On April 10, New York Governor David Paterson announced he was rejecting a plan by Broadwater Energy to to build a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal nine miles off the coast of Long Island. The news delighted environmentalists, fishermen and other lovers of Long Island Sound. NY nixes LNG platform; focus shifts to NJ
This week, Broadwater (a joint venture of Shell Oil and the TransCanada Corporation) was back in the news, announcing that it would appeal to the U.S. commerce secretary. A decision could take up to a year. If the appeal is successful, it no doubt would trigger law suits that could drag on for some time.
In the meanwhile, the focus has shifted to New Jersey where the battle lines are being drawn over two separate proposals to erect LNG terminals off the coast.
The first, "Safe Harbor Energy," comes from Atlantic Sea Island Group, a group of private investors who propose to build a man-made island for a LNG facility 13 miles off Long Beach, NY, and 19 miles off Sea Bright, NJ. The second, "Blue Ocean Energy," is ExxonMobil's plan for a floating LNG terminal located 30 miles off Long Island and 20 miles east of New Jersey. (Video)
The Jersey-shore organization, Clean Ocean Action, used Earth Day to formally launch its campaign against both proposals, staging a rally on the beach in Sea Bright which was attended by long-time supporter Rep. Frank J. Pallone Jr., D-N.J.
"If it's not good enough for Long Island Sound, it's sure as hell isn't good enough for our "Clean Ocean Zone,' " declared the group's executive director Cindy Zipf.
If the title of a subsequent Asbury Park Press editorial, LNG proposals pose new threat , left any doubt on where the paper stood, the opening sentence made it crystal clear :
"Plans to build two liquefied natural gas plants about 20 miles off the Monmouth County coast deserve to sink under the weight of major safety and environmental concerns."
But, unlike his fellow governors in New York and Connecticut who sided with opponents of the Broadwater plan, New Jersey's Jon Corzine "realizes that we have a growing generation gap when it comes to our power needs in New Jersey, and LNG facilities must be considered as we move forward in crafting a long-term energy strategy for the state," according to his press secretary Lilo Stainton.
Bergen Record columnist James Ahearn expanded on the Stainton quote on Sunday, declaring: " "Corzine, faced with a confrontation between environmental activists and corporate interests, did not hesitate to choose growth."
What's the smart-money pick in this enviro-political dog fight?
Hard to say. New Jersey's LNG contest is still in the early innings. Let's wait to see were other key state and federal lawmakers line up and whether ExxonMobil and the Atlantic Sea Island Group can do a better job than Broadwater did in articulating their projects' public benefits.
Continuously rising energy prices could help them. Any serious pollution incidents at Jersey beaches this summer, related to LNG or not, could hurt.
___________________________________________________
Related:
Feds urged to overturn OK of Broadwater facility Federal energy regulators are being formally urged by state and local officials and environmentalists in New York and Connecticut to reverse a decision approving the Broadwater liquid natural gas facility.
In TransCanada profit soars, the Toronto Globe and Mail reports that the Power and pipeline company reports a profit of $449 million for the first quarter of 2008 despite a $27 million writedown on previously capitalized costs on the Broadwater project.
In Broadwater's wake. The apparent loss of the Long Island Sound project was not cheered by all. Suffolk Life says that, although Broadwater's project's managers "did a lousy job of selling the concept of a liquefied natural gas platform," the plan did offer benefits, including a $12 million in-lieu of tax payment to Riverhead Town whose school district could use the money because of the town's small industrial tax base.
WSJ Says: Don’t Bet on LNG to Reduce US Natural Gas Prices - Commentary from a blog named It's Getting Hot in Here
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
LNG platforms - A northeast update
Week's top environmental & political news: April 21-25 '08
Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.
Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York--and beyond-- that appeared during the past week.
April 21 2008
April 22 2008
April 23 2008
April 24 2008
April 25 2008
To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, simply send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Week's top environmental & political news
Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.
Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York--and beyond-- that appeared during the past week.
April 18 2008
April 17 2008
April 16 2008
April 15 2008
To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, simply send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The NJ-DEP's newest enforcement powers
Those who fear that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) already has more than enough environmental enforcement clout are advised to skip to some other topic on this blog. The analysis we are about to recommend could ruin your day.
On January 4, 2008, Governor Jon Corzine signed into law the "Environmental Enforcement Enhancement Act" which gives the NJDEP sweeping new enforcement authority under 10 separate environmental statutes.
Three environmental attorneys at the law firm of K&LGates--Dawn M. Monsen, John F. Spinello, and Mary Theresa S. Kenny -- have analyzed the new law and find that it...
They predict that the new authority granted to the DEP by the Act..."... substantially increases the maximum civil penalties NJDEP may seek, authorizes NJDEP to commence administrative enforcement proceedings and assess administrative penalties, establishes third degree crimes for certain violations, allows NJDEP to recover legal costs and natural resource damages, and record deed notices for certain alleged violations."
"will have the most pronounced effect in the NJDEP’s enforcement of the land use and water resource programs, and may affect pending, as well as new cases commenced by the NJDEP."
The attorneys review the Act's background and purpose, provide a detailed examination of its key provisions and revised penalties, and offer their conclusions as to its likely effects.
You'll find it all in this K&LGates Environmental, Land Use and Natural Resources Alert.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
NY nixes LNG platform; focus shifts to NJ
Environmentalists, fishermen, boaters and others who for months have been fighting a proposal to build a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal nine miles off the coast of Long Island breathed a sigh of relief today when Governor David Paterson gave the project his official thumbs down. (Newsday story and video)
John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director of Houston-based Broadwater Energy said the project isn't necessarily dead, since its backers, Shell Oil and the TransCanada Corporation, might appeal the decision to the federal Commerce Department and, failing that, could go to court.
Despite the potential for appeals, the governor's decision takes the project off the front burner and shifts attention to New Jersey where two other developers are proposing separate off-shore LNG projects.
The first, "Safe Harbor Energy," comes from Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG), a group of private investors who propose to build a man-made island for a LNG facility 13 miles off Long Beach, NY, and 19 miles off Sea Bright, NJ.
The second, "Blue Ocean Energy," is 
ExxonMobil's plan for a floating LNG terminal located 30 miles off Long Island and 20 miles east of New Jersey. (Video)
It will be interesting to see how the lessons of Broadwater are applied in New Jersey, both by the developers and project opponents.
In New York and Connecticut, environmental opponents won the support of key politicians (most notably Connecticut's governor and attorney general), bloggers, newspaper columnists and editorial boards (including the New York Times).
Broadwater tried to counter with a survey that claimed to find widespread public support for its project. But this came late in the game, long after the court of public opinion had clearly rendered an unfavorable opinion.
In New Jersey, ExxonMobil and ASIG have been quietly pursuing federal approval for their projects and so far have not mounted any noticeable public relations campaigns.
Opposition likely will be lead by Clean Ocean Action, a Jersey shore environmental organization which hasn't wasted any time is using its web site and a "fact sheet" to educate its members and supporters about the alleged shortcomings of both projects.
We'll be watching the action from shore and brining you periodic updates. Let the PR games begin!
Solar energy heats up in New Jersey again
Encouraged by generous state rebates, solar panel installations at New Jersey businesses and homes went from 9 projects (with 6 kW) in 2001 to over 1,000 projects (with 19 MW) in 2006.
But the program proved so wildly popular that rebate applications became backlogged and the state's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) recognized that there wasn't enough money to keep the juggernaut going. So the BPU announced it was phasing out the rebates and switching to a program in which those installing solar energy systems would qualify instead for credits.
But credits, earned after a homeowner or business has already paid the often expensive price of a solar system installation, was likely to dampen consumer interest and jeopardize the state's goal of generating 20 percent of its energy from alternative sources by 2020, with 2 percent of that coming from solar systems.
Riding to the rescue this week was the state's largest electric utility, Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G), which announced an agreement with the BPU to launch a two-year pilot program in which it will make $105 million in loans available to customers installing solar systems. The loans will cover between 40 and 60 percent of the installation cost, with the rest funded by the property owner.
Owners would repay the loans through credits they receive for the solar power their systems generate. The interest PSE&G charges for the loans will not fully cover the program's costs, so the BPU will allow the utility will tack a surcharge on every customer's bill to make up the difference, including a return on investment of 9.75 percent. (I wish all my investments had such a nice return)
In the near term, the loans, which will be available on a first-come, first-served basis, should provide a significant boost to the solar energy industry--both equipment manufacturers and commercial installers.
The BPU suggests that those interested in applying for a loan should first obtain quotes from several reputable installation contractors. The Board maintains a list of approved contractors on its website. Click on the "Find A Vendor" button at:
http://www.njcleanenergy.com/renewable-energy/programs/core-rebate-program/find-vendor/find-vendor
Clicking on that link will open a page on which the Board, inexplicably, demands that you first "agree to the terms of a disclaimer." (I'm not kidding). Just humor them and agree by clicking and the list will be yours.
For more information on the program, don't go anywhere near the BPU's website. It's attractive enough but it appears to have been written by a committee of lawyers, electrical engineers and government bureaucrats all determined to stultify each other to death.
Instead, go to PSE&G's Solar Loan Program site and particularly it's Frequently Asked Questions page where it's all laid out for you in mercifully clear and understandable English.
To read about an even more aggressive program announced by Southern California Edison, check out: California Utility to Install Solar Panels
And to learn about a comparatively sluggish program proposed in New York by Mayor Bloomberg, check out New York City's 2MW Solar Plan Is No Done Deal
Have an opinion on all or any of this that you'd like to share? Click on the "comment" link below and have at it.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Clearing the air at New Jersey ports and airports
The DEP is located at 401 East State Street in Trenton.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Week's top environmental & political news
Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them
to our website for free public use.
Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York--and beyond-- that appeared during the past week.
April 4, 2008
April 3, 2008
April 2, 2008
April 1, 2008
March 31, 2008
To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News
page is updated, simply send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com
Friday, April 4, 2008
Changes ahead for site remediations in NJ
Significant changes are brewing for New Jersey's environmental site remediation program.
The Senate Environment Committee and the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee will hold joint hearing on April 15 to take testimony on proposed changes.
Topics for discussion include:
* The use of licensed site professionals to review some remediations;
* Remedy selection/encouragement of permanent remedies;
* Engineering and institutional controls;
* Standards for the remediation/replacement of underground tanks;
* Site remediation enforcement issues;
* Issues concerning remediation funding, and,
* Change in use of contaminated sites.
The fact that both committees are meeting together is an indication that serious changes are in the works.
The meeting will be held at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 4 on the St Floor of the State House Annex. That's the building to the right when you are facing the State House in Trenton.
As we learn more about the details, we'll pass them on to our blog readers.
If you're not already subscribed, you'll can sign up for alerts either by email or RSS.
If you don't know what RSS means, don''t worry. Most people don't. Just send a blank email to: epfreeblog@aweber.com and we'll notify you by email whenever the blog is updated.
If you're a member of the cognoscenti who have come to appreciate RSS, click on the "Subscribe in a reader" link in the upper left-hand column to receive updates in your favorite news reader.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
New developments in NY's LNG barge saga
New York's new governor David A. Paterson hasn't had much time to weigh the pluses and minuses of the liquefied natural gas barge that TransCanada Corporation and Shell Oil are proposing to install in Long Island Sound, so the New York Times is trying to help him out.
In a March 31 editorial, the Times pleads:
"New York regulators and Gov. David Paterson may be the last hope for scuttling the project, although officials in Connecticut have promised federal lawsuits, too, if that is what it takes."
The newspaper duly notes that the project has passed several environmental reviews since it was introduced in 2004, but then goes on to dismiss it in this light-hearted fashion:
"Long Island Sound could probably survive the addition of a permanent industrial barge the length of four football fields, and fishing boats and pleasure boaters could probably learn to cope with gas tankers, and everyone could probably live with the remote possibility of a big gas explosion in the Sound. But it’s not worth the accumulation of these insults to the Sound and its stressed ecosystem. Natural gas is cleaner than oil or coal but still a globe-warming fossil fuel."
The editorial may have been the newspaper's official position, but it wasn't it's final word.
Today, just three days later, in the paper's "OUR TOWNS" section, writer Peter Applebome gave the project a few more kicks, noting that:
"political opposition to Broadwater has become something of a steamroller, with almost no visible support in Connecticut and only modest pockets on Long Island, including among some labor and business groups."
So, there's little left for the governor to do but to stick a big fork in the side of the 1,215-foot-long, 100-foot-tall energy barge. Right?
Well, not so quick. Applebome cautions that the project is "still very much alive." He provides four reasons.
"One is the bottomless pockets of its big-energy sponsors, TransCanada Corporation and Shell Oil. The second is support, overt and covert, in New York, where the City Council has backed the project as part of a long-term strategy to provide natural gas to the city. The third is a federal regulatory process that is extremely friendly to the energy industry; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month voted 5 to 0 in favor of the project. And fourth is the fact that one person matters in the regulatory process more than anyone else. That would be the governor of New York, who has enormous power to kill the project or keep it alive."
We suspect that Mr. Applebome has four reasons of his own for not declaring the project DOA.
#1 He likes a good drama as much as much as the rest of us and hopes to write at least one more story on the Broadwater saga.
#2 He wants to appear fair-minded, despite the fact that his piece does its best to blow the barge clear out of the Sound.
#3 When dealing with New York politicians, he's clearly learned to hedge his bets.
#4 He hasn't yet read his paper's March 31 editorial
For the latest news on why one of the "bottomless pockets" in the project is hanging tough, we turn to London where Thompson Financial News reported on Tuesday that:
"UK utility National Grid Plc says it will sell its 2,480 megawatt Ravenswood Generating Station in New York City to TransCanada Corporation for $2.9 billion. The disposal is a regulatory requirement associated with National Grid's acquisition last year of Keyspan."
The American financial press picked up the story and concentrated their focus on the cost of the acquisition. But Dan Durett, yesterday in his blog, made the connection between TransCanada's Ravenswood purchase and the Broadwater proposal, writing:
"TransCanada owns or has interests in the producers of approximately 7,700 megawatts of power generation. The company also owns generators in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to its Web site. TransCanada, along with Shell US Gas and Power LLC, is also planning to build the Broadwater Energy liquefied natural gas terminal off Long Island Sound, which could bring the gas from Broadwater to Ravenswood and convert it to electrical power and sell it to the people of New York."
So a veil slowly parts, and the plot thickens. Stay tuned.
More: Pols: FERC's Broadwater Approval Is No Surprise
For Broadwater, All Eyes Are On Albany
NY and CN face off over LNG terminal
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Is NJ facing an expanded nuclear future?
The (Newark) Star-Ledger reported yesterday that it had obtained a copy of the state's much anticipated Energy Master Plan revision. That document apparently concludes that:
"the greenhouse gas (reduction) mandates point toward nuclear energy to produce carbon-free electricity at a lower price per megawatt-hour than fossil-fueled plants."
This shouldn't come as shocking news , since the state's largest energy company, Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), and a pro-nuclear advocacy group, the NJ Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition have been saying the same thing at every chance.
No amount of energy conservation and investment in alternative production technologies, like solar and wind, will provide enough new energy to keep pace with increasing consumer demand, they say.
The Star-Ledger story notes that PSEG is considering building a nuclear unit in Salem County, where it already has three nuclear stations. A state energy policy that makes a case for additional nuclear generation would be a major plus in helping the company overcome expected opposition from environmental groups and to attract support from the financial community.
PSEG surprised some observers last year when it broke ranks with other state utilities and provided an early endorsement for Governor Jon Corzine's call for a 20 percent reduction in energy use in New Jersey by 2020 and a 20 percent shift in total power supplies to renewable sources like solar and wind.
In recent months, PSEG has announced plans for an ambitious program designed to help customers install energy-conservation measures and equipment. More recently, it filed an application seeking state approval to construct a major offshore wind park.
Are those announcements proof of a solid commitment to energy conservation and to alternative energy or simply smart public relations moves designed to provide environmental cover while the company pursues it primary objective --gaining state approval for a new nuclear plant?
It's too early to say, but a recent development caused both the state Board of Public Utilities and the Office of the Public Advocate to raise questions.
Both are objecting to the company's plan to disconnect its power plant in Bergen County from the regional power grid that serves New Jersey and to sell the plant's electricity, instead, to energy-starved New York.
In a March 11 story, the Star-Ledger reported that...
"Both the BPU and Public Advocate's rate counsel have intervened in the case, which is pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The case, although involving a relatively small power plant in the regional power grid, could have huge implications by setting a precedent in disputes centering around importing and exporting of electricity. "
If New Jersey's growing energy needs are so voracious that they mandate the construction of a new nuclear reactor, why is the state's largest electric utility making deals to sell off a chunk of that precious supply to a neighboring state?
What are your thoughts? Let us know by clicking on the "comments" line below.