decide which of the 40 new LNG terminals proposed nationwide should be built, rather than letting the "market" decide. Not necessary, he said, because private companies "wouldn't build these facilities if they weren't sure they needed them," and, anyway, "if they want to overbuild it's to the advantage of the consumer." But what of the downside, to the enviornment of the Sound, to the fishing industry, etc.?
"The downside is minimal," he contended.
I asked him if he is a paid consultant for Broadwater, and he insisted that he receives no money from them.
"My whole motivation is to prevent another Shoreham, and for Long Island not to shoot itself in the foot again. Everyone had the same kind of objections based on emotion and hysteria that caused Shoreham to be shut down."
Obviously, Cordaro is unrepentent about the Shoreham fiasco that has cost, and still is costing Long Islander's billions of dollars. It seems we simple folks just worry too darn much about fish and the people who catch them for us, and about our right to have a say over public property and what is done there. We should just leave our energy decisions to experts like him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
