Connecticut's LNG solution? Put it in Jersey
NY State must kill Broadwater to benefit public
New York postpones LNG facility decision
NY and CT face off over LNG terminal
With that background, now check out Broadwater Energy's response. It came today in the form of a letter to the editor of Newsday from John Hritcko, BroadWater's senior vice president and regional project director. We provide it below in its entirety:
"States win if Broadwater dies" by Richard Blumenthal implores us to repudiate "a false dichotomy between environmental protection and energy supply." Yet, his arguments ignore the facts and widen the perceived chasm between energy and the environment. Blumenthal correctly points out that New York and Connecticut need more natural gas to feed a growing demand for energy, as well as to fuel cleaner power plants. Indeed, Connecticut's own 2007 Energy Plan, published by the Connecticut Energy Advisory Board, recommends developing liquefied natural gas import facilities.
But the Connecticut attorney general claims that schemes such as Safe Harbor Energy and BlueOcean Energy, both primarily serving New Jersey and neither having undergone review, can somehow be better than Broadwater in delivering natural gas to Connecticut and New York.
Blumenthal's record reveals his penchant for regulation through litigation, opposing every energy infrastructure project that could bring down the cost of energy in the region, shutting off electricity to Long Island and now threatening New York with lawsuits. This will lead us to consensus on the shared interests of energy and environment?
Businesses and working families in the region need relief from our high-priced energy. Blumenthal perpetuates the myth that we can't have conventional energy and a clean environment.
Broadwater would deliver plentiful, affordable natural gas in a safe, environmentally responsible manner, but we need enlightened, confident leadership that is willing to face the difficult challenges of achieving energy security.