In the Bush era when citizen protests go unheard in Washington, it is truly remarkable that the Broadwater LNG project failed. Federal regulators had, as usual, ignored citizen protests and ruled in favor of mega-business interests. But Broadwater lost locally and regionally. You only had to be at Sunken Meadow last week when Governor Patterson nixed the project to see that just about every state, county and local politician was there to support what they clearly saw as a popular decision.
News stories gave short shrift to the reasoning behind the decision, which was a finding by the New York Secretary of State that Broadwater was inconsistent with the state's coastal zone management plan. That finding said the project violated 6 state policies, including "sustainable use of living marine resources" and fostering a pattern of development in the Sound that "enhances community character" and "preserves open space," among other things.
Nevertheless, the decision was political, and proponents see the loss as another case of NIMBY-ism. John Hritcko, Jr., Broadwater VP, told me just before the decision last week that "with any energy infrastructure project--whether LNG, a pipeline or a windmill--you're going to have trouble siting it." And it's true that some of the local politicos as well as Adrienne Esposito, director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, spoke favorably about another LNG project that would involve construction of an artificial island in the Atlantic Ocean off the New Jersey/New York coasts. But environmental groups in New Jersey have serious concerns about that project as well.
So what was the political calculus behind the Governor's decision? Why was the opposition successful in the face of Broadwater's intensive, professionally managed campaign for approval? I'd like to invite everyone who cared about Broadwater to offer their own ideas about why it failed. If not NIMBY, then what? How was the opposition able to kill Broadwater?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Will Broadwater Walk Away?
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
News12 Town Meeting Bashes Broadwater
News12, Long Island's Cablevision news operation, made the Broadwater proposal look bad from every angle last week during a well-researched 90-minute town meeting. An excellent panel including East End Congressional Rep Tim Bishop, Suffolk County Exec Steve Levy and Adrienne Esposito of Long Island Neighborhood Network exposed fundamental flaws, while former LILCO exec Mathhew Cordaro and Bill Cooper, from the LNG trade association, made feeble arguments that at one point drew jeers from the audience.
Cordaro, of course, as LILCO's vice president for engineering, is one of the utility leaders who foisted the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island, stubbornly refusing to change direction even when it was clear that residents would never allow it to operate. In his book, Power Crazy, Karl Grossman quotes a Dec. 13, 1979 letter that Cordaro wrote to a local newspaper minimizing the danger from Shoreham even if an accident forced an evacuation from the area.
"Any emissions to the atmosphere following" a loss of coolant accident, he wrote, "would form a plume, similar to smoke from a chimney...Once the plume passed, it would be safe to come back to the area." Chernobyl anyone? It's amazing how such failed leaders manage to hang on to their "expert" credentials instead of being shunned because of their past mistakes. (Karl Grossman, meanwhile, continues to hammer away at the real dangers of nuclear power.)
Regarding Broadwater, Cordaro, now ensconced in academia, insisted that an LNG spill resulting in a vapor cloud posed no risk at all because it probably would never reach land.
Esposito pointed out that such a cloud could travel more than 4 miles. While it might not touch land, it could incinerate boaters and fishers who happend to be there at the time. Apparently this doesn't trouble Cordaro.
Scaredy-cat Broadwater declined to even send a representative.
Significant parts of the discussion included:
Cordaro, of course, as LILCO's vice president for engineering, is one of the utility leaders who foisted the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island, stubbornly refusing to change direction even when it was clear that residents would never allow it to operate. In his book, Power Crazy, Karl Grossman quotes a Dec. 13, 1979 letter that Cordaro wrote to a local newspaper minimizing the danger from Shoreham even if an accident forced an evacuation from the area.
"Any emissions to the atmosphere following" a loss of coolant accident, he wrote, "would form a plume, similar to smoke from a chimney...Once the plume passed, it would be safe to come back to the area." Chernobyl anyone? It's amazing how such failed leaders manage to hang on to their "expert" credentials instead of being shunned because of their past mistakes. (Karl Grossman, meanwhile, continues to hammer away at the real dangers of nuclear power.)
Regarding Broadwater, Cordaro, now ensconced in academia, insisted that an LNG spill resulting in a vapor cloud posed no risk at all because it probably would never reach land.
Esposito pointed out that such a cloud could travel more than 4 miles. While it might not touch land, it could incinerate boaters and fishers who happend to be there at the time. Apparently this doesn't trouble Cordaro.
Scaredy-cat Broadwater declined to even send a representative.
Significant parts of the discussion included:
- "The choice is not Broadwater or nothing," said Bishop, who added that he has introduced legislation that would "start a national conversation" about the 40 LNG terminals proposed nationally to decide which ones provide needed energy at the least cost to the environment and with the fewest risks of terrorism, fire, etc. "There's no way we need all of them," said Bishop.
- Cooper of the LNG trade group, responded that we might as well extend this idea of giving the public a say in which projects to build to other industries, like supermarkets. The public could tell the stores what food to sell. The crowd listening in Brookhaven town hall hooted at this off-the-wall comparison.
- The U.S. Coast Guard, noted Levy, said last fall that it doesn't have the resources to protect the Broadwater terminal and the LNG delivery ships as they transit through the Sound. If Broadwater expects the county to come up with money for that effort, they should read Levy's lips: it will never happen.
- Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called the recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval of Broadwater "deeply deficient" and promised to fight Broadwater all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Friday, March 28, 2008
LNG Floating Terminal A Bad Idea
One of the things that's so galling about Broadwater is the pretense that there's no better way of delivering Liquid Natural Gas to our part of the world (leaving aside for the moment whether we really need more imported supplies.)
But there is a better way, and we need go no further than Massachusetts Bay, 18 miles east of Boston, to see it.
Texas-based Excelerate Energy has just finished the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal there with a capacity of 800 million cubic feet of gas per day. But instead of building a huge floating regasification terminal to take in the gas, as Broadwater wants to do, it installed only a floating buoy system. The special ships that deliver the gas do the whole job, hooking up to the buoy and then heating the LNG to gaseous form so it can be transported through a pipeline. Even more impressive, these environmentally-superior ships use a water re-cycling system that avoids spilling heated water into the ocean, reducing the impact on marine life.
Compare this to what Broadwater would do. Last September, I attended an informational meeting where a Broadwater representativer said that the water discharged by their operations in Long Island Sound would be raised 3 degrees and contain chlorine. This representative characterized the impact as "minimal and temporary."
Well, not quite, says the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It estimates that the operation of the ships at the floating terminal will kill 270 million eggs, larvae and juvenile fish, each and every year.
But hey, we didn't really expect to keep fishing in Long Island Sound, did we?
But there is a better way, and we need go no further than Massachusetts Bay, 18 miles east of Boston, to see it.
Texas-based Excelerate Energy has just finished the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal there with a capacity of 800 million cubic feet of gas per day. But instead of building a huge floating regasification terminal to take in the gas, as Broadwater wants to do, it installed only a floating buoy system. The special ships that deliver the gas do the whole job, hooking up to the buoy and then heating the LNG to gaseous form so it can be transported through a pipeline. Even more impressive, these environmentally-superior ships use a water re-cycling system that avoids spilling heated water into the ocean, reducing the impact on marine life.
Compare this to what Broadwater would do. Last September, I attended an informational meeting where a Broadwater representativer said that the water discharged by their operations in Long Island Sound would be raised 3 degrees and contain chlorine. This representative characterized the impact as "minimal and temporary."
Well, not quite, says the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It estimates that the operation of the ships at the floating terminal will kill 270 million eggs, larvae and juvenile fish, each and every year.
But hey, we didn't really expect to keep fishing in Long Island Sound, did we?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Natural Gas Gone Wild: Construction Boom Biggest in 60 Years
Yes, it surely is ironic. A few years ago when companies like Shell Oil and Chevron Texaco made plans to build 47 new Liquid Natural Gas terminals, it seemed that domestic supplies would be short.
But domestic producers also saw the need and moved to meet it.
The result is the biggest construction boom in natural gas infrastructure in the Southeast/Gulf Coast region since the late 1940s and early 1950s. (This region is the hub of major pipelines that move gas all over the country, including the Northeast) According to a report from Natural Gas Intelligence Press, there are 25 gas pipeline projects under way and 11 storage projects. The storage is being built because now there is an expectation of a surplus of supply coming from domestic operations and just four new LNG terminals in the area.
All of this is causing turmoil in the industry and is expected to bring about volatility in prices and other effects.
This underscores, once again, the madness of not having a coherent national energy policy.
It also highlights the question of whether there is really any need for Broadwater.
As I've written in earlier posts, overbuilding of LNG terminals is expected to leave them operating at below 50 percent capacity for years to come
But domestic producers also saw the need and moved to meet it.
The result is the biggest construction boom in natural gas infrastructure in the Southeast/Gulf Coast region since the late 1940s and early 1950s. (This region is the hub of major pipelines that move gas all over the country, including the Northeast) According to a report from Natural Gas Intelligence Press, there are 25 gas pipeline projects under way and 11 storage projects. The storage is being built because now there is an expectation of a surplus of supply coming from domestic operations and just four new LNG terminals in the area.
All of this is causing turmoil in the industry and is expected to bring about volatility in prices and other effects.
This underscores, once again, the madness of not having a coherent national energy policy.
It also highlights the question of whether there is really any need for Broadwater.
As I've written in earlier posts, overbuilding of LNG terminals is expected to leave them operating at below 50 percent capacity for years to come
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
New Gas for NYC/LI Ready Without Broadwater
While everyone was paying attention last week to federal approval for the Broadwater Liquid Natural Gas terminal, news about guaranteed expansion of natural gas supply to our region went unnoticed.
The same federal agency that approved Broadwater also gave a green light to the Iroquois Pipeline company to expand its capacity and deliver 50 percent more natural gas--that's right, 50 percent--to Keyspan for Long Island, and Con Edison for the city.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (known lovingly as FERC) told Iroquois it could go ahead and increase pipeline capacity so that it could add 200 million cubic feet a day to Keyspan's system and 100 million to Con Edison's. This was confirmed to me by Ruth Parkins, spokesperson for Iroquois. Delivery will start November 1 for most of it, with the rest phased in by November 1, 2009.
That's 30 percent of what Broadwater says it will deliver to the 1,200-foot-long, 200-foot-wide terminal it proposes to plant in Long Island Sound, IF it can get the supply. The federal Energy Information Administration's energy outlook for 2008 says supplies of LNG will be so tight in years to come that the terminals already existing or under construction, not including Broadwater, will run at under 50 percent capacity. (See previous post on Broadwater.)
The Iroquois expansion does nothing to disrupt the environment, boating, etc., etc., and expanding pipelines is exactly the remedy for expanding energy supplies supported by Connecticut's attorney general, governor and lawmakers.
The same federal agency that approved Broadwater also gave a green light to the Iroquois Pipeline company to expand its capacity and deliver 50 percent more natural gas--that's right, 50 percent--to Keyspan for Long Island, and Con Edison for the city.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (known lovingly as FERC) told Iroquois it could go ahead and increase pipeline capacity so that it could add 200 million cubic feet a day to Keyspan's system and 100 million to Con Edison's. This was confirmed to me by Ruth Parkins, spokesperson for Iroquois. Delivery will start November 1 for most of it, with the rest phased in by November 1, 2009.
That's 30 percent of what Broadwater says it will deliver to the 1,200-foot-long, 200-foot-wide terminal it proposes to plant in Long Island Sound, IF it can get the supply. The federal Energy Information Administration's energy outlook for 2008 says supplies of LNG will be so tight in years to come that the terminals already existing or under construction, not including Broadwater, will run at under 50 percent capacity. (See previous post on Broadwater.)
The Iroquois expansion does nothing to disrupt the environment, boating, etc., etc., and expanding pipelines is exactly the remedy for expanding energy supplies supported by Connecticut's attorney general, governor and lawmakers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
