• Very latest (2010) news...
• U.S. Commerce Dept. lays down the law...FERC ready to act...will Islander East ruling have an influence on other decisions for L.I.S.?
  
• Editorials about FERC, Coast Guard decisions;
• News of crossings under Lond Island Sound;  older reports;
• Run-off background; 
  
• New focus of efforts to keep Long Island Sound clean...
  
• Now filed with FERC, see latest news stories...
  
• The  full story of LNG status: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/meetings/mtg29/LNGCommunityAwarenessWorkshopSummary-Feb2-2005.pdf
  
• Energy bill news;
  
• Weaver's Cove proposal coming back to life?
  
• Attack on marine environment - Casco Bay, Maine (immediately below);
• LNG 2005 proposal ("Liquid Natural Gas") is only the latest way L.I. Sound can come to resemble a badminton racquet (See Cross-Sound Cable story.)  Question:  how does the Saugatuck Reservoir in Weston, CT differ from the LNG proposal?  Answer: one holds water.)

FROM THE INTERNET...

• FERC draft decision...
  
• Governor Rell appoints a task force August 10, 2005 re:  Broadwater threat to L.I. Sound: http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?Q=300024&A=1761
• "RISK MANAGEMENT" - "NIMBY" with licence to kill?  See old news here:  http://energy.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1384&wit_id=4005

• $23,000 for the Bridgeport Board of Education's Aquaculture school for raising scallops in 1994.
  
• $18,000 for the installation of floating docks at Shelton's Sunnyside boat facility on the Housatonic River.
  
• $50,000 to help pay for the demolition of the former Long Beach cottage community in Stratford.
  
• $1,250 for Derby's Kellogg Environmental Center to create banners portraying drainage basins.
  
• $25,000 for the Connecticut Audubon Coastal Center in Milford to invest in a salt-marsh laboratory.
  
• $4,150 to send water conservation brochures to every home in Darien.
  
• $5,775 for a population study of diamondback terrapins by Fairfield University.
  
• $13,000 for Seymour middle school students to study the Naugatuck River.
  
• $60,000 for the Stamford-based Sound Waters to help with learning labs at Cove Island Park and with after-school programming.
  
• $16,900 for Friends of Sherwood Island State Park's nature center displays.
  
• $25,000 for a clean boating program by the Norwalk-based Long Island Soundkeeper Fund designed to cut down on human waste in the Sound.
•  $2,500 to help the New Canaan Nature Center Association Inc. establish a Girl Scout and Brownie program.
  
• $140,000 in several grants to the Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk, including $18,614 for a live webcam at the Sheffield Island lighthouse in Norwalk harbor, a $24,000 traveling science show for elementary and middle schools and a $20,000 study of harbor seals.

Over the years, the watery wedge between Long Island and coastal Connecticut has appeared as either the chasm of divided interests or the bridge connecting the two states in a common purpose.

Long Island Sound has revealed itself as a rift when New York and Connecticut disagreed over such issues as the dumping of dredge spoils in the estuary and the placement of submerged electric cables and natural gas pipelines slicing through the sea bed.

The Sound has bridged the states when they have come together to restore its habitat and craft initiatives to curb nitrogen-laden runoff and sewage discharges in its waters.

From its easternmost point at Race Rock to its western tip at Greenwich and New York City, territorial control over the estuary is split between Connecticut and New York. But to many, the imaginary state line is irrelevant.

“You really can't look at the Sound ecosystem by jurisdictional boundaries, because anything you do in the Sound affects all the other communities there,” said

Kimberly Graff, the outreach coordinator for New York state for a two-decade-old federal and bi-state restoration program called the Long Island Sound Study. “Nothing would get done if we weren't working together.”

Since its introduction a year ago, a first-of-its-kind proposal to park a huge floating industrial facility in the middle of the Sound has the two sides talking as never before. Much of the conversation has focused on uniting against what many perceive to be a common enemy. Broadwater Energy, a Shell Oil-TransCanada PipeLine partnership, is seeking to permanently anchor a 1200-foot-long barge to store and process liquefied natural gas that would be piped mainly to New York City-area utilities.

Though the barge would sit in waters controlled by New York, nine miles from Riverhead on Long Island and 11 miles from Branford in Connecticut, the plan has met with equal scorn in both states as a threat to the safety and environmental well-being of the Sound. Both the barge and the tankers that would supply it would be surrounded by a wide safety and security buffer closing those areas to fishermen, recreational boaters and others.

“The best thing about Broadwater is that they've united New York and Connecticut in favor of Long Island Sound,” said Leah Schmaltz, director of legislative and legal affairs for Save the Sound and staff attorney for its affiliate, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment. “Up until now we've had this on-again, off-again rivalry between the two states. But this idea that Broadwater would take away a part of the Sound from the public was something new entirely. This is probably the most important decision to be made about Long Island Sound.”

•••

The ultimate authority over whether Broadwater receives the permits for its offshore energy plant rests with the federal government, thanks to recent expansion of powers given to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, under the energy bill passed by Congress this year.

Resentment over loss of state control has further motivated bi-state cooperation among the region's congressmen, state and municipal officials, and environmental and grassroots activists groups.

“We needed to muscle up and join forces on this,” said Lonnie Reed, a member of Branford's Representative Town Meeting who's become a leader in bringing residents of Long Island and Connecticut together. “We wanted to create a structure moving forward to get people talking on both sides of the Sound. The people on Long Island love the Sound just like we do.”

Reed, a former journalist and congressional staffer, teamed up with fellow Branford resident Felise Cressman, a former science teacher long involved in environmental causes, to form the Hands Across Our Pond. With Save the Sound as its parent organization, Hands Across Our Pond has reached out to Broadwater opponents in both states for solutions to the region's energy needs that won't impact the shared estuary.

“We're trying to heal some of the schisms that we've felt over other energy debates, and come up with rational energy policies and create a new relationship,” said Cressman, who lives a few steps from the shores of the Sound, where she kayaks and sails.

Among those Cressman and Reed have approached is Sid Bail, president of the civic association of the Long Island community of Wading River. Bail, a veteran of opposition to the Shoreham nuclear power plant in nearby Brookhaven, has welcomed the gesture.

“Over on our side of the pond,” he said, “we've have been very puzzled by some of Connecticut's actions on the dumping of dredge materials and the tremendous amount of hostility to any cables across the Sound. But this effort to come together (against Broadwater) is extremely important, because this is not going to be the last issue we face in terms of uses of Long Island Sound.”

Bail thinks a successful campaign against Broadwater could require a long-term commitment. Regardless of the outcome, he said, the Broadwater plan points out the need for the two states to establish common policies to ensure that the Sound's open waters do not become industrialized.

“Open space preservation regulations for Long Island Sound,” he said, “are something we need to explore.”

•••

Hands Across Our Pond has also established contacts at Concerned Citizens for the Environment, an 80,000-member New York-based organization in the forefront of the anti-Broadwater campaign.

Adrienne Esposito, CCE's executive director, believes the recent grassroots-level teamwork is, in some ways, a revival of what happened decade ago. Then, environmental groups from both states pushed federal and state officials to aim for stricter limits on polluted discharges entering the estuary. The recent unity is also a reaction to what she views as FERC's usurpation of the approval process for LNG terminals.

“When states find their rights being yanked away from them,” she said, “you do find the states coming together. The federal government plays the trump card in this. ... The only real way to protect Long Island Sound is for the two states to work together and focus on what they agree on.”

State Sen. Andrea Stillman, Democrat of Waterford, is hoping that a bi-state Long Island Sound committee of elected and non-elected officials will begin meeting in the near future. The Connecticut law establishing the group was passed this year, but an equivalent measure has not made its way through the New York state legislature.

Stillman's objections to the Broadwater plan, she said, were her main motivation for proposing the law, but the group's purpose would go well beyond this one issue.

“I'm looking at overall concerns about the industrialization of Long Island Sound,” she said.

Another opponent of the project, U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, is putting his hopes for stopping Broadwater into a bi-state group of lawmakers he calls the Long Island Sound caucus. Before Broadwater, he said, the New York and Connecticut delegations had come together to craft the Long Island Stewardship Act, which enables preservation of certain properties along the coasts of both states.

Simmons said he opposed the portion of the energy bill that gave FERC final say over LNG terminals but thinks Connecticut and New York can still have some influence over the decision.

“Working together,” he said, “team Long Island Sound could mount a very powerful campaign against this project and present it to FERC successfully. This is an opportunity for New York and Connecticut to get together on something.”

Casinos moored along the Gulf Coast were tossed around like dice.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said it was as if a nuclear bomb had been dropped.

That was Hurricane Katrina, but it could have been a reprise of the 1938 storm nicknamed “The Long Island Express.”

So I have to ask: Is it really a good idea to put a floating liquefied natural gas terminal in the middle of Long Island Sound, as proposed by Shell Oil Co. and TransCanada Corp.? The $700 million terminal — much more than a pipe dream — would be anchored 11 miles from East Haven and would be about 10 stories high and four football fields long. Boaters are already protesting. But officials from the operator, Broadwater Energy LLC, assure us that it would be a safe way to ease power shortages.

Funny how we rarely hear anything about easing power shortages the safest way, through conservation, especially from an administration so intent on pushing abstinence in safe-sex programs as the best or only solution. Now I know it's unfair to pass judgment on this project before all the facts are known. But the scary thing here is that President Bush's new energy bill gives federal regulators — not us — final say over import terminals.

The public can comment — how generous of the feds — during a hearing Sept. 20 at East Lyme High School. Maybe the terminal wouldn't be a huge hazard or target, just monstrously ugly and in the way. But don't forget that a few weeks ago the president said, “I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.”

Science isn't my forte, nor does it appear to be the president's. For more information on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), I surfed the Web, starting with the Sierra Club. Not surprisingly, the Sierra Club gives LNG terminals a thumbs down. To find out why, including worldwide statistics on mishaps and resulting casualties, check out www.lngwatch.com.

The view from business is more reassuring. The Web site for Trunkline LNG Terminal in Lake Charles (La.) noted that the facility is built to withstand winds up to 150 mph.
Perhaps I'm just being picky, but on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, a category 4, like Katrina, has “dangerous, sustained” winds of 131 mph to 155 mph. That's a five-mile doorway to doomsday, not to mention a “cat 5.”

A report from Hybrid Energy Advisors Inc., a Houston-based enterprise that “provides independent business advisory services to the natural gas industry and related markets,” concluded that “LNG appears to be a very viable and constantly improving choice” to satisfy increased energy needs. The report did, however, admit that LNG is a hard sell.

“LNG re-gasification terminals are viewed as large, obstructive and generally displeasing to the eye,” it said, therefore “one mitigant to that problem is siting the terminal off-shore ...”

Still, problems remain.

“With the threat of oil tanker, nuclear reactor and LNG ship sabotage, political risk to siting an on- or off-shore re-gasification unit is high,” Hybrid Energy Advisors warned.
Note the term political risk.

“Man-made or accidental explosion of such a tanker can be catastrophic in the mind of the common person,” the report said, meaning me,“and although studies have shown that LNG volatility is much lower in its liquid cooled form, the image of a giant vapor cloud can have devastating effects on the human psyche and at the very least create an apocalyptic image that few are willing to internalize.”

Well, even though I'm just a common person, I'm willing to internalize it. And I have to say ...

AAAAAAAeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

Report Raises Concerns Over Gas Terminal;  State study questions need for facility in Long Island Sound
DAY
By Associated Press & Stephen Singer 
Published on 3/9/2006
 
Hartford — A plan for a floating natural gas terminal on Long Island Sound fails to factor in costs to the public and has no identifiable market, according to a commission appointed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell to study project's impact on Connecticut.
The Broadwater Energy terminal would require public expenditures for security and other requirements, the panel said in an interim report.

The panel said there are numerous environmental concerns with the project. It also criticized what it called the lack of a federal energy policy that it says has led to corporations racing to capture a monopoly in the deregulated energy market.

Amy Kelley, project adviser for Broadwater, disputed the report Wednesday.

“The market is here and we'll be providing energy,” Kelley said. “Broadwater would not propose this project if it does believe there's a need.”

Kelley said Broadwater and state officials have a “common goal of finding a way to provide energy in a safe and environmentally sound way.”

Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of TransCanada Corporation and Royal Dutch/Shell Group, wants to build the $700 million floating terminal to receive and pipe liquefied natural gas.

It is not clear how much influence Connecticut officials will have in determining whether the plans will go forward, said Sen. Andrea Stillman, co-chairwoman of the panel.

The terminal, which would be as long as four football fields, would be in New York waters 11 miles from Branford, and will also require federal approvals.

“We believe we will have some say,” said Stillman, D-Waterford.

Several officials involved in the report oppose the project, but Sen. Leonard Fasano, also a co-chairman of the panel, called it an “open-minded report.”

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a long-time critic of the plan, said that the Broadwater plan is the “worst case and worst place.”

The report called for a review that “should be methodical and meticulous. Every alternative should be examined, every safety issue explored and every economic impact studied and analyzed.”

Rell said in a statement Wednesday she has “very serious concerns about this project from a point of view of public safety, security, the environment and the economy.”

Stillman and Fasano said key information about security, such as the impact of increased Long Island Sound traffic on the submarine base in Groton and the environmental impact of the 25-mile connecting pipeline and trench to install it must be provided before final decisions are made.
 

The Meddling Feds
Hartford Courant editorial
August 12, 2005

Long Island Sound has taken it on the chin, compliments of the sweeping energy bill approved by Congress and signed this week by President Bush.

Tucked inside the legislation are all kinds of hidden morsels meant for special interests. Some are downright indigestible, especially to Connecticut and New York, which are fighting to maintain regulatory control of the bi-state body of water.

GAS PLANT PROPONANTS FACE GRILLING
Stamford ADVOCATE
John Nickerson
August 2, 2005
STAMFORD -- Proponents of a plan to build a floating liquefied natural gas plant the size of four football fields on the New York side of Long Island Sound faced tough questions last night from area residents and environmentalists.

Standing before about 80 people last night at Stamford Government Center, Norwalk resident John de Regt asked representatives of Broadwater Energy, the company proposing the plant, why it couldn't be placed in Block Island Sound -- which would keep three LNG tankers per week from servicing the plant on Long Island Sound.

Many Block Island Sound locations weren't protected enough and those that were suitable were too far away from main pipelines that would be used to transport the gas to market, said John Hritcko, Broadwater's senior vice president and regional project director.

The proposal, which if all goes according to Broadwater's plan, would put a 1,200-foot-long floating plant about 11 miles southeast of New Haven in 2010. The plant would be 70 to 100 feet high and 180 feet wide.

The $700 million terminal would be used to warm natural gas brought by tanker in its liquid state at minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit before pumping it into a pipeline to New York and Connecticut energy markets.

Much of the gas would be used for energy production.

To make the plan work, a 25-mile pipeline would be put in place leading to the Iroquois pipeline, which runs between Milford and Northport on Long Island, N.Y.

At last night's meeting, called by the South Western Regional Planning Association, representatives of Save the Sound and the New York-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment -- which oppose the plan -- shared the dais with Hritcko.

After Hritcko and a Broadwater consultant spent about a half-hour explaining the proposal, Leah Lopez Schmalz, Save the Sound's director of legislation and legal affairs, said the plant would create a precedent for industrialization of Long Island Sound.

If the project was successful, Lopez Schmalz asked how many more floating plants would be put on the Sound.

Lopez Schmalz said the Sound should not be a "guinea pig" for the plant, which would be the world's first.

Acknowledging the plant's uniqueness, Hritcko said it would help solve the region's growing power problems.

Asked by Norwalk resident and sailor Bob Yeager what would happen if the plant was not built, Hritcko said problems could become so acute that power companies may fail to keep the lights on in southwestern Connecticut.

Lopez Schmalz countered that more than 10 LNG plants are in the application stage and Broadwater wasn't the only alternative.

During the question-and-answer period, Jeff Cordulack, a Stamford resident and president of the Environmental Council of Stamford, elicited a few laughs when he asked if Connecticut residents, like Alaskans who receive money each year from oil leases, would be paid for use of Long Island Sound.

Hritcko said his company would pay a lease to New York..

Roy Fuchs, a Westport resident and SWRPA board member, asked Hritcko how much money Broadwater expected to make by siting the plant on the Sound. Hritcko said there were internal estimates, but they have not been made public.

Broadwater will soon submit an application for the plant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will hold public hearings on the proposal in the fall.

The firm will need environmental approvals from New York, but Connecticut agencies will have no oversight authority over the project.
LNG Project Database
Global Coverage of LNG Projects Online Access with Key Contacts
www.Industrialinfo.com

LNG Journal
In-depth LNG technology review and analysis. 8x pa
www.lngjournal.com

Oil and Gas
Investor returns climb as oil and gas drilling ventures succeed.
www.northstarenergyinc.com

The Center for LNG
Learn how liquefied natural gas is helping meet our energy needs.
www.lngfacts.org

Thermax, Inc.
Cryogenic vaporizers for LNG, N2, CO2, NH3, others for over 30 years!
www.thermaxinc.com

Washington — New England lawmakers said Friday they voted against the wide-ranging energy bill passed by the House and Senate in part because it will give federal regulators the power to site liquefied natural gas facilities.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., were among just six Senate and 31 House Republicans to vote against the bill — which was a key priority for the GOP administration.

They said they split from their party on the bill for a number of reasons. The LNG provision alone, said Shays, was a good enough reason to vote no.

And Chafee said that he had several major problems with the bill, including its failure to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, increase fuel economy for vehicles and expand support for alternative energies. Expanding the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority over LNG plants, he said, was another significant issue.

He agreed that it may seem contradictory for lawmakers to complain that the bill doesn't do enough to promote alternative fuels, and yet opposed the LNG provision, but Congress members said they oppose the idea of taking away state authority in the LNG sitings.

LNG facilities have been proposed in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The Federal Regulatory Commission, which under the bill has the authority to approve LNG facilities over the objections of state officials, has approved the Weaver's Cove Energy project for Fall River, Mass. But it rejected the KeySpan LNG proposal to convert its existing LNG storage tank in Providence, R.I., into an import terminal, citing safety concerns.

Another terminal is being proposed for Long Island Sound between Connecticut and New York by Broadwater Energy. It would be located about 11 miles off Connecticut's coast and would be about four football fields long.

“The energy bill has many shortcomings, but the LNG provision that strips states from making decisions based on the safety of its citizens is an outrage,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. “This provision protects only the gas companies and not the citizens of the United States.”

Federal officials have said they needed Congress to affirm FERC's authority over LNG plants in order to help meet the nation's growing energy needs.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., was the only senator in southern New England to vote for the bill. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said that despite the administration's rhetoric about reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil, the bill does little to get that accomplished.

“Why aren't we getting the message and getting behind these alternative fuels,” said Dodd.

Rhode Island officials have expressed relief that the Providence proposal was rejected, but they also oppose the Fall River plan because it would require ships to pass up through Narragansett Bay to the terminal.

Washington — Saying they tried to balance New England's energy needs with public safety concerns, federal regulators Thursday approved plans for a liquefied natural gas terminal in Fall River, Mass., but rejected a proposed expansion of an LNG facility in Providence

It was the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's first rejection of a new LNG facility; seven others have been approved since 2003.

The commission approved the $250 million Weaver's Cove project for Fall River by a 3-1 vote. Commissioners said the project met safety standards, though residents and government officials have protested it would put the community at risk.

Commissioner Suedeen Kelly, the lone dissenter, said the project would damage the environment and aquatic life in the river, and that tanker traffic along the narrow Taunton River would raise safety concerns and disrupt the community.

Fall River mayor Edward Lambert and Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., who watched the vote, vowed to do whatever is necessary to defeat the proposal, including suing in federal court. Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly said officials are asking FERC to reconsider its decision.

“We'll kill this project with a thousand paper cuts,” said Lambert. “We'll use every avenue, legal, political, public relations and regulatory.”  Commission chairman Pat Wood said he knew the vote would not be popular, but said the terminal would help meet New England's serious energy needs.

“We are looking at the long range economic health of the oldest region in our country,” he said. Wood added that the commission needs to better educate the public on the benefits of LNG and FERC's role in the approval process.

Members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation, along with lawmakers from Rhode Island, all said they plan to fight the Weaver's Cove decision, saying the terminal is an attractive target for terrorists and will put residents in both states at risk.  Gordon Shearer, chief executive officer of Weaver's Cove Energy, said the company is prepared for a legal battle.

“We don't expect this to come quickly, but we're well down the road,” he said. “We would not have gone as far as we have, if we were not comfortable that we would be able to comply with the permits.”

The commission voted 4-0 to reject the KeySpan LNG proposal in Providence, saying the project didn't meet safety standards. Commissioners said that converting the existing LNG storage tank on the Providence waterfront into an import terminal would require KeySpan to bring the facility up to current safety standards.

“New England does need additional LNG import capacity,” said FERC commissioner Joseph Kelliher. “This (vote) demonstrates that the commission does apply high safety standards.”  The company has said it would cost more than $35 million and would force officials to take the tank out of service for two to three seasons.  KeySpan executive vice president David Manning said the company is disappointed by the vote, and will consider its options after reading the full FERC decision.

A significant issue, he said, will be FERC's conclusion that the project is a new terminal that must be brought up to current code, rather than an existing facility that meets applicable standards and would not need costly safety upgrades.  Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said FERC accurately found that the KeySpan plan did not properly balance the region's energy needs with the safety of citizens.

Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri said he was pleased by the KeySpan rejection, but said the approval of the Fall River terminal was a setback. To reach a Fall River terminal, a 73-acre former Shell Oil site along the Taunton River, the LNG tankers must travel 26 miles in mostly Rhode Island waters.

“I remain deeply concerned about the dangers of transporting large quantities of LNG through Narragansett Bay,” Carcieri said.  Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch said the Fall River vote “puts a kill zone in the heart of a densely populated New England city.”

LNG is natural gas supercooled until it turns to liquid so it can be shipped. If released, it becomes a colorless, odorless vapor that can catch fire and explode in a confined area.  Residents and community leaders in both cities have vigorously battled the projects, arguing they don't belong in such densely populated areas. They also argue the ships carrying the LNG will create a safety hazards as they pass local communities.

The two New England proposals are among about 40 LNG proposals nationwide being discussed or reviewed by the commission. There are currently four onshore LNG terminals in the continental United States.

Federal regulators poised to vote on New England LNG projects
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
Jun 30, 1:20 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As a storm continues to brew over states' rights to site liquefied natural gas projects, federal regulators Thursday will vote on two LNG proposals that could feed New England's growing need for energy sources.

The proposals for a $250 million LNG terminal in Fall River, Mass., and the $100 million expansion of a facility in Providence, R.I., have triggered heated opposition in the local communities and calls for more state power to veto such projects.

Weaver's Cove Energy would build a ship unloading berth, storage tank and two pipelines on the waterfront in Fall River. And KeySpan LNG would build a marine dock at its Providence terminal to accept LNG delivers and add a direct connection to the Algonquin Gas Transmission system.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission votes will come just two days after the Senate approved a far-reaching energy bill that endorsed FERC's authority to decide where LNG facilities can be located.

Massachusetts officials are braced for FERC to approve the Weaver's Cove proposal and are already preparing legal arguments for a federal court appeal.

"My colleagues and I, together with the Fall River community, continue to believe that this project unnecessarily puts residents at great personal risk and opens up our coastline to terrorist attack," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Rhode Island lawmakers, however, are pinning their hopes on comments by FERC commissioners suggesting that KeySpan LNG would have to bring its existing facility up to current safety standards before the expansion could go forward.

FERC gave both projects generally positive environmental reviews.

Weaver's Cove spokesman Jim Grasso said Wednesday that the company is encouraged by FERC's positive review, but he said there are many other required permits if FERC approves the project. The company has already applied for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to dredge about 20 miles of the federal channel up through Narraganssett Bay, at a cost of $50 million, he said.

FERC's final review of KeySpan raised concerns, saying the company has not shown that the terminal could be brought into compliance with current safety standards and that would be considered in the final decision.

KeySpan spokeswoman Carmen Fields said the company believes the terminal meets all applicable safety standards, "and our additional proposals were enhancements to an already safe and legal facility."

To meet current standards, KeySpan would have to spend millions to buy surrounding property for a buffer zone and take its LNG tank off-line for three years for construction.

Government officials and community leaders from Fall River and Providence have fought the projects every step of the way saying they don't belong in such densely populated neighborhoods, and that they will create safety hazards as the ships carrying the LNG travel up the bay and under highway bridges.

"My question to FERC Chairman Pat Wood, is how many and which Americans are expendable?" said Fall River Mayor Edward Lambert Jr.

LONG ISLAND SOUND NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT...and it got it...as well as the bill - BUT, the story is not over 'til the bigpower brokers sing (i.e.  Congress)...

With less than three weeks to go in the 2005 session of the Connecticut General Assembly, many important pieces of legislation must still be voted on.

An important bill affecting the future of the Long Island Sound has just passed the state Senate and will be voted on by the Connecticut House of Representatives in the next few days!

Senate Bill 637 An Act Concerning a Bi-State Long Island Sound Committee" will help usher in a new era of New York and Connecticut partnership, ensuring that both states work together on Sound-wise initiatives to provide for public enjoyment and protection of the natural resources of Long Island Sound.

This bill is critically important in ensuring our elected officials in Connecticut and New York focus their legislative energy on timely issues needed to preserve, protect and enhance the Sound's habitats, waters, and fisheries.

The rapid growth of population and industry around Long Island Sound requires all of us to work together NOW to guarantee the long-term restoration and protection of Long Island Sound - one of the most beautiful and important bodies of water in the United States and a vital
part of our nation's ecosystem.

PLEASE CONTACT THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP AND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES TODAY.  ASK THEM TO SUPPORT SB 637 - THE BI-STATE LONG ISLAND SOUND COMMITTEE BILL.

Long Island Sound is our REGIONAL TREASURE.

Take action TODAY to protect its future!

Contact The House Democrats
1-800-842-8267
- and -
The House Republicans
1-800-842-8270

Click here to contact your state legislator and the leadership of the House Democratic and Republican caucuses.

Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present.
--Albert Camus

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Imports of liquefied natural gas into the United States jumped 29% in 2004 and helped meet soaring demand for natural gas, the U.S. Energy Department said Friday.

Imports of the fuel increased to a record 652 billion cubic feet from 507 billion cubic feet in the previous year, according to a report from the Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy.  Although these imports accounted for just 3% of total U.S. natural-gas demand in 2004, the Energy Department anticipates continued growth will have imports meeting 20% of demand by 2020.

Liquefied natural gas is formed when natural gas is cooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit, a process that shrinks its volume by more than 600 times and makes it easier to transport in tankers around the world.  In 2004, five companies imported 244 cargos of liquefied natural gas into the United States, including BG Group, BP Energy, Distrigas, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Statoil, the Energy Department said.

Roughly a third of all liquefied natural gas entering the United States came through Dominion Resources' Cove Point receiving terminal on Chesapeake Bay near Baltimore.  Imports also arrived at three other receiving terminals located in Georgia, Louisiana and Massachusetts.  About two dozen new terminals have been proposed for the United States, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Roughly 71% of total imports came from Trinidad. The United States imported smaller quantities of liquefied natural gas from Algeria, Australia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Tobago, Oman and Qatar.

TransCanada Pipelines wants to build a liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal in Casco Bay. The terminal would transfer super-cooled LNG from tankers to a warming facility. Then it could be transported in pipelines to customers and power generation facilities.

TransCanada formed a partnership with Conoco Phillips to build a $350 million facility at a former U.S. Navy fuel depot in Harpswell. But town residents blocked the proposal in a March 9 referendum.

After the rejection in Harpswell, TransCanada resumed its search for a site. One possibility is Hope Island - the 89-acre island owned by the New York developer John Cacoulidis in the middle of Casco Bay. The town of Cumberland would have to change zoning for the island to allow an industrial facility.

Also being considered is Cousins Island. TransCanada has had preliminary discussions with Yarmouth officials about building the facility next to Wyman Station, an oil-burning power plant. There has been no permit request - just notification the island is on the list of possible sites.

Sears Island - farther up the coast - was discussed briefly. But neither its neighbors nor an energy company seem seriously interested in the location.

LNG is shipped in tankers that keep it cooled to -256 degrees Farenheit. At that temperature, it is in a liquid state. Its volume is reduced 600 times and more easily transported by ship as a liquid. The terminal being proposed would return the LNG to its gaseous state. Then it is pumped into the pipeline network as natural gas. (More information about the process)

Proponents say LNG is a relatively clean source of energy. Such a facility could means millions more in tax revenue and addtional economic benefits for its host community. But opponents cite concerns about safety, environmental impacts and disruptions to fishing vessels in the area. Proponents cited tax revenue for the town, job creation and a source of clean energy.

In addition to local approval, such a facility would need to reviewed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the Maine Department of Marine Resources and the U.S. Coast Guard, which send their recommendations to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC maintains that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over the siting and construction of liquefied natural gas terminals. This approval process could take three years.

POSSIBLE SITES

Hope Island
The 89-acre island is in the town of Cumberland and owned by the New York developer John Cacoulidis. It sits between Chebeague and Cliff islands. The town would have to rezone the island from residential to industrial. (More info)

Cousins Island
The small island off of Yarmouth already is home to Wyman Station - an oil-burning power plant. The LNG terminal could be placed near the plant. The water around Cousins Island is shallower than the ideal, but the island has a large industrial zone and is close to the mainland. (More info)

Harpswell
On March 9, Harpswell residents rejected a lease agreement for an LNG terminal called Fairwinds. Harpswell would have received lease fees and tax revenue for letting TransCanada and its corporate partner, ConocoPhillips, develop 70 acres of town-owned land.

BROADWATER NORTH?
Same characters, different place (we have L.I. Sound as potential victim)

LNG issue far more than just tankers;  The real problem is that reserves get smaller rather than larger, so what's the long-range plan?

During last year's debate about a possible liquified natural gas terminal near Searsport, summer resident and investment banker Matthew Simmons expressed his concern this way:

"Wow, to even think about sending one of those (tankers) up to the top of Penobscot Bay. That should be the last, last thing we do before we just, y'know, dismantle our economy."

This, from a man who has spent his life studying energy and who has visited the facility in Qatar where LNG originates.

So apparently the vote by Perry residents to keep such tankers out of Passamaquoddy Bay was a wise thing to do.

But it only dodges the real issue, one that, as far as I know, has never been addressed by this newspaper: the depletion of fossil fuels in North America and, indeed, the world.

The very fact that we debate whether to send aircraft-carrier-sized vessels filled with methane into our most treasured areas is a testament to the crisis we refuse to face.

As geologist Jean Laherrere says in a paper for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, "The fact that . . . natural gas discoveries peaked in the '70s is for the majority a well hidden secret."

This, he says, is "devastating for (the United States)," because production necessarily tracks discovery: you can only extract gas that you have found.

It follows, as discoveries decline, so does extraction. And indeed, natural gas production has been flat for years in both the United States and Canada, even as demand skyrockets.

Yet hundreds of gas-fired generation facilities are being built across the country. We currently depend on gas for 50 percent of our electricity generation, as well as for 50 percent of our home heating.

Methane molecules are the "feedstocks" for the production of agricultural fertilizers, plastics and industrial chemicals. But as Simmons says, "Sixty-five percent of the world's gas supply . . . is now in decline."

Unlike oil, 99 percent of our gas comes from North America. Gas from abroad is not easy to get as it doesn't ship well. Oil can be poured into tankers and offloaded into pipelines. Gas must be frozen and pressurized, then carefully thawed and depressurized at the terminal.

But with gas in the Western Hemisphere in terminal decline, there is no place else to get it but from places like Qatar. Problem is, everyone else wants it, too.

A symptom of gas scarcity is cost: "The wellhead price of natural gas skyrocketed 400 percent" since 2000, according to Randy Udall of the Community Office of Resource Efficiency in Colorado. This happens even as we spud more wells, because 17 must be drilled each day just to keep supply flat.

"North America has not run out of natural gas," Simmons reminds us. "What we are short of is any way to grow our energy supply."

Canada is bound by NAFTA to sell us their gas, even as their production goes flat and their consumption rises, just like the United States. Problems will arise when they need to burn their gas more than they need to ship it to us - it's much colder in Canada.

True, we only import 15 percent of our gas from Canada. The problem is, this represents over 50 percent of Canada's production.

Unless we pull our heads out of the sand and learn to use less gas, we can count on the future bringing more of what we've seen in the past: vast blackouts, fertilizer plant shut-downs, and higher prices - for everything, not just gas.

Either that, or we float bombs up and down the Maine coast.

About the Author
Michael Bendzela of Standish, an adjunct professor of English at the University of Southern Maine, studies oil and gas depletion as a hobby.

It's the proposed LNG (liquified natural gas) floating facility that would be located in Long Island Sound about 11 miles off the coast of New York and nine miles off the coast of Connecticut, just east of New Haven.

It would resemble a large ship permanentely situated on the Sound. The facility has been proposed by Broadwater Energy, a joint venture between TransCanada Corporation and Shell. For those already opposed, a meeting was held recently at which officials from both states voiced their concerns.

"I have long opposed ill-conceived and poorly planned energy projects that threaten our natural resources and public trust lands," state Attorney General Richard Blumental said in a statement read at the meeting.

"(This) project is another sad chapter in the ongoing saga of energy industry projects that put profits ahead of our environment and public interest." For those who need additional information, a briefing will be held Wednesday, March 23 as part of the Connecticut Maritime Association's SHIPPING 2005.

State politicians, officials and others will join LNG experts in an informational meeting at the Westin in Stamford. State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, of Norwalk often takes sides with the environment, but like others, he wants to get all of the facts.

"It's a massive application for Long Island Sound," he said. "Anytime that type of use is proposed for recreation and small-use water, it's definitely going to raise concerns. The state and federal governments have spent millions of dollars getting the Sound to where it should be." That the facility was proposed for New York waters was no accident, added Duff.

"It was proposed for that side of the state line for a specific reason," he said. "They knew that if they put it in Connecticut, it would be more difficult to get it in. I think they are a little shocked by the opposition in New York.

"There's a lot of opposition, but a lot of people just don't understand it yet," he said. "If we determine that it's not in the best interest of us in the region, we have to mobilize against it." People oppose the facility for a variety of reasons, including safety concerns and the asthetic beauty of the Sound. The Broadwater Web site addresses some of the concerns.

"Safety and security are among the most vital elements of our entire project," the site states. "An unsafe facility is not a viable project for us or the residents of the region."

U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-4, is far from a supporter of the project, but he realizes that southwest Connecticut's energy sources must come from somewhere. "We can't reject every idea that comes along," he said last week during a visit to The Hour.

"We have less refineries than 20 years ago. There needs to be a meaningful debate about energy."

Perhaps the briefing on March 23 will shed light on some of the questions. According to the Connecticut Maritime Association, the briefing will focus on the operation, engineering, safety and commercial aspects of liquified natural gas facilities.

The following question and answer session will be monitored by Warren Bluestein, president of BGT of Stamford. BGT moves LNG from Indonesia to Tokyo, a project that has been going on for nearly 25 years.

The homepage of the Broadwater Web site welcomes public opinion. It claims that a survey determined that 73 percent of registered New York voters wanted to know more about the project before formulating an opinion. According to the Web site, "By 2010 Broadwater could be safely and reliably delivering a large new supply of clean-burning natural gas to homes, businesses and power generation plant. Your input will help Broadwater build a project compatible with the public interests in the region."

Some have formulated their opinions already. "The Long Island Sound is a priceless natural resource shared by the people of both Connecticut and New York, and we must always be mindful of our mutual responsibility as stewards of this environmentalal treasure," State Sen. John McKinney, R-Southport, said during the meeting with officials from both states.

"Unfortunately, this threatens the Sound's ecosystem by the damage it will inflict to the seabed, along with the continual danger of pool fires and vapor clouds. That is why selling off part of the Sound to private industry for these kinds of projects is not responsible stewardship -- it is shortsighted and should be vigorously opposed."

Public voices concern over Sound terminal
Mark Zaretsky, NHRegister Staff
12/07/2004

NEW HAVEN — The company that wants to put a $700 million liquefied natural gas plant the size of the Queen Mary II in the middle of Long Island Sound took its plan before the public for the first time Monday, but not before an array of environmentalists and public officials raised questions.

Both events took place in the Omni New Haven Hotel at Yale.

A coalition led by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Mayor John DeStefano Jr. and environmental groups held a press conference preceding Broadwater Energy’s first "open house" information session on the project.

Broadwater officials, led by project director John Hritchko Jr., listened to concerns expressed in the hotel lobby, then went upstairs to address, on a one-to-one basis, questions or concerns the public might want to voice about the project.

"We share their concerns" about things like safety and the environment, Hritchko said. But he said the project, nine miles off Long Island and 10 miles from the nearest point in Connecticut, would be safe and that a study for a similar project recommends a safety zone of 1.6 to 2.4 miles.

No LNG facility ever has been built in the middle of the water, although similar facilities have been proposed off Santa Barbara, Calif., and China.

There are four on-shore facilities in the U.S. that turn liquefied natural gas back into its gaseous form, as Broadwater would do.

One source of concern was that while the floating platform would be built 11 miles south of Branford Harbor and, according to Save the Sound environmental group, 10.5 miles from East Haven’s town beach, it would be in New York State waters and would have no Connecticut regulatory review.

Nick Crismale of Guilford, president of the Connecticut Commercial Lobersterman’s Association, and his partner in Branford River Lobster, Michael Guarniere, were more concerned about their lobster pots.

"I’ve been there for 32 years," Crismale said. "Where am I going to put them?"

Blumenthal said he fears Long Island Sound "is in danger of becoming a dumping ground."

Several who spoke made clear that they oppose the project, a joint venture between TransCanada Corp. of Calgary and Shell U.S. Gas & Power, a subsidiary of the Dutch energy conglomerate, Royal Dutch/Shell.

Both Blumenthal and DeStefano stopped short of that.

"No," Blumenthal said when asked if he was coming out against the project. "We are saying at this point we have more questions than answers" concerning everything from the project’s proposed technology to the 25-mile underwater pipeline that would connect it to the Iroquois pipeline off Milford to what security measures might be in place.

DeStefano said he "genuinely would be willing to look at anything," but that, given the state’s lack of a coherent energy policy he believed there was an "air of inevitability" that ultimately all in Connecticut might end up fighting it.

Bill On Sound Dies In House
December 6, 2004
By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON -- It looked so easy. The Connecticut delegation's effort to provide sweeping new protection for Long Island Sound zoomed through the Senate, and members had hopes of slipping it through the House.

Then Rep. Richard Pombo got a look.

It was over in an instant. The California Republican stopped the bill cold and killed its chances of approval this year because, said his spokesman Brian Kennedy: "The congressman does not rubber stamp anything as significant as this."

Conservationists and bill supporters saw other motives. They see the bill's demise as a result of a trend of increased clout on environmental issues for conservative, often Western, lawmakers who are skeptical and even fearful of government control of their land and their lives. Their clout comes at the expense of power wielded by Connecticut and other like-minded members of Congress from the Northeast.

"Richard Pombo is a guy who's really frightened by what most people consider to be mainstream conservation practices," said Betsy Loyless, vice president for policy at the League of Conservation Voters.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, saw another motive. "He thinks it's another example of Easterners telling Westerners what we want to do with property owned by the American people," Shays said.

Connecticut's congressional delegation will revive the bill next session, and hope their effort will get it enacted.

"We'll probably get back on track," said Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District. "It's just going to take awhile longer."

But there are no guarantees - in fact, there's plenty of pessimism - because Pombo, chairman of the House Resources Committee, has a lot of serious questions about the legislation, including a projected price tag that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

Complicating the process is the shift in congressional power to the South and West, as well as to more conservative Republicans.

The death of the bill this year is a big blow because it was a top 2004 priority for the New York and Connecticut delegations.

They used almost every howitzer in their arsenal to win passage. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., got the Senate to act by holding up a powerful Republican's bill. House members tried a maneuver of their own to avoid bringing the measure before Pombo's committee, dominated by Westerners.

Pombo is "likely" to bring the bill back next year, said Kennedy, with possible hearings in Connecticut and in Washington. If witnesses and lawmakers can make the case before his committee, he said, the bill has a shot.

But it's probably a long shot. There are currently no Connecticut or New York members on the 52-member panel.

The top Democrat is from West Virginia, and the subcommittee chairmen, all Republican, are from California, Wyoming, Oregon and Maryland.

Pombo is a northern California rancher, with a history of questioning what he sees as too much government intrusion into private property rights. He is also a protege of Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, heading a committee that has a strong influence on forest, energy, parks and other environmental policy.

Pombo has long been viewed with suspicion by the environmental community. Loyless called him "the darling of the private property rights movement," and her League of Conservation Voters' 2003 score for Pombo was 5 out of 100.

Pombo championed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has spent years trying to rewrite the Endangered Species Act to make it less harsh on private interests - something that is expected to be a second-term priority of President Bush's administration.

And when Pombo sees Eastern lawmakers trying to rush - let alone sneak - through what they view as an important Long Island Sound reform, it's no shock when he pounces.

"Actions like the one on Long Island Sound can set precedents," Kennedy said, anytime the government wants to dictate to landowners.

Pombo has often cited instances where environmental regulations have had the potential to create problems for private interests.

When his committee considered the Missouri River Breaks National Monument, for instance, Pombo was leery that protecting the acreage would hurt private landowners - even though their land was not included as part of the monument area.

That there's going to be a renewed battle in 2005 is a clear disappointment to the Connecticut delegation, which had seemed so close and so clever this year in pushing the Long Island Stewardship Act, a broad program to preserve open space and give the public more opportunity to use the Sound and its adjacent areas.

It would set up a special panel to advise the Environmental Protection Agency. Public and private "stakeholders" would be involved, and they would help identify important ecological lands and the best ways for the public to enjoy the area.

Lieberman, aware of the concerns of Pombo and like-minded members of Congress, had a special section written explaining in detail how the program was strictly voluntary.

If anyone wanted to have his land involved - perhaps by selling it or having it protected from development - they could seek money from a special fund. The act would have authorized $25 million a year for this fund for the next seven years. It also would have authorized another $40 million a year for other Sound-related programs.

The bill's first hurdle this year was the Senate, where James Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, was not enthusiastic.

Lieberman, though, used his power as a senator to put a "hold," or indefinite delay, on a favorite Inhofe water resources bill. Move my Long Island measure smoothly, Lieberman signaled, and I'll let your bill go.

Inhofe agreed, and the Long Island measure sailed through the Senate in October with no dissent.

House supporters had hoped to use their tactic, and angled to get the bill taken up under a special procedure used for non-controversial legislation such as naming post offices.

Such measures are dubbed "suspensions," and are usually considered in bunches with minimal debate. They bypass the usual committee hearings, and require a two-thirds House vote for passage.

Shays said the tactic was considered because "it was in his [Pombo's] committee, and he didn't do anything."

Pombo learned about the effort and blocked it. "Because this bill is so expensive, and covers an area that involves state, local and federal rules and regulations, the chairman felt it would be impossible to green-light the bill," Kennedy said.

Reminded that a House version of the bill had been around since July, thus providing time for hearings and study, Kennedy said Long Island Sound was not a top priority for Pombo, who was trying to fashion a major energy bill.

Anyway, he wanted to make sure no property rights were being compromised, and he thought the cost seemed high.

"That money," Kennedy said, "is something that raises eyebrows right away."

So now the Long Island Sound project faces an indefinite delay - and its chances may have even been hurt by the local lawmakers' effort to rush the bill through.

"I don't know if what they did hurts," Kennedy said, "but it doesn't help."

Energy Proposal Raises Alarms;  Coalition Fighting L.I. Sound Project
December 5, 2004
By WILLIAM WEIR, Courant Staff Writer

Opposition has been growing steadily in the weeks since the announcement of a plan to build a liquefied natural gas terminal - 1,200 feet long and up to 100 feet high - that would float 11 miles off the Branford shore.

"I just don't understand where these companies get the idea that the Sound is for sale," said Barbara Gordon, president of the Connecticut Seafood Council. "It's a monstrosity. Next they'll be renting out condos in the middle of the Sound."

Gordon recently helped form the Long Island Sound Action Coalition, a group of environmentalists, fishermen and residents, to fight the project proposed by Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of TransCanada Corp. and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

But Broadwater Energy officials say the public still has much to learn about the project and the company will hold two informational meetings on the project this week. The meetings are open to the public and will be held from 5 to 8 p.m. Monday and 5 to 8 p.m. Tuesday at the Omni Hotel in New Haven.

The proposal is the latest example of the tricky balancing act between serving the needs of an energy-deficient region and addressing environmental concerns. Environmentalists are still smarting from the 2002 installation of the Cross Sound cable that runs from New Haven to Long Island and continue to fight the pending Islander East plan for a 22.6-mile natural gas pipeline under Long Island Sound. After Broadwater Energy's plan was introduced last month, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal declared Long Island Sound "a dumping ground for misguided energy projects."

For easier storage and transport, the natural gas is liquefied by being cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit. Later, it is warmed up at the terminal and returned to gaseous form. As planned by Broadwater Energy, the $700 million terminal would use a 25-mile-long pipeline to bring the gas to the existing Iroquois Natural Gas pipeline.

Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, has become an increasingly popular option. There are nine other LNG proposals throughout New England and New York.

Broadwater Energy officials say the facility would resemble a large ship and supply 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day - enough to supply energy for 4 million homes. It would be ready for use in 2010.

Because the terminal would be in New York waters, Connecticut will have little input in the regulatory process, which is in its early stages at the New York state and federal levels. But Blumenthal said he and other Connecticut state officials will closely watch the process and continue to ask questions.

Opponents say the project is unprecedented and Broadwater Energy has provided little information regarding the project's potential environmental impact and what safety precautions would be in place. Leah Lopez of Save the Sound, a program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, said the company has yet to address the possibility of an explosion, let alone what visual and noise impacts it would have on the area.

Others say they will wait and see. Though she said she's "very concerned" about the proposal, Branford resident Kiki Kennedy said she is keeping an open mind. She will go to the informational meetings this week and "continue to gather information with scientists and other environmentalists."

"I'm very concerned that this could be the first part of the industrialization of the Sound," said Kennedy, a member of Stop the Pipeline, a group that formed in opposition to the Islander East gas pipeline plan.

Though there are four other LNG facilities in the United States - in Boston, Maryland, Georgia and Louisiana - Kennedy said she fears Long Island Sound will be a guinea pig for the first offshore LNG facility.

But John Hritcko, spokesman for Broadwater Energy, said the technology plan's main components have been used extensively in current offshore and onshore operations.

"All of this is existing technology, so there's nothing new in terms of concept - it just hasn't been done on the LNG side," he said.

He also said the distance between the facility and any populated areas is so great that there are no risks to communities on the shore. And the design of the floating facility would minimize contact with the sea floor and avoid impact on the near-shore environment.

Though liquefied natural gas is used in numerous locations, Hritcko said, very little is known about the technology. That's the purpose of this week's informational meetings. It is still early in the regulatory process, he said, and his company intends to present more scientific analysis to alleviate concerns about safety and environment.

Ultimately, he said, the project could be environmentally beneficial by providing a substantial supply of clean-burning natural gas.

Though Broadwater Energy officials have said the project would have little effect on commercial fishing, some in the lobster industry said the terminal would kill off an already battered fishery.

Since 1999, the Sound's lobsters have been dying off for reasons still being investigated. But Nick Crismale, president of the Connecticut Commercial Lobsterman's Association, said the latest research offers hope that the industry can be revived. But the terminal would be located exactly where the fishery stands its best chance of revival, he said.

"I think it's worst idea they could ever imagine - it's like putting an atomic bomb in the Long Island Sound," he said. "You want to put it right over the primary spot where the lobsters are trying to come back to live. It's going to put us out of business."

House extends freeze on Sound cables
By Tobin A. Coleman - Stamford ADVOCATE Staff Writer
May 16, 2003
HARTFORD -- The state House of Representatives yesterday approved a bill that would extend a moratorium on new electric and communication
cables, and gas pipelines across Long Island Sound.  The measure already had passed the Senate, but a technical amendment added by the House requires the measure return to the Senate for another vote.  The House vote was 135-7.

At a news conference yesterday, Gov. John Rowland said he would probably sign the extension, if there are no legal concerns. Among possible legal problems is the announced bankruptcy of NRG Energy Inc., which owns and operates power plants in Connecticut. One of its plants is the Norwalk Harbor electric generator on Manresa Island.  The Legislature last year approved the moratorium, which stopped new approvals of projects in the Sound and of overland electric cables including a proposed 22-mile Bethel-to-Norwalk line.  The extension would cover only projects in the Sound.

An agreement was reached on the Bethel-to- Norwalk project last month that would bury most of the cable and avoid most of the 135-foot towers in the original proposal. The city of Norwalk, not included in the agreement, is still in discussion with Northeast Utilities.  A task force operating under the Institute for Sustainable Energy at Eastern Connecticut State University in Willimantic has been conducting studies involving
cross-Sound electric, gas and telecommunications projects.

The studies have sought to determine the least environmentally damaging alternatives for the transmission lines while providing for the state's long-term energy and communications needs.  The studies are due June 3, one day before the end of the legislative session.  Bill sponsors said the one-year extension was needed because the Legislature needs time to review the reports and decide whether laws need to be changed to reflect the results of the studies before the moratorium is lifted.  There were about a dozen utility projects proposed last year to cross the Sound, adding new gas, electricity and communications lines between Connecticut and Long Island, N.Y.

Moratorium advocates have questioned the need for many of the proposed projects, saying the utilities simply want to sell power to Long Island, where they can charge higher prices than in Connecticut. The projects do little to help an electric-transmission bottleneck in lower Fairfield County because Long Island has few generating facilities, moratorium proponents say.  If approved, the moratorium extension could delay even further the powering up of the Cross-Sound Cable Co. electric line from New Haven to Long Island.

The controversial cable was installed last year. But cable operators TransEnergie and the Long Island Power Authority were unable to bury it deep enough in seven places to satisfy its permit with the state Department of Environmental Protection.  The moratorium blocks the DEP from acting on applications for the cables and the agency has taken the view that it also cannot act on requests for modifications to existing permits. The companies have requested a modification to their permit to allow electrification of the cable. That issue is in court.

But if the DEP view is upheld and the moratorium is extended, the earliest Cross Sound Cable Co. could energize the cable would be June 3, 2004, when the extended moratorium would expire.  State Rep. Robert Duff, D-Norwalk, vice chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee, said the extension will allow the state to put plans in place to protect the environment while providing for energy needs.  "It shows their commitment to Long Island Sound and that they'll do everything to protect our environment," Duff said of the overwhelming House vote.

State Rep. Donald Sherer, R-Stamford, also the Stamford harbormaster, said many projects have caused environmental damage to the Sound and the moratorium should continue "until we have a comprehensive plan." 

Calling the legislation to create a one-year moratorium on all cross-Sound utility lines flawed, Rowland spokesman Chris Cooper said the veto will come soon.  But the governor may give lawmakers -- considering the wisdom of a veto override -- a reason for not doing so this morning.  At 10:30 a.m. in the Bethel Municipal Center, Rowland will announce an executive order to halt state approvals of all power lines, allowing eight months to study the environmental effects of additional power and gas lines throughout the state, both above ground and underwater.  The order, however, would not affect construction of a Cross Sound Cable Co. line from New Haven to Brookhaven, N.Y.

Rowland said the moratorium legislation may violate Cross Sound's constitutional rights and could expose the state to a judgment of up to $60 million if the company won a court challenge.

Meanwhile, in a rare move, U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., called from Washington for the General Assembly to override Rowland's veto.  "I am disappointed that Gov. Rowland wants to rush approval of new energy lines across Long Island Sound before we have a full understanding of the environmental impacts of all of the proposed projects," Lieberman said.

Some Democratic leaders vowed to attempt a veto override, requiring two-thirds majority votes in both the House and Senate. The Democratic margin in the House is 100 to 51; in the Senate it's 21 to 15.  A Rowland veto would allow Cross Sound Cable -- a subsidiary of Canada-based TransEnergie US, to move ahead with its 24-mile ditch about 6 feet under the Sound's seabed.

It also will force the General Assembly to put its convictions on the line, after resounding bipartisan support for the moratorium bill. It passed the Senate 31 to 2 Wednesday and the House 138 to 11 last week.  "The question is whether Republicans have the backbone to stand up to their governor," said Senate Majority Leader George C. Jepsen, D-Stamford. Charging that Rowland has a record of favoring corporate interests, Jepsen is pushing for an override.

"The pattern is clear on coming down on the side of energy over the interests of consumers and the environment," Jepsen said.

Rowland's executive order is expected to create a task force to study energy needs and environmental considerations. It would temporarily halt projects like Northeast Utilities' planned overhead electrical transmission line from Norwalk to Bethel, the site of today's appearance by the governor.

The task force would have until Jan. 1 to finish its study.

Rita Bowlby, vice president of TransEnergie US, said Thursday the company is relieved at Rowland's promised veto.  "I am highly gratified that the governor has given such serious consideration and has seen the value of looking at the issues that protect the state and provide public
benefit for [power] reliability," she said.  Bowlby said that when the Siting Council rejected the cable plan last year, the company worked hard to address concerns before resubmitting the proposal, which also was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Environmental Protection.

"This will get Rowland through the election cycle," said Jepsen, who is campaigning for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination to run against the governor, who is expected to seek a third four-year term.

Sen. Donald E. Williams, Jr., D-Killingly, co-chairman of the Environment Committee, said Rowland's executive order may be "too little, too late," because it lets the Cross Sound project move forward. The cable-laying could begin late this month or early in May.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Thursday he "deeply regrets" Rowland's planned veto. "This was a measure that had overwhelming support in the Legislature and the public," he said.  Blumenthal's planned challenge of the Cross Sound plan before the state appellate court was delayed Thursday, when his office was informed that the proper venue for a challenge is the state Supreme Court. The attorney general vowed to pursue the case.  Republicans who supported the moratorium bill stressed that they would have to read Rowland's veto message and scrutinize his executive order.

The governor issued a handful of vetoes since taking office in 1995, most notably last year's veto of a bill to clean up old power plants in Bridgeport, Milford, New Haven, Norwalk, Montville and Middletown known as the Sooty Six.

Sen. John McKinney, R-Fairfield, who also supported the moratorium, took a wait-and-see attitude toward Rowland's announced veto. "The executive order is a very important piece of the puzzle for me," he said. "It was probably a lot easier for lawmakers to pass this, because we didn't have to worry about the potential of an expensive lawsuit."

McKinney said that he, like many southwestern Connecticut lawmakers, are concerned about underwater Sound crossings, as well as the planned overhead transmission line from Norwalk to Bethel. A proposal to create a moratorium on overhead electric lines died this year in committee.  Another gubernatorial candidate, former Democratic Comptroller Bill Curry, said Thursday the Legislature should override the veto. He called Rowland's executive order "a public relations ploy."

"He offers this moratorium for a moment on projects that aren't going forward to distract the public while he pushes through the one he wants -- the cross-sound cable project," Curry said.

The gubernatorial veto cannot officially take place until later this month, after legislative lawyers present Rowland with the bill's legal language. Then he has five days to act.

NEW BRITAIN, Conn. -- A Superior Court judge Tuesday denied a request to block construction of an electric power line across Long Island Sound.
Judge Carl Schuman ruled against a motion filed by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the city of New Haven while they appeal the Connecticut Siting Council's approval of the plan.

Blumenthal said Tuesday he would appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"Allowing construction of the line to move forward while our appeal is pending will cause severe, irreversible harm to New Haven Harbor and Long Island Sound," Blumenthal said.  A hearing on the Siting Council appeal is June 7.

Cross Sound Cable Co., a Westborough, Mass.-based division of Hydro-Quebec, plans to install the 24-mile high voltage cable between New Haven and Brookhaven, N.Y. The Siting Council approved the project in January.

The state Senate is expected to vote Wednesday on legislation that would put a moratorium on all utility projects in Long Island Sound pending a comprehensive environmental study. 

HARTFORD

Even though the Cross-Sound Cable Co. hasn't reached the required depth in New Haven Harbor for its controversial high-voltage underwater electrical cable, the firm on Friday asked the Connecticut Siting Council for permission to turn on the power.

Despite a negative ruling from the state Department of Environmental Protection, Cross-Sound Cable cited a recent letter from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers as the reason why it should be given permission to energize the line to Brookhaven, N.Y.  But a DEP official said Friday that its Dec. 24 ruling against the cable going online stands.

And Sen. George L. Gunther, R-Stratford, the Legislature's chief cable opponent, renewed a call for an investigation into how the cable ever won
approval in 2000.  In a Friday interview, Gunther blasted federal and state officials, including New York's U.S. Senate delegation, for working behind the scenes to provide cheap electricity to Long Island at the expense of Connecticut's environment.

Cross-Sound said the company, a subsidiary of Hydro-Quebec, will continue to develop plans to properly submerge the cable to 48 feet below
mean low water if operation of the line is approved.

In a two-page request to the Siting Council, the company claimed that the average depth of the cable is more than 50 feet below mean low water, while the correct depth along the 24-mile line was not met along only a small portion of the joint Hydro-Quebec and United Illumination Co. project.  In a Dec. 30 letter to Cross-Sound, Col. Thomas L. Koning, the district engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers, said that after consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service, it was determined that there will be no short-term environmental harm or threat to navigation with the cable in its current location.

"Since you [Cross-Sound] are working in good faith to reach the required burial depth, the Corps of Engineers has no objections to you operating the cable at this time," Koning said.

Company officials said the project has satisfied nearly all of state officials' requirements and concerns.  Charles H. Evans, director of Long Island Sound Programs for the DEP, said Friday that Cross-Sound's permit cannot be extended into operating the cable until the correct depth is
reached along hundreds of feet of New Haven Harbor. Last month his unit rejected a plan to dredge so-called soft areas of the harbor.  A larger issue is a 600-foot stretch of rock elsewhere in the harbor. Cross-Sound is still devising plans on how to reach the mandated depth there.

Cross-Sound disagrees with DEP's assertion that the cable may not legally operate without being in full compliance with the DEP burial depth requirement of at least 48 feet for the entire cable route. The company believes the Siting Council has exclusive jurisdiction over the operation of electric cables, even though the DEP has oversight on dredging permits and related waterborne activities, Cross-Sound said.

The Siting Council will meet on the issue Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in its New Britain headquarters, about the time Gov. John G. Rowland is sworn in for a third term. Gunther believes the hearing was scheduled so the council could quietly approve Cross-Sound's request.

"That the Army Corps of Engineers came in at this point and said it should activate it stimulates more questions than answers," Gunther said. He charged that for decades state and federal officials alike have known the shallow nature of the harbor should have precluded cable development.

"Didn't we have state and federal observers on the boat when Cross-Sound did the original work last spring?" Gunther asked. He said both the Siting Council and Army Corps "went in the tank" to move the Cross-Sound project along.

"It's unbelievable that they can sit there and justify what Cross-Sound did," Gunther said.

HARTFORD -- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved a controversial electric line from New Haven Harbor to Long Island on Wednesday, prompting Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to seek a last-ditch injunction to halt it.

Blumenthal will fight the project in New Britain Superior Court, but an executive for the Canada-based corporation that's pushing the project anticipates that cable-laying will occur on time next month.  The attorney general's staff will file for an injunction today. Blumenthal, during an
afternoon news conference, called the Corps of Engineers' decision a disappointment.

"It's anti-consumer and anti-environment," Blumenthal said. "To our consumers and environment it will be lasting damage to a finite resource, which is Long Island Sound."

At stake, he said, are the harbor and Long Island Sound, as well as electric prices for consumers. "The threat is imminent, real, immediate because construction will start on April 1 unless the court helps us save Long Island Sound," Blumenthal said.

He wants an injunction to force the courts to probe the appropriateness of the state Siting Council's approval of the project, which would bury a 330-megawatt cable through the harbor, its neighboring shellfish beds and over to Brookhaven, N.Y.  Blumenthal said the Siting Council was wrong to approve the project this year, when it turned down an identical project last year. "We think the Siting Council reversed itself without any legal or factual justification and we believe the court ought to compel the Siting Council to obey the law," Blumenthal said.

His staff will maintain that the project will damage the harbor and threatens the navigation channel, despite claims from the Cross Sound Cable Co. that it will be buried at least 6 feet below the sea bed, even after a planned dredging of silt from the harbor.

"History shows with all of these cables is that the damage to the aquatic life and the ecosystems is inevitable, it's enduring and it's virtually irreparable," Blumenthal said.

But Rita Bowlby, vice president of TransEnergie, the parent firm of Cross Sound Cable, said the power line would be a state-of-the-art line. She anticipates that state courts will uphold the project.  "We feel that the AG had their day in court through the intervenor status at the Siting
Council and they did not make their case," Bowlby said. "It's a viable project which has benefits to Connecticut."  She said the cable would help enhance Connecticut's ability to receive power from New York state during an energy emergency. It would also create about $800,000 in additional tax revenue for the city of New Haven.

Bowlby said with the approval of the Corps of Engineers, there is no outstanding issue on the effects of the cable on the harbor.  "It will not interfere with navigation or future dredging," Bowlby said, adding that the cable-laying vessel is on its way to Connecticut.  Delaying the cable by as much as two months could kill off the viability of the project, company officials have said.

"This kind of project may need to be constructed so the company can earn money as swiftly as possible selling power to Long Island," Blumenthal said. "But that's not a condition that ought to drive Connecticut.  Blumenthal called on Gov. John G. Rowland to side with him in fighting the
transmission line.

Dean Pagani, spokesman for Rowland, who was out of state on business, said the governor believes the oversight process was thorough.

"They're the experts and they'll render their decisions," Pagani said.

Ken Dixon, who covers the Capitol, can be reached at (860) 549-4670.

The Connecticut Siting Council has rejected a request by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to reconsider its approval of a plan to install electric cable across Long Island Sound.

Blumenthal said Thursday that he will continue to fight the proposal in the courts and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The Cross-Sound Cable Company's 24-mile cable system would run from New Haven to Brookhaven, N.Y., and transport up to 330 megawatts of power in either direction.

"This decision is disappointing, but it is not the end of our case against the Cross Sound cable," Blumenthal said in a prepared statement. "The project remains anti-consumer and anti-environment.

"It promises to raise energy prices, harm the Long Island Sound environment, obstruct access and dredging in the New Haven Harbor and damage our state economy," he said.

The Siting Council, which approved the plan the first week of this month, voted unanimously Thursday to reject Blumenthal's request.

"There were no new facts," council Chairman Mortimer Gelston said. "We made our decision based on 13 hearings. We didn't think it was in the best
interest to reconsider."

The project still needs the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

--Associated Press

Ferry Operator Sentenced For Dumping Sewage In Sound
Associated Press
6:19 PM EST, January 30, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The operations manager of a municipal ferry service was sentenced Monday to 30 days in prison and fined $10,000 for dumping raw sewage into Long Island Sound and the Thames River over four years.

Mark Easter, 54, of Bozrah, operated two ferries that provide service between New London and Fishers Island, N.Y. as part of the Fishers Island Ferry District, a department of the Town of Southhold, N.Y. The dumping occurred from 2000 to 2004, federal prosecutors said.

Easter was charged under the federal Clean Water Act. He agreed to a 30-day prison sentence under a plea deal.

"Hopefully, this prosecution and this sentence will send the message that the U.S. Attorneys Office and our federal law enforcement partners are serious about vigorously prosecuting crimes against the environment," said U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor. "Individuals who knowingly and willfully pollute our waters face the very real possibility of incarceration."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith called Easter's behavior, "stupid, reprehensible and, for a man of the sea, absolutely shameful," according to prosecutors.

A telephone message was left for Hubert Santos, Easter's attorney.

Easter has not been suspended or fired from his job so far, authorities said.

A telephone message was left for Reynolds DuPont, chairman of the Fishers Island Ferry District Board of Commissioners.

The ferry service provides year-round trips from New London to Fishers Island, N.Y. for passengers and vehicles. There are about 20 round trips during peak season and one or two round trips offseason, Coast Guard officials said.

A tip led to a Coast Guard investigation and on July 13, 2004 officers made an unannounced boarding of the two ferries, the Munnatawket and the Race Point. Coast Guard Captain Peter Boynton has said they found that the valves of the holding tanks of the on-board toilets were unlocked and open, a violation of federal law. The Munnatawket can carry more than 200 passengers and the Race Point has the capacity for 150 people, the Coast Guard said.

Easter initially told authorities he was not aware the valves were left open, but in federal court admitted they were opened on his direction.

Department of Environmental Commissioner Gina McCarthy said Easter's sentencing sends a strong message that Connecticut is serious about protecting its waters. DEP is working with the federal government to establish zones across Long Island Sound where treated sewage cannot be discharged. Raw sewage cannot be dumped anywhere.

"This is the best approach to safeguarding the waters of the Sound and the health of people who use the Sound for swimming, fishing and other recreational purposes," McCarthy said.