SPEAKING OF SAVING THE SOUND...DAVID PATERSON, NEW YORK'S GOVERNOR, DOES THE RIGHT THING!!!
Long Island Sound Fairfield County alternative visions...CT DEP Commissioner has news for the pipeline proposal...the schooner Amistad during its journey to Bermuda in 2005. The ship, built at Mystic Seaport, is now in Sierra Leone, from where La Amistad sailed with cargoes of slaves in the early 19th century before it was commandeered by slaves in 1839 and found off the Connecticut coast. The slaves on board were eventually exonerated by an American court and set free. Amistad received a joyous welcome in Sierra Leone Friday...and prediction.

Long Island Sound Page:
SWRPA VIDEO WAS ON CABLEVISION CHANNEL 77, IN ADVANCE OF COAST GUARD/FERC HEARINGS...early in the process (Monday,  August 1, 2005, Stamford Government Center)...PRO-CON DISCUSSION ON BROADWATER (LNG for L.I. Sound)...


FROM THE INTERNET...

Broadwater To Appeal Setback
Hartford Courant
Associated Press
April 29, 2008

Elected officials and environmentalists shrugged off an announcement Monday by Broadwater Energy that it would appeal to the U.S. commerce secretary in its bid to build the world's first floating liquefied natural gas terminal, in Long Island Sound.

Broadwater's decision comes after Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, and New York's David Paterson, a Democrat, announced opposition to the $700 million terminal. Broadwater is a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.

The appeal could take up to a year, and even after that, court fights are still possible.

"They can appeal all they want. We are very confident they are going to lose," said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment.

The terminal would be about the size of the Queen Mary 2 — the length of four football fields and about 8 stories high. It would be 9 miles off the north shore of Long Island and 11 miles from the Connecticut coast.

Proponents say that it could help ease rising energy costs on Long Island and elsewhere.

"We firmly believe that Broadwater is the best way to deliver a new supply of clean, affordable and reliable natural gas to the region without the onshore and near-shore environmental and safety impacts associated with other alternatives," said John Hritcko, Broadwater's senior vice president.

Politicians and environmentalists had celebrated Paterson's opposition as a fatal blow, although they were aware that Broadwater had more options.

"The point was that we spent years trying to preserve that area and we just felt that it was too intrusive," Paterson said Monday. "A liquefied natural gas facility somewhere near a refinery would be better than actually in the ocean."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a longtime opponent, said that time is not on the side of the Bush administration.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed confidence that the plan ultimately would be rejected.

Rell, Others Laud N.Y.'s Rejection Of Broadwater Gas Plant
By DAVID FUNKHOUSER | Courant Staff Writer
April 11, 2008

Opponents cheered as New York Gov. David Paterson declared Thursday, "The fact is, Broadwater is behind us."

But the high-stakes battle over Broadwater Energy's plan to put a massive, floating, natural-gas plant in Long Island Sound isn't over yet. The developers said New York's rejection of their plan Thursday was just one step in the approval process, not the last one, and opponents expect an appeal.

Still, at press conferences on both sides of the Sound, officials, citizens and environmental groups opposed to the plant celebrated their first major victory — New York's decision that the project was inconsistent with its coastal management plan.

Although Connecticut had no official standing in the decision, many in the state had been eagerly awaiting New York's decision.

"We did it! We did it! We did it!" Gov. M. Jodi Rell exclaimed at a press conference on Silver Sands Beach in Milford. "This is exactly the news we hoped to hear today: that New York's Department of State has recognized the peril that the Broadwater project represents."

New York's action leaves the next legal step up to Broadwater, and opponents concede there could be a long battle ahead.

"This does not necessarily change the game plan," said John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director for Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipeline. "Today's decision is part of a regulatory review process, not the end of one. We — and thousands of others in this region — believe that this project is the best alternative to provide the additional natural gas supply that will be required."

Hritcko said the company has "a number of options going forward" and would review the decision in detail before deciding on its next move.

Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, New York's secretary of state, called the rejection of Broadwater's application a "complex and difficult decision," saying the project did not mesh with several aspects of the state's coastal policies.

Her decision, backed up by Paterson, puts a serious roadblock in Broadwater's path.

"We are disappointed and concerned with the [New York] decision," Hritcko said. "We specifically designed this project to be consistent with the state's coastal management policies and offered a number of additional commitments that would further enhance the state's coastal resources."

"This fight is far from over," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a longtime opponent of the project. Under federal energy law, he said, the company has 30 days to appeal the decision to the U.S. secretary of commerce, who can overrule state decisions.

"They have a right to go to the secretary … and say that national energy priorities should override the coastal zone management determination made here by the governor," Blumenthal said.

The company also could appeal through state agencies and courts, but Blumenthal called that approach "exceedingly unlikely" because of the time involved.

Even if Cortes-Vazquez's rejection of the project were to be overturned, two other New York agencies would still have to approve Broadwater.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which has raised objections to the project, would have to issue a permit, and the New York State Office of General Services would have to grant the company an easement to use public land.

Broadwater, a 1,200 foot long liquefied natural gas processing plant, would be permanently moored to a tower in the middle of the Sound, about 10.5 miles off Branford.

Opponents have argued that the two states and the federal government have invested tens of millions of dollars over the past 20 years to improve the environment of the Sound.

They say that allowing an industrial use like Broadwater in the middle of public waters would threaten that progress.

"Gov. Paterson's swift and immediate decision to reject this ill-advised proposal should be applauded and celebrated with a ticker tape parade," said U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District. "For years, Connecticut and New York residents have faced the threat of a quarter-mile-long barge in the middle of the revitalized Long Island Sound that would serve only the interests of multinational oil conglomerates."

Cortes-Vazquez and Paterson both cited the need to find alternative ways to meet the demand for energy.

"The thorough analysis in today's ruling makes clear the importance of protecting the character of Long Island Sound as it points the way to sensible alternatives for meeting New York's long-term energy needs," said Cortes-Vazquez, whose department is charged under federal law with making sure projects meet the state's goals for both developing and protecting the coast.

Paterson stressed the Sound's environmental value.

"One of my goals … is to protect Long Island Sound, by preserving it as a valuable estuary, an economic engine for the region, and a key component to making Long Island's quality of life one of the best in the country," Paterson said. "Broadwater does not pass that test. Shame on us if we can't develop a responsible energy policy without sacrificing one of our greatest natural and economic resources."

Paterson outlined a series of steps for addressing energy needs, including an update of the state's energy plan; a 10-year, $1 billion efficiency initiative by the Long Island Power Authority to reduce demand; doubling the New York Power Authority's budget for conservation; and exploring other proposals to increase the supply of natural gas.

He also said the Long Island Power Authority would be seeking proposals for a major solar power project.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission voted unanimously last month to approve Broadwater. In a 2,200-page environmental impact statement, the agency concluded that the project would not have major adverse impacts, but also imposed 80 conditions intended to minimize the effect on the Sound.

The decision by Cortes-Vazquez declares that Broadwater violates six of 13 policies that are part of the state's coastal management plan, including those to:

ΔFoster a pattern of development in the Long Island Sound coastal area that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location and minimizes adverse effects of development.

ΔEnhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout Long Island Sound.

ΔProtect and restore the quality and function of the Long Island Sound ecosystem.

ΔProvide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands and public resources of the Long Island Sound coastal area.

•Protect Long Island Sound's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations.

•Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound.

She also suggested two alternative sites for the facility that would be consistent with the coastal plan, both outside New York boundaries.

One would be 13 miles offshore south of Long Beach, N.Y., and a second 22 miles south of Fire Island Inlet.

New York Denies Broadwater's Request 
DAY
By Judy Benson    
Published on 4/10/2008 

New York Gov. David Paterson will announce at a news conference on Long Island today that the state is rejecting Broadwater Energy's request for Coastal Consistency Certification for its proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound.

Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz said she was notified by her counterpart in New York, Lorraine Cortés-Vásquez, about the decision late Wednesday evening.

"New York and Connecticut stand united in their opposition to Broadwater," Bysiewicz said. "This is a major victory in the fight to prevent the desecration and industrialization of Long Island Sound."

Opponents of the project hailed the decision as the first victory in their fight after a series of actions favoring the project. Last month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously approved a permit for Broadwater.

"There were some dark moments over the last three years when we felt we were being ignored," said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment. "This is an amazing victory to know that the public's voice can be heard over the corporations."

Broadwater, a partnership of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipeline, had not yet issued a comment on the New York decision. The company can appeal the New York decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, but must prove that its project would be in the national interest and that there are no other alternatives, Esposito said. She is confident that New York state will prevail on both arguments.

"New York has never lost a coastal consistency ruling," she said.

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell will join other Connecticut officials at a news conference in Milford this afternoon to applaud New York's decision. The terminal was proposed for New York waters 10 miles south of Branford.
New York Rejects Broadwater Gas Plant For Sound
By DAVID FUNKHOUSER | Courant Staff Writer
April 10, 2008

New York state has decided to reject Broadwater Energy's proposal to moor a liquefied natural gas plant in the middle of Long Island Sound, Connecticut officials said Wednesday.

The long-awaited decision sets the stage for an almost certain federal court battle.

New York Gov. David Paterson and Secretary of State Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez planned to formally announce the decision today at a 2 p.m. news conference at Long Island's Sunken Meadow State Park.

Broadwater officials faulted New York's assessment of the project, but opponents on both sides of the Sound cheered the decision.

"I think this is a major victory," said Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, who was notified of the decision by Cortés-Vázquez around 8:30 p.m. Wednesday. "I'm absolutely thrilled that she has done the right thing and that New York is united with Connecticut in protecting the Sound."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called it a victory "for ourselves and for future generations."

"This decision is crucially important because it will send a message that Long Island Sound is off limits," he said.

Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil Co. and TransCanada Corp., wants to hitch the 1,200-foot-long, 200-foot-wide vessel to a mooring 9 miles off Long Island and about 10.5 miles off Branford. Huge tankers would sail into the Sound two or three times a week to deliver overseas supplies of liquefied natural gas to the plant. The super-cooled LNG would be re-gassified and sent through a new 22-mile-long pipeline that would connect to the existing Iroquois natural gas pipeline.

The New York decision is essentially a determination that Broadwater is unsuitable for the Sound.

Because the project would sit in New York waters, Connecticut agencies have had no direct authority over it. But officials from Gov. M. Jodi Rell on down wrote to Paterson urging him to reject Broadwater. All of the Connecticut congressional delegation and much of New York's opposed the plant.

Cortés-Vázquez had faced a Friday deadline to rule on whether Broadwater fits in with her state's policies on the use and protection of coastal areas.

She found the project inconsistent with six of 13 criteria under New York's coastal zone management plan, Bysiewicz said.

Broadwater officials faulted Cortés-Vázquez's assessment.

"We believe that Broadwater is consistent with the coastal zone management plan of the state," Broadwater executive John Hritcko Jr. said.

He added through a spokeswoman: "Depending upon the nature of the determination, Broadwater has a number of options and we will review the decision and findings, then evaluate our next steps."

Cortés-Vázquez told Bysiewicz that any appeal of her decision would go first to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. However, an appeal could also go to the U.S. secretary of commerce.

The decision is the first in a series of approvals Broadwater needed from state agencies in New York. Unless it is overturned in court, the decision would make moot reviews by New York environmental officials and by an agency that would have to grant Broadwater an easement over a portion of the Sound.

"New York heard the voice of the people, weighed the evidence, and did what was right — they chose to protect Long Island Sound," said Leah Schmalz, director of legislative affairs for Save the Sound. "Their choice represents the will of thousands of people, a great coalition of environmental and citizen's groups, as well as the highest levels of Connecticut government. It is a voice speaking boldly and without regret: people matter more than profits."

Opponents argue that Broadwater would hurt the environment, interfere with other uses in the Sound and pose a security threat. They say the region and the federal government have spent millions to clean up the Sound and should not allow it to become home to such an industrial facility.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month declared after two years of study that the facility would not pose a serious threat to the environment and could be operated safely. The agency imposed a long list of conditions intended to minimize the project's environmental impact and ensure safety.

Connecticut lawmakers in Congress this week backed a new proposal that would strip the agency of its power to decide on such projects, leaving them up to individual states.

Proponents say the region needs new supplies of energy and that Broadwater, in supplying a billion cubic feet a day of natural gas, would help keep down the price of electricity in New York and Connecticut. They say LNG has a proven safety record and that natural gas is a cleaner fuel for power plants than oil or coal.

But opponents say there are other options, including several other proposed pipeline and LNG terminal projects along the Atlantic seaboard.

"It's clear that Broadwater simply was not the answer to our energy question and would exact an unacceptable toll on our environment," Schmalz said. "We can and should encourage a considered and thoughtful discussion about how best to meet regional energy needs."



LNG Terminal Gets Federal Approval; FERC's Nod For L.I. Sound Plan Draws Immediate Condemnation 
DAY
By Judy Benson    
Published on 3/21/2008 
 
Broadwater Energy's plan to park a first-of-its-kind floating natural-gas terminal in Long Island Sound crossed an important threshold Thursday, but the contentious three-year battle over the proposal is far from over.

The five-member Federal Energy Regulatory Commission voted unanimously to approve the LNG plant, triggering a swift and predictable response from opponents on both sides of the Sound and signaling the start of a long legal fight between Connecticut and the federal agency.

The project still needs several key permits and approvals from New York state, because the terminal would be located in New York waters of the Sound, and from the Army Corps of Engineers.

But the FERC approval is a crucial first step.

“We will fight as long and as hard as necessary, even to the Supreme Court if necessary,” said Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who was flanked by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the co-chairmen of the state legislature's Environment Committee and representatives of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment during a news conference after the FERC vote was announced.

Blumenthal said he will “immediately” request that FERC conduct a new hearing on the project, but does not expect the agency will reverse its decision because of what he contends is the Bush administration's “lawless love for energy projects at the expense of safety, the environment and quality of life.”

“Next stop: the D.C. Court of Appeals,” he announced in a news release.

The basis of his appeal, Blumenthal said, will be his contention that in approving Broadwater, FERC failed to carry out its responsibility to seriously consider viable alternatives to increase the region's natural-gas supply that would do less environmental damage and be less dangerous to the public. He said he hopes New York agencies will stop the project and that the two states will be allies in opposing it. But he said he would also take New York state to court if it gives Broadwater the go-ahead.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell issued a strong statement decrying the FERC decision, as did the state's entire congressional delegation. The Long Island-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment called the FERC vote “disdainful to public interests and a disgrace to democracy.” It called on newly sworn-in New York Gov. David Paterson to “say no to Broadwater.”

Blumenthal said the longer the project can be delayed, the better, because that will give other projects that will increase the region's natural-gas supplies time to come on line, cutting into potential markets for Broadwater. As an estuary, he said, the Sound is more environmentally sensitive than other offshore locations proposed by alternative projects.

•••••

But Broadwater is unlikely to give up easily. It is a joint venture of TransCanada and Shell Oil, part of the huge, multinational energy firm Royal Dutch/Shell Group, which has annual revenues of $355.8 billion — nearly 20 times Connecticut's annual budget of about $18 billion.

In a statement, John Hritcko, senior vice president of Broadwater, hailed the FERC decision as one that will help bring “new clean, reliable, affordable natural gas supply to a region where prices are volatile and climbing.” He added that increased use of natural gas in the region would help improve air quality because it is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, and that the region is at a disadvantage because it is at the end of the pipeline delivery system that carries gas from wells in the West and Canada.

“Without new energy supply,” Hritcko said, “energy consumers will continue to face volatile and increasing natural-gas prices in New York and Connecticut.”

The terminal, which would be 1,215 feet long, 200 feet wide and rise 180 feet above the water line, would be anchored about nine miles north of Riverhead, L.I., and 10 miles south of Branford. It would supply about 1 billion cubic feet of gas daily to New York City, Long Island and Connecticut markets.

The gas would be from overseas wells in compressed, super-chilled liquid form to the terminal on tankers that would enter Long Island Sound through The Race and offload at the terminal about two to three times per week. The Coast Guard has determined that both the terminal and the tankers as they traverse the Sound must be surrounded by a safety and security zone enforced with patrol boats to prohibit all other vessels from coming too close.

The approval by the five FERC commissioners, which came with 80 conditions they said would help protect the environment and enhance the project's safety, had been expected for weeks. In January, FERC staff released an Environmental Impact Statement strongly favoring approval and concluding that there would be limited environmental impacts from the project that would be less than any alternatives that could bring in a comparable amount of natural gas — a contention opponents dispute.

FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher, in a statement before the vote, said FERC “is first and foremost a safety agency, but we do not balance safety against need. But we are not unmindful of the need for additional natural gas supplies in the Northeast.”

Kelliher also took issue with the strong anti-Broadwater rhetoric from Blumenthal, Rell and other officials.

“I respect public opinion, and we have gone to great lengths to respond to the legitimate concerns raised by the public,” he said. “Doing so has been made more difficult by the attitude of some public officials in the region, who have chosen to exploit and inflame public fears. These public officials have done a great disservice to the citizens of the region, which is regrettable.”

In response to objections that allowing Broadwater would mean the industrialization of the Sound, FERC commissioners and FERC staff said the Sound is already a multi-use waterway, with considerable commercial vessel traffic and two small oil platforms off Long Island.

“This is a market-driven project,” said Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, adding that the $700 million cost would be financed by “independent capital, not anybody's rate base.”

“It's a floating facility,” he said. “If there's no longer any need, it would go away. I recognize our decision will upset the citizens and public officials and groups opposed to the project. But our decision is based on the law and the facts.”
Feds Approve Broadwater Energy
By DAVID FUNKHOUSER And JESSE A. HAMILTON | Courant Staff Writers
12:40 PM EDT, March 20, 2008

Federal energy regulators today approved Broadwater Energy's application to moor a natural gas plant in the middle of Long Island Sound, a key turning point in more than three years of study and argument over the controversial project.

At a meeting in Washington, commission Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said the project proposal meets federal safety and environmental standards and noted the commission imposed some 80 conditions intended to further mitigate its impact.

Kelliher also criticized unnamed "public officials" who he said "have done a disservice to the citizens in the region" by "exploiting fears" of a threat to public safety and environmental damage. Pointing to the thousands of pages of documents prepared in the course of the project review, he said charges by local officials and others that the FERC report is inadequate are false.

Broadwater Energy, a company formed by Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipeline, is proposing to build a 1,200-foot-long vessel to process liquefied natural gas and pipe it to New York and Connecticut. The facility would be moored to a fixed tower in the middle of the Sound, about nine miles from Long Island and 10.5 miles from Branford.

The federal commission, however, is not the only agency with jurisdiction over Broadwater. Since the facility would be in New York waters, several state agencies have to approve the project.

Up next: The New York Department of State is due to decide by April 11 whether Broadwater is consistent with policies designed to control development and protect coastal resources.

The proposed facility would be fed by two or three huge tankers a week, loaded with supercooled LNG from abroad. The floating terminal, about four football fields long, would heat the LNG back to a gaseous state and send a billion cubic feet per day through a 22-mile pipeline running along the floor of the Sound. That's enough to heat about 4 million homes.

The project was first proposed in 2004; the company had hoped to have the facility in operation by late 2010.

FERC staff issued a final environmental impact statement on it in January -- a 2,200-page document that concludes the project will not have a significant impact on the environment.

Opponents say the report relies on outdated and incomplete information, and they take issue with the report's assumptions about what constitutes a significant impact. Broadwater would have an effect on fish stocks, water temperature and the sea bed. Opponents also say the project would be pose safety risks from leaks or explosions and offer an inviting target for terrorists. The U.S. Coast Guard concluded Broadwater could be safely operated and would not pose a significant risk from terrorism – if adequate resources are applied. The facility and the tankers supplying it would be encircled with security zones, presumably enforced by Coast Guard personnel.

A General Accounting Office report last year questioned whether the Coast Guard would have adequate ships and personnel to handle the job.
U.S. May Act Soon On Broadwater
By DAVID FUNKHOUSER | Courant Staff Writer
March 15, 2008

The federal agency charged with reviewing the Broadwater natural gas project in Long Island Sound could make its long-awaited final decision Thursday in Washington.

The controversial project is on the agenda of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the panel will hear a presentation from its staff, said spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen.

Even if approved, the project still needs approvals from three New York State agencies to go forward. Opponents in Connecticut, including Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, have vowed to take the matter to court if Broadwater wins approval from federal and New York state regulators.

The soon-to-be governor of New York, David Paterson, said he was considering postponing a decision on the project. The New York Department of State is due to rule by April 11 whether the project meets that state's standards for the use of coastal resources.

Paterson takes over Monday from Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who will resign from office that day following revelations of his use of a high-priced prostitution service.

"I do not know what [Spitzer's] decision would have been," Paterson said at a press conference Thursday. "I might actually ask for a little more time because it's coming to that point and I really haven't been able to look at it enough to render a decision."

Connecticut leaders this week reiterated their fervent opposition. A joint venture of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipeline, the project would moor a 1,200-foot-long barge in the middle of the Sound to process liquefied natural gas shipped across the Atlantic and pipe it to New York and Connecticut.

FERC meets at 10 a.m. Thursday, and the meeting will be webcast live (go to www.ferc.gov, the calendar of events, to find the meeting).

The commission can vote the project up or down, or seek more information, or refer the issue to an administrative law judge if it feels there are legal issues to be resolved, Young-Allen said.

Paterson Hints At Delay In LNG Decision 
DAY
By Frank Eltman , Associated Press Writer    
Published on 3/14/2008 
          
Garden City, N.Y. — Lt. Gov. David Paterson said Thursday he may seek another delay in deciding whether the state will approve a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound.

Speaking to reporters in Albany during his first briefing since the resignation of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Paterson noted that Spitzer had already delayed a decision on the controversial project until April.

“I do not know what his decision would have been,” Paterson said. “I might actually ask for a little more time because it's coming to that point and I really haven't been able to look at it enough to render a decision.” The lieutenant governor is scheduled to be sworn in as Spitzer's replacement on Monday after the governor resigned this week in a call girl-sex scandal.

Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., wants to build a $700 million terminal that would be 1,200 feet long and 82 feet high. It would be located 9 miles from Long Island and 10 miles from the Connecticut shoreline. Plans call for construction to begin in October 2009 and for the terminal to be operating by December 2010.

Environmentalists and most elected officials oppose the project, saying that it could imperil the fragile ecosystem in the sound and that a terrorist attack on the facility could result in catastrophic results.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's company, Giuliani Partners, did a safety and security assessment in 2006 and said the proposed terminal would be “as safe a facility in design as you could possibly have.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must issue final approval on the proposal, but New York and Connecticut also have a say in whether it should proceed. Spitzer has said he was waiting until after the Department of State completed a review before announcing his position.

A spokesman for Broadwater did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Paterson's remarks.

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell and all four of the states' U.S. senators are against the LNG terminal.

A task force formed by Rell is sending Paterson a copy of a new report that criticizes FERC's review of Broadwater as inadequate and inaccurate and suggests there are viable alternatives to provide New York with the natural gas it needs.

“This report simply ought to blow them out of the water,” Rell said in Hartford.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said he was optimistic that Paterson will be persuaded by the Connecticut report, released Wednesday. He said Paterson has a “good environmental record” and has been receptive to the kinds of arguments Connecticut is making against Broadwater.

“I'm very hopeful,” he said.
Sen. Williams Says Spitzer Scandal Could Affect Long Island Sound Natural-Gas Terminal Project 
DAY
By Associated Press    
Published on 3/12/2008 

Hartford (AP) — Given the sex scandal surrounding New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Senate President Donald Williams wants Connecticut to reach out to his lieutenant governor and persuade him to oppose Broadwater.

Williams said Connecticut should be prepared for Spitzer's possible resignation because his administration is expected to make a decision soon on state permits for the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound.

“Assuming there is a transition at some point in the near future, the new governor will have hundreds of issues on his desk and he'll be required to get up to speed quickly,” Williams said. “We can't afford to drop the ball on Broadwater.”

Spitzer is being pressured to resign after allegations surfaced of his use of high-priced call girls. If he left office, Lt. Gov. David Paterson would become governor.

Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd., wants to build a $700 million terminal that would be 1,200 feet long and 82 feet high, located 9 miles from Long Island, N.Y., and 10 miles from the Connecticut shoreline.

The site is in New York waters, but most Connecticut officials oppose the project, including Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell. In January, she wrote to Spitzer, asking him to help protect Long Island Sound from the natural gas platform

Spitzer, a Democrat, has been waiting until his Department of State completed its coastal zone consistency review of the project before announcing his position.

Key New York Decision On Broadwater Delayed 
DAY
Published on 2/9/2008 

A much-anticipated decision by New York state regulators on the controversial Broadwater liquefied natural gas terminal will be delayed at least 60 days, officials said.

The decision on whether the proposed Broadwater liquefied natural gas terminal conforms to the state's rules for coastal development had been expected to be issued Tuesday.

“By mutual agreement, Broadwater and the New York Department of State ... signed a 60-day stay to extend the consistency review for the Broadwater Project,” said a written statement by N.Y. State Department of State spokesman Eamon Moynihan. “This will allow for further discussion of what is a very complex proposal,”

The agreement was reached Thursday.

“The New York Department of State (NYDOS) asked Broadwater for an additional 60 days to review our application and we agreed,” John Hritcko, senior vice president and regional project director for Broadwater Energy, said in a written statement Friday. “This is part of the review process and we expect to continue our dialogue.”

Hritcko said the agreement, and all past correspondence with NYDOS and previous stay agreements, will be publicly available on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission docket.

Broadwater Energy's 1,200-foot-long floating liquefied natural gas storage and processing terminal would be in New York waters of Long Island Sound, about 10 miles south of Connecticut. Connecticut officials, including the entire Congressional delegation and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, have recommended against the project's approval.

“This 60-day extension proves the serious, severe, insurmountable environmental and safety obstacles that should doom this project,” Blumenthal said in a press release issued Friday. “New York cannot overcome the fact that Broadwater is completely unnecessary and unacceptable legally, because effective alternatives exist without the monstrous environmental damage and public safety dangers.”

The stay does not affect the actions of another agency, the N.Y. Department of General Services, which is considering whether to grant Broadwater a lease to occupy the portion of Long Island Sound where the terminal and mooring tower would be located.

Yesterday...

Key N.Y. Broadwater Ruling Likely Tuesday 
DAY
By Judy Benson     
Published on 2/8/2008   
 
Both opponents and proponents of the Broadwater Energy liquefied natural gas terminal are awaiting a key decision due Tuesday from New York state regulators on whether the project conforms to the state's rules for coastal development.

Despite rumors that there could be a delay, the N.Y. State Department of State is still on track to make the decision on Tuesday, said spokesman Eamon Moynihan. The agency has all the information it requested from Broadwater and other parties, he said. Another agency, the N.Y. Department of General Services, is also considering whether to grant Broadwater a lease to occupy the portion of Long Island Sound where the terminal and mooring tower would be located.

The pending New York decisions have become the focus of efforts by those seeking to stop the project, including Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The 1,200-foot-long floating storage and processing terminal, would be in New York waters of the Sound, about 10 miles south of Connecticut. In a Feb. 1 filing with the N.Y. Office of General Services, Blumenthal said Broadwater has provided incomplete and inaccurate information about the environmental and safety impacts, and that the project design remains incomplete.

Also, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could decide this month whether to grant Broadwater, a partnership of Shell Oil and TransCanada, a key permit. In January it released a highly favorable environmental analysis of the project.

Connecticut's Congressional delegation, however, is still trying to persuade FERC that Broadwater should not be approved. In a letter sent Wednesday to FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher, the state's two senators and five congressmen argued that the project would have “significant and permanent adverse impacts to the health of Long Island Sound's fragile ecosystem.”

The delegation sent a similar letter Wednesday to Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard, urging that he not issue a Letter of Recommendation. The letter would be the Coast Guard's determination that the project is suitable for the Long Island Sound waterway.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, meanwhile, is completing its review of the FERC environmental analysis and is preparing to submit a list of concerns, DEP spokesman Dennis Schain said Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Broadwater announced a $150,000 donation to the United Way of Long Island's Project Warm for heating assistance for needy families. Shell Oil Company President John Hoffmeister, who met earlier in January with N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer, said in news reports that Shell makes charitable contributions in all the communities where it works.

Critics, however, questioned Shell's motives, suggesting that the donation and a series of ads the company had placed recently in New York and Connecticut media outlets was timed to influence the upcoming New York agency decisions. They also took issue with Spitzer's meeting with the Shell president.

The Citizens Campaign for the Environment urged opponents of Broadwater to call Spitzer's office and voice their opposition.

Michael Whyland, spokesman for Spitzer, said the governor has not yet taken a position on the project.

The recent advertising campaign by Broadwater and the meeting between Spitzer and Hoffmeister is an attempt by the company to “dispel some of the myths” that critics of the project are circulating, said Froydis Cameron, company spokeswoman. It is also seeking to highlight some of the findings of FERC's environmental analysis.

Shell has donated money to Project Warm for the last three years, she added.

Leah Schmaltz, director of legislative and legal affairs for Save the Sound, part of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, said her group is prepared to fight the project in the courts if necessary, and has filed legal briefs with all agencies involved, including the Army Corps of Engineers. That agency must decide on dredging permits for Broadwater to dig a trench for the 22-mile undersea pipeline that would carry the natural gas from the terminal to a main transmission line.

“While there are legitimate energy concerns that exist on Long Island and in Connecticut,” Schmaltz said Wednesday, “there are also smart, safe ways to address those concerns that do not put Long Island Sound's future in jeopardy. ... The notion that we have to make a choice between addressing our energy needs and protecting our environment is a false one,” she added. “We can and should do both — we just have to be smart about it.”

Governor Rell: FERC Decision ‘A Travesty’

 

‘We Will Fight This Reckless Decision Every Step of the Way’

  

FERC Broadwater Report 

 

            Governor M. Jodi Rell today utterly rejected the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental impact study of the proposed Broadwater liquefied natural gas facility, saying FERC’s conclusion that the project would have little effect on the Long Island Sound is ludicrous. “We will challenge this absurd and indefensible agency decision in court,” Governor Rell said.

 

            “The Broadwater project would be a travesty – the complete desecration of Connecticut’s environmental crown jewel and a total setback to the decades we have spent improving water quality and habitat in the Sound,” Governor Rell said. “FERC has ignored the rights and needs of Connecticut residents time and again and with today’s decision is once more trying to run roughshod over the people of our state.

 

            “An enormous and potentially flammable industrial facility floating in the middle of Long Island Sound would be as shockingly out of place as a steel plant in a state park,” the Governor said.

 

            FERC announced today that it had completed an environmental impact study (EIS) and that its staff believed the project was likely to have “limited adverse environmental impacts.”

 

            “I cannot see how any reasonable person or government agency can come to that conclusion,” Governor Rell said. “We are talking about building and operating a massive, possibly hazardous industrial facility in the middle of an important estuary with sensitive natural resources. We are taking about a platform as large as an ocean liner, requiring an unprecedented and untested 950-acre safety and security zone, as well as moving security zones around incoming tankers.  Let’s not kid ourselves: All of this will change Long Island Sound forever.”

 

            Under federal environmental laws, the FERC must wait at least 30 days after releasing an EIS before issuing any permits for a facility.

 

            “Connecticut will fight this reckless decision every step of the way,” Governor Rell said. “Today I am directing the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to go over this EIS with a fine-toothed comb, identifying every flaw and faulty conclusion. I know the Attorney General’s office will be happy to support us in this endeavor.”

 

            Connecticut will also coordinate efforts with New York, which is responsible for several permits ncessary for the Broadwater project to proceed.

 

            The Broadwater project will require a coastal consistency determination – in keeping with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act –  from the New York Department of State as well as a number of permits from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

 

            “We were heartened by the DEC’s December 21 letter to Broadwater, which was severely critical of plans for the project,” Governor Rell said. “The letter said the permit applications were incomplete and said current plans for the project would have several significant adverse environmental impacts. We believe this letter is a strong signal of where New York is headed on critical Broadwater decisions that lie ahead.”

 

            On November 17, 2006, FERC issued its draft EIS. At that time, Governor Rell joined the DEP, other public agencies, numerous environmental groups and private citizens to raise a number of questions concerning the potential environmental and use impacts of the proposed project.

 

            Although FERC attempted to address some of those issues in its final EIS, the project will still have significant impact on aquatic life, benthic habitat and recreational and commercial use of the Sound.

 

            Governor Rell said FERC has only given cursory attention to alternatives to Broadwater.

 

            “Recent proposals for offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals south of Long Island show that the energy industry itself believes there are better ideas, yet FERC persists in its myopic, case-by-case analysis of energy projects,” the Governor said. “The EIS simply assumes that the goal is to create an LNG terminal in Long Island Sound, rather than to meet regional energy needs in the most environmentally sensitive fashion.

 

            “There simply has to be a better way. I call upon FERC and the rest of the federal government to work with the states on a comprehensive approach to national and regional energy planning.”

 

            Governor Rell has successfully battled previous efforts by FERC to impose higher electric rates on customers in portions of the state – a strategy known as Locational Installed Capacity, or LICAP – and clashed with the agency over its refusal to include Conecticut in Broadwater siting discussions, despite the fact that half of the Sound is Connecticut territory.



Content Last Modified on 1/11/2008 11:58:16 AM




Broadwater Environmental Impact Would Be Minimal, Feds Say 
DAY
By Judy Benson    
Published on 1/11/2008 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday issued its final Environmental Impact Statement on Broadwater Energy's proposal for a floating liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound, concluding that the project would have "limited adverse environmental impacts" and recommended 86 actions Broadwater should take to minimize those impacts.

The long-awaited report is positive news for Broadwater, a partnership of Shell and TransCanada Corp., because it will serve as a recommendation to the five-member of FERC panel that will decide whether the project should be permitted.

"We welcome the issuance of the FEIS," John Hritcko, senior vice president of Broadwater said in a statement. "The attention to details by the federal and state agencies involved is clearly evident and we will be reviewing the findings and conclusions in detail over the coming days. We are pleased that this state of the regulatory review is complete and, in the coming months, look forward to the commissioners' decision on Broadwater's proposal."

The project, which would supply about 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to markets in New York City, Long Island and Connecticut, has met with widespread opposition in both Connecticut and Long Island. Gov. M. Jodi Rell called the FERC report "absurd and idefensible" in a statement Friday, and vowed to fight the FERC decision in court. It would be the first offshore LNG terminal in the U.S.

Adrienne Esposito, the executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said her group will continue its fight with Gov. Eliot Spitzer's office and New York state agencies that must also issue permits for the project. A key New York state ruling is due Feb. 15. The terminal would be located in New York state waters of the sound, about 9 miles north of the nearest Long Island shore and 10 miles from the nearest Connecticut shore, attached to a yolk mooring system.

The terminal would be 1,215 feet long and 200 feet wide, and rise about 82 feet above the waterline. It would be supplied by about two to three tankers per week, each carrying about 125,000 to 250,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas. The gas would be processed at the terminal and fed into a 22-mile-long undersea pipeline connected to a an existing gas supply line in the western Sound.

"We totally expected this," Esposito said of the FERC report. "That is why we need for Gov. Spitzer to stand up for the public, because the federal government is standing up for Shell Oil."

N.Y. Officials Find Broadwater Application For Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Lacking 
DAY 
By Judy Benson   
Published on 1/3/2008 

Still awaiting the final version of a key federal report, the Broadwater Energy project has been told that its application with state-level environmental regulators is lacking in several key areas and that the project could have “significant adverse impacts” on Long Island Sound's fish and lobsters.

Broadwater, a partnership of Shell US Gas and Power and TransCanada Corp., applied in early 2006 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to locate a floating liquefied natural gas processing, storage and supply barge in New York state waters in the middle of Long Island Sound.

In November 2006, FERC released a draft environmental impact statement taking the position that the facility would have minimal impacts on the Sound, but the statement met with sharp rebuke from critics for what they called incomplete and faulty analysis.

The final statement, which would be the basis for FERC's decision about whether to approve the facility, had been expected three to four months after the draft.

On Wednesday, FERC spokeswoman Mary O'Driscoll said she could not estimate when the final report will be released. A Broadwater spokesman, Chris Senecal, said the company was hopeful the FERC report would be released within the next two weeks.

While the project stalls pending the FERC report, Broadwater last week received a letter from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation listing several problems with its application.

Yancey Roy, spokesman for the New York DEC, said the 11-page letter, despite its specific criticisms of the project and the information provided by Broadwater, is not an indication that the application will be approved or denied.

“It's not a thumbs up or a thumbs down,” he said. Notices to permit applicants of application deficiencies are a normal part of the process, he said.

John Hritcko, senior vice president of Broadwater, also characterized the DEC letter as “typical” of the permit process. It identifies the issues that must be addressed before the application can progress, he said.

One of the groups leading the opposition to Broadwater, however, said in a statement that the DEC letter was a “good omen” moving “one step closer to squashing Broadwater.”

“The letter was fairly scathing of the Broadwater project with regards not only to the environmental impact but it indicates that Broadwater has been displaying corporate arrogance by disregarding New York State's repeated requests for accurate information,” said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of The Citizens Campaign for the Environment.

In its letter, the DEC said:

•The analysis of the air quality impact of the Broadwater project lacks details and fails to address several requirements it had been told to address. The project as currently proposed will exceed standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions, and could not receive an air quality permit.

•The trench for the undersea pipeline that would connect the LNG facility to main natural gas pipelines supplying New York and Connecticut should be backfilled, not left open as the project proposes, to avoid harm to marine life. The pipeline would also harm the movement of lobsters and increase water temperatures to a level that could be harmful or fatal to lobsters in the summer.

•Design changes would be needed to avoid the entrainment and destruction of 274 million fish eggs and larvae annually that would become trapped as the LNG facility draws in and discharges 28.2 million gallons of seawater daily. Even with design changes suggested, at least 210 million fish eggs and larvae along with adult fish would die. Broadwater, DEC said, must seek alternatives to eliminate or minimized this impact.

•Alternatives to the Broadwater project must be explored more thoroughly.

In addition to FERC permits, Broadwater also needs approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the New York environmental agency and other New York regulators for the project to go forward.





A Warning About East Coast Tsunamis
NYTIMES
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: December 3, 2007

The risk is low. But the consequences could be high, with deadly waves striking the coastal communities of Long Island, Connecticut and New Jersey and killing thousands of people.

Today, the federal government is announcing that it has completed the mid-Atlantic region’s risk assessments for the killer mounds of water known as tsunamis, or tidal waves.

Scientists have long considered the West Coast of North America as the side of the continent most likely to suffer earthquakes and the undersea disturbances that raise tsunamis. But in recent years, with a growing appreciation of the diverse origins of the giant waves and their potential for havoc, experts have found new reasons for vigilance along the East Coast.

“Tsunamis are a real threat,” said Lisa Taylor, an official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is conducting the assessments for coastal regions that are considered at risk. A main factor is whether the land rises sharply or gently, the latter being more prone to poundings from unexpectedly high waves.

The project creates elevation maps of coastal lands and adjacent seafloors, helping scientists better forecast the areas that a tsunami would flood. The giant waves can arise hundreds of miles away, in theory giving emergency planners hours to send people to higher ground.

Part of the new analysis focuses on the easternmost area of Long Island, including East Hampton and Southampton, and the southeastern coast of Connecticut, including Mystic and Old Saybrook. The analysis also evaluates the risk for Atlantic City.

A recent federal study found that a seaquake in a deep trench off Puerto Rico could raise a tsunami that would travel for nearly five hours on the ocean’s surface before crashing into Montauk, on the southeastern tip of Long Island.

Since 2006, scientists at the oceanic agency have digitally created elevation models for 20 coastal communities, and they expect to make more than 50 others. Analyses are planned for Miami and Palm Beach in Florida; Boston, Cape Cod and Nantucket in Massachusetts; and New York City.

The scientists work at the agency’s National Geophysical Data Center and at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, both in Boulder, Colo.

Once the scientists develop an elevation model, they send it to the agency’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. There, it is incorporated into tsunami models, which simulate seaquakes, the tsunamis’ travel across the ocean and the magnitude and location of coastal flooding.

With the models in hand, the agency’s Tsunami Warning Centers can issue more accurate flooding forecasts.

“Near the shoreline, all tsunamis are sensitive to minor variations in seafloor and land topography, increasing in height as they approach the coast,” said Barry Eakins, a scientist with the modeling project. “Better understanding of the relief of the coastal zone is critical to predicting how a tsunami will flood coastal communities.”

Curbing Runoff In The Sound
Hartford Courant editorial
August 23, 2007

Development and the paving of Connecticut's shoreline has made rainwater runoff - and the bacteria that washes along with it - the No.1 culprit in beach closings. Runoff is also a prime source of nitrogen pollution, which feeds massive algae blooms that rob oxygen from the waters of Long Island Sound (and its marine life).

Runoff is a big problem. But how do you chip away at it? The Jordan Cove Urban Watershed Project, a government-funded study on the effectiveness of techniques for low-impact development, has some encouraging answers.

Located in Waterford, Jordan Cove is a small estuary fed by Jordan Brook. Like many small coves, its waters are plagued by bacteria and pollution from runoff. In 1995, the state launched a 10-year study comparing the impacts of two new subdivisions.

One, a conventional subdivision, features a 24-foot-wide asphalt road, separate driveways, individual lots, curbing and storm drains. In the other, homes are clustered to create more open space; several share driveways. Lawns are smaller, with low- and no-mow areas to reduce the need for fertilizer. The access road is narrower (20 feet wide) and made of interlocking concrete pavers to let rainwater soak through. Instead of curbing, grassy swales or channels line the street to slow runoff and absorb water.

Driveways are made of crushed stone or pavers; each lot has a rain garden, a depression with plantings designed to collect and filter runoff from roofs and yards.

The study's results are impressive - and encouraging for people who care about the health of Long Island Sound. Years later, runoff from the non-conventional subdivision remained the same as before development, while runoff from the traditional subdivision increased several times over. The swales, rain gardens and other low-impact techniques also made a big difference in controlling the release of pollutants from the subdivision

To see the study, visit www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water/watershed_management/wm_plans/jordancovebrochure.pdf.

By incorporating such techniques into new development along the shoreline (and encouraging property owners to modify areas that are already developed), contractors, developers, and state and local officials can chip away at the problem of runoff, addressing a significant threat to the health of Long Island Sound.
Voice For Long Island Sound:
Federal judge gives credence to Connecticut's reasonable, necessary environmental concerns. 
By The Day    
Published on 8/22/2007 

A judge's ruling reversing federal approval of a natural gas pipeline to Long Island from Connecticut, if upheld, scores a victory for Long Island Sound and reinforces the principle that environmental law is not a simple inconvenience. U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill correctly saw that former Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans was “arbitrary and capricious” in casually tossing aside Connecticut's environmental concerns.

The message from Judge Underhill's opinion rings with authority and says Long Island Sound is a precious and sensitive environmental resource that deserves protection from projects that might severely impact the marine life inhabiting its waters.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal all deserve credit for protecting the state's huge stake in the environmental health of Long Island Sound. From both an environmental and political standpoint, the proposal by Islander East for the project from Branford to Long Island was a bad program. Connecticut's appointed and elected environmental stewards reflected the attitude of the overwhelming majority of state residents who did not want the natural gas pipeline under the Sound.

The Day hopes this decision, although entirely unrelated, may have raised an issue that is equally applicable in the courts regarding the Broadwater liquefied natural gas platform proposed for downstate. That project envisions a skyscraper-like station in Long Island Sound that may satisfy some of the state's energy needs, but could have a bad effect on the Sound while providing most of its energy storage for Long Island.

The environmental health of Long Island Sound is no simple matter. The states and federal government have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to provide sewage treatment plants to protect the water quality. Indeed, Connecticut now is taking legal steps to try to assure that New York State follows similar measures in upgrading its sewage treatment discharges into Long Island Sound. And frankly, Connecticut needs to do much more to modernize its own shoreline plants so that oxygen levels are adequate and nitrogen content is not excessive in the Sound.

The net effect of Judge Underhill's ruling is to throw a serious roadblock in the face of the Islander East proposal. More important, the decision provides a measure of states' rights in the face of arbitrary and unfair decisions by the federal government.

Long Island Sound, while a national resource, is much more an asset shared by Connecticut and New York. New York has miles of beach along the open Atlantic Ocean, but Connecticut does not. That makes Long Island Sound an even more important resource for Connecticut.

The state has just had a good day in court, one that puts everyone on record that the federal government cannot ignore important environmental concerns simply because it sets higher priorities for energy production or economic growth.



Judge Reverses Islander East Ruling; State's coastal management plan cited as pipeline plan dealt setback 
DAY
By Ted Mann    
Published on 8/21/2007 
 
Hartford — A federal judge dealt a major setback Monday to the proposed Islander East natural gas pipeline under Long Island Sound, ruling that the U.S. Secretary of Commerce did not fully consider the concerns of state environmental officials before overruling them and permitting the project to proceed.

In a sternly worded decision released Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Stefan R. Underhill wrote that then-Secretary Donald L. Evans was “arbitrary and capricious” in deciding that the Islander East project would not run counter to the Coastal Zone Management Act, as the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection had contended.

Read the court ruling.

The act is a federal law administered by the states, which are charged with ensuring that projects undertaken along coastlines are in compliance with their management plans for those areas. State officials had found against the Islander East project, only to be overruled by Evans in 2004.

But Evans, Underhill wrote, “failed to address” many of the state's objections to the proposed route of the 45-mile pipeline, and had “effectively ignored” the DEP's concerns that the construction could damage the valuable oyster beds and other marine life around the Thimble Islands off of Branford, where the pipeline would be buried and run 22 miles across the sea floor to Long Island.

Evans' decision, Underhill wrote, is “replete with generalities and vague statements ostensibly cited to support the Secretary's conclusions, but in reality, failing to say much of anything.”

The court ruling is a victory for Connecticut officials — including Gov. M. Jodi Rell, DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal — and a significant blow to Islander East that state officials said calls into question whether the pipeline will be built at all.

The ruling, McCarthy said, “is a huge setback, if not the death of this project.” Blumenthal, a Democrat, concurred, saying the ruling “should effectively kill” the pipeline proposal.

Underhill's decision “verifies everything that Gov. Rell and the state have been saying about this project, and its inconsistency with our need to manage our energy resources in a way that's protective of the state's natural resources,” McCarthy said, speaking alongside Rell after a press conference in the parking lot of the Capitol.

“We are well aware that we can do both,” McCarthy said. “This project does not do both. It may take care of an energy issue, but it does it at the expense of the environment, and we simply won't have it.”

A spokesman for Islander East, John Sheridan, said the company was “disappointed with the court's decision, and currently reviewing options internally to determine best direction to go.”

Underhill's decision returns the case to current Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez for review, though Islander or the federal government could appeal the ruling to a higher court. Such a move could likely mean years more legal action, Blumenthal said.

“We're still hopeful that we'll be able to work with the DEP and other stakeholders,” Sheridan said. “We really believe this is an important project for the region and will guarantee a steadier supply of natural gas not only to Connecticut but also to New York and the region as a whole.”

Connecticut officials said they believed the ruling validated their concerns, particularly their claims that Islander East officials had never taken seriously the potential for damage to the shellfish beds and marine habitat around the Thimble Islands and along the coastline.

In his decision, Underhill noted that the area provides habitat for a broad assortment of animals, including fish, crabs, urchins, snails, sponges and mussels. Beds along the Connecticut coast yield the highest-priced oysters per pound in the nation, the decision noted, and the state harvests more clams than any other on the east coast.

“I think the net effect of this decision is to say to any administration (that) if you make a decision that affects environmentally sensitive areas, you have to do your homework,” said Blumenthal. “You have to make sure that you consider the facts and the evidence, which (the Evans) decision fails to do. And the Bush administration has essentially ignored and disregarded environmental interests, and this decision says you won't get a pass for this kind of work.”

The decision also raised comparisons to the other energy project proposed for the Sound: the quest by Broadwater Energy to anchor a massive floating terminal for liquefied natural gas off the Connecticut coast.

Both Rell and Blumenthal saw a precedent, though the projects are not related, in the court's insistence that state environmental concerns be adequately considered and examined by federal officials.

“This decision certainly shows that the federal courts are not going to give agencies a pass just because they are supposed to have expertise or skills in a particular area,” Blumenthal said. “This decision says about Broadwater that the federal government's feet will be held to the fire environmentally when vital Long Island Sound interests are at stake. And it shows a sensitivity to the importance of Long Island Sound as an environmental resource, but also as a commercial and recreational one.”

A spokesman for Broadwater declined to discuss the ruling, noting that his company's proposal is still under review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

“Broadwater is in the middle of its state and regulatory review and it would be inappropriate to speculate on how one decision on a different project would reflect on the Broadwater project,” said John Hritcko, a vice president at the company.

Islander East is still awaiting the result of another court proceeding. A water-quality permit for the project has twice been denied by the DEP, findings the company appealed to federal court. A decision in that case is expected soon.









Feds ignoring LNG perils, report says
New Haven REGISTER
By Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief
01/23/2007

HARTFORD — Federal officials have ignored critical environmental and safety issues surrounding a proposed $700 million liquefied natural gas facility for Long Island Sound, according to a Connecticut task force.


The state task force report faulted a preliminary federal study for failing to look at such safety issues as the need for a no-fly zone over the floating LNG facility or do enough research on potential dangers posed to marine life.

The preliminary environmental impact study by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, however, found the project would have little negative impact on the Sound and that the location would be safe.

One of the co-chairs of the Connecticut panel, state Sen. Andrea L. Stillman, D-Waterford, said she is so upset with the federal handling of the proposed Broadwater LNG facility that she’s ready to take drastic action.

"If they move forward with this, I’m getting in a boat and block it," said Stillman. "I will, too!"

The other task force co-chairman, state Sen. Leonard A. Fasano, R-North Haven, called the FERC study "totally inadequate."

FERC officials say Connecticut’s opposition to the project will be taken into account and the initial environmental impact statement was no more than a draft that can be changed.

A spokesman for Broadwater insisted that Connecticut officials are ignoring needs of Connecticut consumers and industry who desperately need new sources of clean energy.

"Connecticut consumers are paying the highest energy rates in the nation because of opposition to energy projects like this," said Gary Hale, a former state lawmaker who is now a lobbyist for the Broadwater project.

Hale argued that Connecticut consumers would benefit economically from the Broadwater project, since 25 percent of the natural gas would come to this state. He said Connecticut also would see additional supplies of natural gas because less Canadian gas would be pumped through existing pipelines to Long Island, N.Y.

However, Fasano charged FERC has failed to perform proper computer modeling of potential accidents and failed to provide critical details about the proposed floating LNG facility and huge tankers that would provide it with liquefied natural gas.

"We need to know those answers now," insisted Fasano, who said he personally opposes anchoring a massive LNG facility in the middle of Long Island Sound. "As a public policy, I don’t think it’s a good idea to put anything in an estuary (such as Long Island Sound)," said Fasano.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office today filed comments with FERC and the state of New York arguing the project violates both New York and federal law.

The Broadwater plan calls for a floating facility about the size of Queen Mary II to be permanently anchored in the Sound about 11 miles off Branford and nine miles off Long Island. The project would require the laying of more than 20 miles of underwater pipeline to enable gas to be pumped to Long Island and Connecticut. Massive ocean-going LNG tankers would bring the fuel to the floating facility for processing.

The project has produced strong protests from officials and activists in both New York and Connecticut. However, Connecticut has virtually no direct involvement in approval of the project because it would be located entirely in New York waters.

Scientists: LNG Draft Analysis Needs More Work
DAY
By Judy Benson
Published on 1/17/2007
 
East Haven — Three Long Island Sound experts told fellow scientists with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Tuesday that their draft analysis of the Broadwater liquefied natural gas terminal is inadequate to support conclusions that the project would have minimal environmental impact on the Sound.
The scientists also gave details on numerous areas needing thorough study for the final document.

The three scientists are retired state geologist Ralph Lewis; University of New Haven biology professor Roman Zajac, a specialist in benthic ecology; and Peter Auster, science director for the National Undersea Research Center at the University of Connecticut at Avery Point.

They met with FERC representatives and the environmental consultants who prepared the draft report at the request of the state task force reviewing the Broadwater plan. The meeting at East Haven Town Hall came before a FERC public hearing Tuesday night on the LNG proposal.

Lewis said the draft report reflects a poor understanding of the geology of Long Island Sound and did not use the most current and authoritative references to describe its bedrock geology and its pre- and post-glacial history. That material, he said, is essential to determining effects of the LNG terminal with its mooring tower and 22-mile submerged pipeline.

Lewis and the other scientists said they are not taking a position on the Broadwater plan, but they want to point out the inadequate analysis so far.

“If you don't recognize the geologic setting, how can you decide?” Lewis asked. “This wasn't even a cursory discussion of the geology.”

The report, he said, must contain more information on the depth and extent of clay deposits in the Sound where the terminal and pipeline would be.

In addition, he faulted the authors for using as a reference a general interest pamphlet about the Sound he helped to write, rather than academic documents with more detail and up-to-date data.

“This is a nice, cute little reference. It's a brief overview,” he said. “ ... I'm not saying there's any hidden problems here, but if you're going to base your decision on something, your knowledge should be complete.”

Seismic data on probable locations of rift and fault lines in the Sound are also needed, Lewis said.

Mark Robinson, director of the office of energy projects for FERC, said the points raised by Lewis and the other scientists would be useful for revisions.

The final version, which he hopes will be completed in three months, will include a recommendation to the FERC leadership on whether the project should be approved.

Auster said the document should have more information on how the 190 decibels of sound Broadwater anticipates its terminal would emit would affect fish and other marine life.

Wayne Kicklighter, senior consultant for the company hired by FERC to prepare the report, said the acoustics discussion was limited to marine mammals because FERC lacks the authority to set limits on the level of sound that would be considered harmful to fish.

Auster countered that a report on environmental effects should cover fish and should be comprehensive.

Hard and soft coral communities, lobster borrows and shell deposits, which are habitats for many animals, also need to be more thoroughly documented, Auster said.

He said all those underwater communities should be protected from the terminal and pipeline.

Zajac said one of his main concerns was the scant discussion of how the area and marine life around the trench for the pipeline might recover from the digging. The trench would be 25 feet wide with a 25-foot berm on each side.

“There's very little substance on the level of disturbance and recovery of the benthic community,” he said, referring to plants and animals living on the bottom of the Sound.

The report contains some references to studies of recovery where dredge spoils had been dumped, he said, but these are not relevant to an area dug for a pipeline trench.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, an opponent of the project, told the FERC representatives that the scientists' comments show the draft report is flawed beyond repair and that the conclusion it makes is not supported.

“What I'm asking is that conclusion be changed,” he said. “In my view, this report is a do-over. It's not just lengthening the sentences. You need to fundamentally go back to the drawing board ....”

As the meeting ended, Robinson said, “This was a rare opportunity. We don't typically have ... folks in like yourselves to take a hard look at what we've done.”

He said the final report will be complete and thorough, and added, “Nothing interferes with getting it right.”

Concerns raised from Broadwater hearing
Mark Zaretsky, New Haven Register Staff
01/12/2007

EAST HAVEN — About 70 people turned out Thursday for an informational hearing on the proposed liquefied natural gas platform that Broadwater Energy wants to build in the middle of Long Island Sound.

Virtually all of those who spoke, other than a representative of Broadwater, raised concerns about the project’s effects on safety and the environment and whether it would really save consumers money, as Broadwater claims.
 
"I think it’s unbelievable, what I’ve been hearing about it," said Al Skolonis Jr. of East Haven, a longtime fisherman and boater, speaking before Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s Long Island Sound LNG Task Force, co-chaired by state Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven, which organized the meeting in the East Haven High School auditorium.

"Through the years, there’s been many changes in the Sound ... but it seems like it’s getting knocked back rather than going forward," Skolonis said. "I don’t think it should be allowed to go on, messin’ with the Sound," he said of Broadwater. "It’s a beautiful place, and it’s very fragile. ... I think it should be left alone."

Joe Thibault of East Haven wondered whether there were any similar projects "that are vulnerable to hurricanes, like we are?"

Fasano, who grew up in East Haven and represents the town in Hartford, told him that Broadwater is the first such totally free-floating plant ever to be proposed, but said its proponents say it is designed to survive a Category 5 hurricane — stronger than the devastating 1938 hurricane, which was said to be equivalent to a Category 4 storm.

Fasano was joined by his co-chairwoman, state Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, and other members of the task force, including state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy; former East Haven Fire Chief and current Emergency Management and Homeland Security Deputy Commissioner Wayne Sandford; and representatives of the state Department of Transportation, the state Department of Public Safety and the Connecticut Marine Trades Association.

The hearing took place in the midst of a parallel set of hearings being conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will decide whether the Broadwater project, a joint venture of TransCanada Corp. and Shell Oil, goes forward.

The next nearby FERC hearing will take place at 7 p.m. Tuesday night at Branford High School, 185 E. Main St. in Branford.

Broadwater spokesman Gary Hale, a former state senator who now is a lobbyist working for the company, was one of several Broadwater representatives at the hearing and the only one who spoke.

Hale said, responding to an earlier question from an East Haven Town Council member, that Connecticut would benefit from the project because it would bring in 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, of which 25 percent would flow into Connecticut, and it also would free up gas that comes via the Iroquois pipeline that is put to use in Long Island.

He challenged McCarthy and Sandford to meet with the company, charging that they had made recent statements "that need more substance."

McCarthy refused, saying, if there is confusion, it’s the result of information contained in the FERC’s draft environmental impact statement on the project.

"I have no desire to meet with Broadwater," she said, telling Hale that the department will respond to what’s in the draft EIS and if it has questions, it will ask them.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal repeated his opposition to the project, saying, that "the security issue is just one of many that will get me to continue to fight this." Blumenthal said he is troubled by recent revelations that the Coast Guard does not have enough boats and other equipment to adequately protect the facility.

"The fact is, this project is an accident and an attack waiting to happen," and "we need more than faith and hope" to prevent that, he said.

Town Council Chairman Ken McKay, R-1, reading a statement from Mayor Joseph Maturo Jr., called the Sound "a crown jewel" of the state and said the draft EIS "falls well short of the standards which are required before an ultimate decision on the Broadwater project can be rendered." He also expressed concern about the Coast Guard’s ability to ensure the project’s safety.

Town Council member April Capone Almon, D-3, one of several other council members to speak, stated her unequivocal opposition and said, "I feel that the Broadwater project really doesn’t present any benefits."

Leah Schmalz of Save the Sound, a program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called Broadwater’s claims of the project’s benefits "faulty" and said its "vague statements" rely on old projections "that have already been proven wrong."
.



Bay State plan may ease demand for LNG for heating
Hour editorial
December 26, 2006

Action in Massachusetts may mitigate the need for the proposed liquid natural gas terminal that has been proposed for Long Island — at least, we hope so.
The Bay State plan, approved by Gov. Mitt Romney has the support of the U.S. Coast Guard and the Executive Office of Public Safety.  Furthermore, a spokeswoman for the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group, said she was pleased with the proposal.

Susan Reid, an attorney, said "If done right, an offshore LNG terminal eliminates the need for more dangerous land-base proposals." The key words are "done right."

There is a major difference between the plan for two terminals off the coast of Gloucester and that in the middle of Long Island Sound.  The Massachusetts' terminals will be in the open ocean, not in a narrow estuary as is proposed for the Sound, about a dozen miles from Branford.  In the latter case, the Coast Guard has expressed reservations about safety and security.

Given the confines of Long Island Sound, the floating terminal as big as the Queen Mary would require a large safety zone and impinge on both commercial and recreational boating and fishing.  True, there has been some objection from Massachusetts fishermen that the two terminals would have an impact on fish habitats and close some fishing grounds.

The companies proposing the terminals have agreed to pay $47 million mitigation fees for any effects they might have on the fishing grounds.  Lest you think this is just another case of "not in my backyard" disabuse yourself of that notion. The risks in the Sound proposal are far greater than those offshore from Gloucester.

The Sound plan would increase tanker traffic into the estuary, with at least two or three tankers arriving each week to pump off their LNG.  That compounds the danger of the facility itself, something about which the Coast Guard has expressed concern.  The LNG dispensed by the Gloucester facilities would be pumped right into the New England grid, providing a 20 percent boost in the supply.

Additionally, it would provide a competitive market that might even bring prices down. (We're not counting on that, though.)

The plan must still overcome some hurdles in the form of federal permits, but the Federal Energy Regulation Commission has yet to see an energy source it didn't like. FERC will love it.

Agency Backs LNG Terminal;  Report Says Facility In Sound Would Be Safe; Foes Vow To Fight
By DAVID FUNKHOUSER, Courant Staff Writer
November 18, 2006
 
The proposed Broadwater natural gas terminal could operate safely and would not have a significant environmental impact on Long Island Sound, the federal agency charged with assessing the project says.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday said the proposal - a massive liquefied natural gas conversion plant moored in the middle of the Sound - offers the best alternative for boosting the region's energy supply and meeting growing demand.

The agency's long-awaited draft environmental impact statement, called "a real breakthrough" by Broadwater representatives, unleashed a firestorm of objections from opponents, who contend that the project would begin "the industrialization" of the Sound.

"This is a use more appropriate for the New Jersey Turnpike than it is for Long Island Sound," said Roger Reynolds, senior staff attorney for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Save the Sound. "We have serious disagreements with FERC's [report] ... and we look forward to the public hearing process to air those differences."

"The FERC report is a whitewash," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. The report, he said, "is no surprise - true to [FERC's] tradition of favoring energy company interests ahead of environmental concerns."

John Hritcko, senior vice president for Broadwater Energy, said the FERC report "is an important step forward for the Broadwater project to provide Long Island, New York City and Connecticut with a safe, affordable supply of clean-burning natural gas, and we are encouraged by these preliminary findings."

He said Broadwater would work to find ways to further reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.

His company, a joint venture of Royal Dutch/Shell Group and TransCanada Corp., wants to tether a 1,200-foot-long vessel to a mooring tower 9 miles off Long Island and 11 miles from Branford, in New York waters. The terminal would be 200 feet wide and sit 82 feet high. It would take in liquefied natural gas imported from overseas in huge tankers, convert it back to a gas and deliver it through an undersea pipeline.

The facility would process about 1 billion cubic feet of gas a day, enough to boost the region's supply by 25 percent, Broadwater says. About half of the gas would go to New York City, 25 to 30 percent to Long Island and the rest to Connecticut.

"Construction and operation of the proposed project, with the adoption of the FERC and Coast Guard recommendations, would result in limited adverse environmental impacts," FERC said in a prepared statement. The Coast Guard earlier this fall spelled out what measures would be needed to ensure safety of the facility and the tankers carrying liquefied gas through the Sound.

FERC will accept public comment on the report through Jan. 23, and plans to schedule public hearings in the area before that deadline, said Tamara Young-Allen, a FERC spokeswoman.

Then, FERC staff members will prepare a final environmental report to be submitted to the commission. Young-Allen said a decision could come sometime next year.

Broadwater hopes to have the plant operating by the end of 2010.

The project also needs various federal and state permits. Save the Sound on Friday called on New York to deny Broadwater a required underwater easement.

FERC's report was based on input from the public and numerous state and federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Coast Guard analyzed safety and security issues and determined that although the project posed problems, the terminal could be safely operated, and that the risk of a catastrophic incident would be remote. But the facility and the tankers feeding it would require extensive safety zones, where commercial and recreational activities would be barred.

FERC said the safety zones would have only a minor impact on commercial fishing and recreational activities, and that they could be reduced by careful scheduling of deliveries to the terminal.

The FERC assessment also found no reason to believe that Broadwater would lead to additional industrial activities on the Sound.

Opponents remain skeptical.

FERC "has not only given short shrift to scientific evidence about environmental dangers, but also ignored security threats and impacts on navigation, as well as recreational and economic values," Blumenthal said.

Connecticut's junior U.S. senator, Joseph I. Lieberman, called the FERC report "deeply flawed" and said the agency's conclusions are "undercut by its own findings. ... The extraordinary steps that the FERC and the Coast Guard have said would be needed to allow for the safe and secure operation of the Broadwater facility leave no doubt that this facility has no place in Long Island Sound."

Broadwater is just one of many proposals to build or upgrade liquefied natural gas terminals. Natural gas now supplies about 40 percent of the energy consumed in New England.

Opponents argue that the region needs to turn to alternative sources of energy, both to reduce dependence on foreign supplies and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. FERC concluded that alternative energy sources cannot meet the demand.

Even if FERC were to approve Broadwater, the plant might not get built.

"We fully expect that many facilities that get approved ultimately will not get built," said Bryan Lee, a spokesman for the agency. "The market is going to determine whether these get built."

Contact David K. Funkhouser at dfunkhouser@courant.com.

To view the FERC staff's draft environmental impact statement online, go to: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/enviro/eis.asp, click the "Issued" tab and click on "Broadwater." The public may submit comments by Jan. 23, 2007, to FERC either by e-mail after following instructions under "eFilings" on FERC's homepage or by postal mail to FERC, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20426.


Broadwater's Terminal Plan
Hartford Courant editorial
November 5, 2006

The Coast Guard's review of Broadwater Energy's proposal to moor a gargantuan liquefied natural gas terminal in the middle of Long Island Sound concludes that the project could be done if Broadwater takes steps to "responsibly manage risks to navigation safety and security." Days later, officials for Broadwater, a joint venture of TransCanada Corp. and Shell, issue assurances that they always meant to provide security without burdening state or local taxpayers.

The problem is that Broadwater and the Coast Guard define the issues of security and cost too narrowly.
 
Broadwater's proposal would increase the region's dependence on foreign sources of fuel. How does that strengthen national security? In addition, natural gas already accounts for too large a share of the Northeast's fuel supplies, making the region vulnerable to the whims of the global market. Expanding that dependence on natural gas for heating and generating electricity will increase the region's exposure to volatile energy prices and threaten its long-term economic stability.

Broadwater's bid to maintain the energy status quo would have the added effect of undermining efforts at conservation, the best and most direct path to long-term economic security and cleaner air.

Broadwater submitted its application under the Energy Independence Act of 2005. The law gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to override states in deciding the location of such energy facilities. At 1,200 feet long and 180 feet wide, this terminal will be bigger than the Queen Mary 2. If approved, it will serve as a symbol of the federal government's willingness to trample states' rights for short-sighted energy policies.

It would also set an ugly precedent for the further industrialization of a national treasure. Long Island Sound, the country's second-largest estuary, has been the focus of years of efforts (and billions of dollars) at environmental cleanup and reclamation.

Finally, it seems that every day, the body of scientific evidence linking fossil-fuel consumption and deforestation to global warming grows. A report released recently by the British government on the economics of climate change warned that, barring an international commitment to cutting fossil-fuel consumption, the world could face a decline in productivity on a scale not witnessed since the Great Depression.

The threat to our globe is real. The question before us - now - is whether to continue blindly following the status quo to disaster or to push for change.

The Coast Guard concludes the Broadwater project can be done in a way that minimizes its hazards to public safety and navigation. But such conclusions don't address the broader question of whether this should be done; whether, as a matter of national energy policy, Broadwater is in the region's best long-term economic and environmental interests.

It's not.
Coast Guard report spells out danger in LNG terminal
Norwalk HOUR editorial
September 27, 2006

As if we needed any further affirmation that the proposed liquid natural gas terminal planned for Long Island Sound presented a security risk, the U.S. Coast Guard nonetheless has provided it.

In an extensive report, the Coast Guard, charged with homeland security on Long Island Sound, was careful not to make a recommendation one way or the other, but its report certainly spells out the dangers.

Among other things, the Coast Guard report states that it would need a major infusion of resources in order to provide security for the vessel.

The terminal, basically a floating LNG tank, would be the length of two football fields and stand about 100 feet tall. Under Broadwater Energy's plan, two or three LNG tankers would be docking there each week to disgorge the fuel.

Read the words of the report: "Based on current levels of mission activity, Coast Guard Sector Long Island does not have the resources required to implement the measures that have been identified as being necessary to effectively manage the potential risk to navigation safety and maritime security..."

Broadwater attempted to put its own spin on the Coast Guard report, calling the security measures the report said would be needed as "standard practice."
The report's recommendations call for escort boats for LNG carriers and establishment of a security zone around the facility as well as around the moving tankers.

While we feel the placement of the Coast Guard under Homeland Security made more sense than its previous existence as a part of the Department of Transportation, it also greatly expanded its responsibilities. The change came as the service dealt with an aging fleet to cover more and more tasks, including port security. The report states flat-out that existing firefighting capability to deal with a blaze at a terminal such as this is inadequate.

Both officials in Connecticut and New York are on record as opposing the gas terminal.

Beyond the security problems, they all cite the threat to the ecology of Long Island Sound, negating the difficult effort that has been under way to bring this estuary back to what it once was.

There also will be an impact on its struggling fishing industry and will curtail the use of it by recreational boaters, no small business on both sides of the Sound.

The sad part of it is that the Federal Energy Regulation Commission will no doubt totally ignore the positions of Connecticut and New York.

We've seen in the past that FERC pretty much goes its own way when it comes to matters affecting the population of Connecticut and the devil take our position.

Another strike against LNG plant
CT POST editorial
Article Launched: 09/25/2006 02:54:23 PM EDT
 
Mark one more strike against a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal being situated in the middle of Long Island Sound.
The United States Coast Guard on Friday confirmed what many have been contending for months: The proposed LNG terminal poses a safety and security risk to our region. It would necessitate more firefighters, escort boats and other measures to both prevent and respond to accidents or terrorist attacks.

Although the Coast Guard's security analysis didn't explicitly offer support or non-support for Broadwater Energy's proposed hulking energy terminal that would tower more than 10 stories, the Coast Guard did make clear that the facility would create a significant need for more resources to ensure public's safety.

Of course it would. And not only does the facility pose a huge safety threat to the region's residents, it also poses an environmental threat to the Sound's delicate ecosystem.

Our Sound is one of the most precious resources — in an economic sense and in an environmental sense — shared by Connecticut and New York. One can only imagine the devastation that would ensue if the terminal, proposed to be built only 10 miles from Connecticut's shores, were to explode.

The list of those opposing the proposed LNG terminal — many of whom were quick to point out Friday that the Coast Guard's report is another reason why the terminal is a bad idea — is both lengthy and impressive. The list is so lengthy that it's enough to make one wonder who exactly supports this incursion by private enterprise into public waters.

Broadwater clearly isn't interested in the Connecticut's opinion on the terminal. What's worse, it appears that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission isn't either. FERC has steadfastly refused Connecticut's requests for a seat at the table when final decisions about the Broadwater project are made and refuses to grant Connecticut official status.

Broadwater's chief argument for the terminal is to consider the alternatives. Unless we address our region's energy needs, the consortium argues, the New York-Connecticut region faces higher energy costs in the future.

We're not buying that, especially if state lawmakers finally get off the dime and formulate an effective energy conservation and development plan for Connecticut, including new, alternative energy sources that won't desecrate Long Island Sound.
From CFE/Save the Sound:  Statement on Release of U.S. Coast Guard’s Safety Report on the Proposed Broadwater Energy LNG Terminal and Pipeline
 
NEW HAVEN – An approximately one-and-a-half-square-mile safety and security zone would be needed to secure the proposed LNG industrial complex and, if breached, an ignitable vapor cloud could travel 4.7 miles from the complex in any direction, according to the U.S. Coast Guard’s Waterway Suitability Report released today. 
 
    "This report shows that the three hazard zones associated with the Shell project could significantly affect important natural resources within 70 square miles of the industrial complex and will impact commercial shipping, recreational boating, and commercial and recreational fishing within Connecticut and New York,” said Leah Schmalz, Director of Legislative and Legal Affairs for Save the Sound, a program of Connecticut Fund for the Environment. “This proposal raises serious legal issues concerning the rights of the citizens in both states."
 
    The complex that Shell wants to build in Long Island Sound – a congressionally declared Estuary of National Significance – would be approximately 11 miles south of Connecticut and nine miles north of New York in New York waters. It is expected to receive two to three weekly shipments of LNG via tankers that will enter the Sound through The Race – the constricted, eastern-most access point.
 
    An area around the industrial complex and around each of the LNG delivery tankers would be quarantined, disallowing free use by other citizens or commercial vessels. "The U.S. Coast Guard often calls Long Island Sound ‘I-95 Wet,’ but I doubt that New York and Connecticut would ever consider severely restricting traffic on I-95 three times a week for one corporation’s exclusive use," Schmalz said.
 
    Broadwater would exclude citizens from portions of the Sound and could require them to subsidize safety and security response for the project through local cost sharing. "Allowing Shell to usurp our citizens’ rightful use to portions of the Sound is unacceptable," Schmalz said. "Furthermore it is unconscionable that it also expects us to pay for responses to emergencies arising from their facility or tankers. These two facts alone prove that this project is inappropriate for Long Island Sound."
 
    "In light of CFE’s Alternatives Analysis to Broadwater released on March 2, 2006, we know with certainty that Broadwater is unnecessary," Schmalz said. "There are a number of ways to assure adequate gas and energy supplies for New England. They are commonsense approaches that do not require the industrialization of a large portion of the Sound."
 
    "Broadwater Energy has failed to identify any compelling local or regional need that would justify the impact that this proposed LNG terminal would have on the environmental, economic, recreational and historical value of Long Island Sound," Schmalz said.
Coast Guard: LNG terminal would require additional security
Hartford Courant
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer
Sep 22, 2:56 PM EDT

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- A giant liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for Long Island Sound poses safety and security risks that would require more firefighters, escort boats and other measures to prevent accidents or terrorist attacks, according to a Coast Guard report released Friday.

The Coast Guard issued a security analysis that does not take a position on the proposal by Broadwater Energy, but concludes that additional measures would be needed to "responsibly manage risks to navigation safety and security risks" associated with the project.

"Based on current levels of mission activity, Coast Guard Sector Long Island currently does not have the resources required to implement the measures that have been identified as being necessary to effectively manage the potential risk to navigation safety and maritime security associated with the Broadwater Energy proposal," the report states.

Broadwater Energy wants to build a floating terminal that would supply 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, enough to heat 4 million homes a year. Environmentalists oppose the application and some officials worry the terminal is too dangerous for the busy waterway between Connecticut and Long Island.
 
Natural gas is cooled and condensed into a liquid to make transportation easier. Under the Broadwater proposal, the terminal would receive LNG shipments by boat, then pump the gas into the existing pipeline between Long Island and Connecticut.

"The bottom line is this validates everything we've been saying. This is very risky, very costly and potentially dangerous," said Adrienne Esposito, executive director of the Long Island-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment. "This should be the beginning of the end for Broadwater. This plan turns the tranquil waters of the Long Island Sound into the nightmare on Elm Street for the public."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell and other officials also said the report justifies opposition to the project because the security measures would be too costly. The report recommends Broadwater share in the costs but does not provide an estimate, saying an emergency response plan must still be developed.

"The Coast Guard report seeks methods to manage or mitigate risks, but cannot acceptably reduce or eliminate them," Blumenthal said.

Broadwater officials have argued the facility is a safe new source of clean energy to ease power shortages on Long Island. They said Friday that the Coast Guard report confirms that.

"We thought that the Coast Guard did a very detailed, thorough analysis," said Broadwater spokesman John Hritcko. "The safety and security measures that they had outlined are very much standard practice, and the Coast Guard has determined that there are no credible threats. They've also said that the offshore location does reduce the potential consequences."

Hritcko said the costs of providing security pale in comparison to the potential cost of not adding energy sources.

"If you don't implement a project such as Broadwater to bring more energy into the region, what are you going to do, continue to pay higher prices for energy and use fossil fuels into the future?" he said.

The Coast Guard, which spent more than a year conducting its analysis, concluded that the proposed LNG terminal would likely not be an attractive target for terrorists because of its remoteness. The terminal would be 10 miles from Connecticut and 9 miles from New York.

"We found risks to navigation safety and some risks to security. But we did not feel those risks could not be mitigated," said Capt. Peter Boynton, who commands the Coast Guard's Long Island Sound division, at a press conference Friday.

The report recommends escort boats for LNG carriers to help prevent terrorist attacks or shipping accidents. A security zone that would limit access to the area around the facility and a similar zone around moving tankers as they transport gas also is recommended.

"The zone gives us the ability to help people who don't want to interfere with the tanker to safely get out of the way," Boynton said. "It also provides us a zone that we could defend the tanker were that to be necessary."

The Connecticut Fund for the Environment said the security zone would severely restrict use of the Sound by residents and other commercial vessels. The group also cited a finding that an ignitable vapor cloud could travel 4.7 miles from the complex in any direction.

Boynton disagreed that the zones would amount to a severe restriction, saying they would cover only a tiny fraction of the waterway. The facility is expected to generate two to three tankers worth of gas per week.

During the