I Might Be Deluded But I Think That Ultimately New York Will Reject Broadwater

Broadwater's proposal to put a huge LNG terminal in the publicly-owned waters of Long Island Sound was dead last week. I'm convinced of that. The Department of State was prepared to issue a decision saying the obvious -- that there's no way in the world an LNG terminal in the Sound is consistent with state policies for use of the coastal zone.

The suits at Broadwater and Shell had to be aware of this and so they went over the head of the Department of State, to Governor Spitzer. If I were to suggest what happened when they met, I'd be speculating. But the result was a 60-day extension of the deadline by which the Department of State has to make its decision.

What I'm convinced of is that New York State will stick to its guns and reject Broadwater on the merits and if residents of Long Island especially but also Connecticut make it known that the project is bad for Long Island Sound and that it is not needed, that there are real alternatives. I've watched New York State in action for a long time, and I know some of the people who will be helping Spitzer make his decision. They have a lot of integrity. But they'll want to be sure that they have grassroots support and the substantive ammunition to do the right thing. Is it guaranteed? No. It probably will be a very close decision. But I think they'' do the right thing.

In the meantime, I and the entire Sphere staff will be here

for a while, hoping I don't come back like this:


Blogging will recommence in a couple of weeks.

Here's What Happened on the Broadwater Issue Yesterday in Albany

I should have checked this before I wrote this. And I should have known better than to write it without checking.

What Happened on the Broadwater Issue in Albany Yesterday?

Here’s today’s question: What did Governor Spitzer tell Adrienne Esposito when they met to discuss Broadwater in Albany yesterday?

Adrienne, the head of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, got the meeting after learning and expressing her unhappiness about a meeting the governor held with Broadwater executives – which, not coincidentally, Adrienne says, was followed by the start of a big Broadwater PR campaign and a decision by the New York Department of State to forego issuing its denial of Broadwater’s request in favor of delaying the decision by 60 days.

And here’s today’s idiocy, courtesy of Broadwater flack/lobbyist Gary Hale, from a Newsday story about how Connecticut is working to persuade Spitzer to say no to Broadwater:

"It sounds to me like they intend to use taxpayer money to make absolutely sure that we continue to have the highest energy rates in the nation," Hale said.

Right. And it sounds to me – and everyone else – that two big corporations, Shell and TransCanada, want to use a publicly-owned resource (Long Island Sound) to increase their already obscene corporate profits. As a former Connecticut resident, I can say that spending taxpayer money to stop Broadwater is a good use of state funds. I wish New York was doing the same.

Connecticut is Working Hard to Stop Broadwater. Why Isn't New York Doing the Same?

I wish New York, the state I live in, was working as hard to stop Broadwater as Connecticut is, rather than apparently bending over backwards to give the corporate greedheads at Shell and TransCanada a chance to succeed (here) by using a publicly-owned resource (Long Island Sound) to increase their profits.

Here's an AP account that sketches what Connecticut is doing. A New Haven Register story is here, and the Connecticut Post here.

New York State is Giving Broadwater a Chance to Win Our Hearts and Minds

What are the implications of New York State's delay of its Broadwater decision for 60 days? Denise Civiletti says there are a lot of them, and almost all of them favor Broadwater. Read what she says here.

The reason they favor Broadwater is because the state was ready to reject the proposal for a LNG terminal in Long Island Sound before it mysteriously asked for an extension of the deadline:

The DOS has already written its decision (74 pages long) and was prepared to issue it on time, according to a source I can't name, but who is in a position (inside government) to know. The DOS does not believe the floating gas terminal is consistent with the state's coastal resources management plan and its decision letter rejects the plan.

She also says Broadwater is laying siege to the region with its advertising and PR campaign (I rarely listen to local radio and I rarely watch cable TV, so I've missed it):

The media blitz has begun. Last night, I went out for a late dinner with my husband. We were at The Birchwood in Polish Town, here in Riverhead. They have several TVs positioned around the pub-style restaurant. The one facing my seat was tuned to Channel 12. In the course of about an hour, four Broadwater commercials aired.

Dick Amper of the Long Island Pine Barrens Society says Broadwater is spending $100,000 on its media campaign. That's barely a drop of oil in the barrel for Big Energy companies like Shell and TransCanada. They could spend 10 times that without blinking. And they just might.

There's lots more in her post, including information about energy loggyists' ties to Eliot Spitzer.

The anti-Broadwater folks need to fight the Broadwater siege with everything they have. (There's was a comment made anonymously to this post; I can't really understand why anonymity is neccesary, so I'm not going to let it get by. Whoever sent it in, if you want to convince me that you need to remain anonymous, feel free, but if you want to submit it with you name, that'd be even better.)

So What Gives? There's Word That New York State Was Ready to Reject Broadwater Before Asking to Extend the Deadline for a Decision

For those following Broadwater, I call your attention to a comment by reporter-editor Denise Civiletti in the previous post (it's here for those disinclined to scroll) saying that a source has told her the Department of State has written its decision rejecting Broadwater's request for a coastal zone consistency permit but is not issuing it; instead it asked for a 60-day extension of the deadline to issue it:

... the DOS has already made its decision. It's already been written, and it's not what the big energy companies want. I've got that on excellent authority.

She told me in a subsequent email that her source is "iron-clad" and that she didn't report it yesterday (here) because she just learned it this afternoon.

I have no doubt this is true. But why would the state put out a statement yesterday saying it had requested the 60-day deadline extension? If they had made a decision in time for the deadline, why would they not simply issue it?

After a Day of Anxiety, New York Delays Its Broadwater Decision

Broadwater hit the fan yesterday. Anxiety is high. Early in the afternoon, Adrienne Esposito of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, send out an email saying her group had filed a Freedom of Information request with the state seeking documents and correspondence about Broadwater; they were particularly interested in anything to do with a meeting Governor Spitzer held three weeks ago with John Hofmeister, the CEO of Shell (Broadwater is a joint venture between Shell and TransCanada).

That meeting and a subsequent PR blitz by Broadwater pissed Adrienne off. Meetings between government officials and businessmen don’t necessarily worry me, unless environmentalists can’t get a similar meeting (and Adrienne learned of Hofmeister’s meeting with the governor, she asked for one too and is getting it, on Monday); PR blitzes don’t overly concern me either. It doesn’t even concern me that CCE criticizes the governor for holding a “secret” meeting with Shell but then arranges its own meeting with the governor (which presumably will be private if not “secret”) or that CCE criticizes Broadwater for its PR blitz when it’s hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to its own PR efforts.

Most interesting to me though was a sentence in CCE’s press release:

CCE has learned that Broadwater is in secret negotiations with NYS to delay the ruling for several months past the Feb 12th deadline.

I was doing real work yesterday and didn’t have time for blogging but I sent off a short email to Adrienne:

you sure of that? how do you know?

Her response:

I am sure.

Then I noticed this terrific piece posted by Denise Civiletti early yesterday morning, which included this:

Mr. Spitzer is in a bind. Both of the state agencies charged with reviewing the Broadwater plan hate it, but he’s under pressure from people like NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to clear the path for its approval, according to sources inside the Spitzer administration. Word is the energy execs sat down with the governor to propose another extension of the state’s consistency review decision deadline.

By the time I got home from work, two reporters – Civiletti and Newsday’s Tom Cantalupo – had learned that, indeed, the state and Broadwater agreed to extend the deadline 60 days, and that it was the state that asked for the extension.

So what does the delay mean? I don’t know but I’m hard-pressed to see it as necessarily a bad thing. Having followed other big coastal zone decisions made by the Department of State, I have no doubt of the staff’s honesty and integrity. They are not pushovers for big development. If they asked for a delay, the probably need it. For one thing, they know they’re going to get sued. That reality probably makes them want to be sure their reasoning is sound beyond reproach and that they followed the right legal process to the letter. If it takes an extra 60 days to do so, that’s fine with me.

CCE seems to be concerned that an extra 60 days will allow Broadwater, with its deep pockets, to buy public support through PR efforts and ad campaigns. I’m dubious. The Broadwater argument has been going on since late 2004. How many hearts and minds remain to be changed?

Nevertheless, to go back to the top, it will be fascinating to see what CCE turns up from its Freedom of Information request, which should certainly be complied with before the 60 days are up. The only way for the state to dispel any suspicion is to release every document and email it was asked for, and then for those documents to show that the state is playing it down the middle.

Broadwater is Failing to Give Us All the Info We Need

Here's Save the Sound/Connecticut Fund for the Environment's take on the New York State Department of State letter to FERC about Broadwater:

New York Department of State disputes Broadwater assessment.

Broadwater Fails ‘Information 101’ Again.

In a letter addressed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made public this week, the New York Department of State (DOS) points out numerous flaws in Broadwater Energy’s application process and illustrates how Broadwater’s assumptions have failed to provide full information on alternatives and due consideration for the project’s impact on the interests of the region’s citizens.

The letter points chiefly to three things. 1) Broadwater has so far glossed over potential Atlantic Ocean alternative siting options for its proposed liquefied natural gas storage facility; 2) When reviewing siting alternatives, Broadwater and FERC have not sufficiently considered the impact of the safety exclusion zones, which prohibit public use of public land and water around the LNG delivery tankers (4-6 a week) and the facility itself; and 3) FERC should not “rely exclusively on information provided by Broadwater in its filing to assess environmental impacts associated with shore crossings.”

To read the letter, visit
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20070703-4006

Save the Sound’s comments can be found below.

“The DOS letter points to issues Save the Sound has raised from the beginning” said Leah Schmalz, “a public light is being shown on Broadwater’s ill advised scheme which side-steps alternative options for siting their LNG complex in the Atlantic Ocean with less destructive technology.”

“The DOS rightly demands that FERC consider the types, sizes, and impacts of the facility’s exclusion zones, like those surrounding the platform and the LNG supply tankers, on the public’s use as part of the ‘foot-print’ of the facility,” Schmalz said, “Broadwater has no problem seizing the public’s water and land for their exclusive use, they shouldn’t be allowed to ignore or whitewash the consequences.”

“The New York Department of State accurately points out to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission what citizens have been demanding for nearly two years – that FERC do its own careful analysis, and not merely reiterate Broadwater Energy’s party line,” Schmalz said.

New York State Wants FERC and Broadwater to Take a Harder Look at the Atlantic Ocean as an LNG Site

The New York State Department of State isn’t at all convinced that Broadwater can’t build its LNG terminal in the Atlantic Ocean instead of in Long Island Sound, and its wants FERC to look into it more.

The Suffolk Times, which is a weekly on Long Island, has a story about it, here. And the Department of State letter to FERC is here (type Broadwater in the "search text" box, click, and then scroll down to July 3).

Here’s what the letter says, in part:

In light of the information submitted by Broadwater, DOS recommends that the FERC and other relevant federal and State agencies review the above and consider the appropriateness of:
…
b. Feasibility of use and operation of a FSRU, a mooring tower and yoke mooring system suitable to withstand 100-year wave conditions in the Atlantic Ocean west of Cholera Bank.
c. Siting a FSRU or SRVISTL system in the Atlantic between existing navigation lanes based on environmental impacts. …
e. Use conflicts to be expected from siting a FSRU or SRV/STL system in the Atlantic between existing navigation lanes.
f. Siting a FSRU in the area between navigation lanes in the Atlantic relative to potential navigation conflicts in Long Island Sound. …

The DOS will have a huge say in the Broadwater decision, and if it thinks the Atlantic Ocean is a better spot than Long Island Sound, Broadwater is in trouble.

Two other things: There’s a place in the Atlantic called Cholera Bank? That’s a great name. And kudos to Denise Civiletti of the Suffolk Times for getting a good story by doing what reporter’s should do: legwork, reading the documents.

FERC Gives More Hints That It's Ready to Say Yes To Broadwater, Which Puts the Onus on New York State

I've been saying for a while that if you think the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is going to say no to Broadwater's LNG proposal for Long Island Sound, you are naive, at best. Although FERC may occasionally reject big energy proposals, they're in the business of regulating, not rejecting, and so they need something to regulate. Add in the Bush Administration's scandalous pro-business attitude and there's virtually no way FERC will say no to Broadwater.

Judy Benson of the New London Day, used the tried and true techniques of actual reporting (as opposed to the quote-gathering that passes for reporting among the other newspapers), to find these telling details (Robinson is J. Mark Robinson, director of the Office of Energy Projects for FERC), here:

On May 7, Robinson spoke positively about the Broadwater project in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. He said the project's offshore location reduces any safety risks, and many safety and environmental concerns would be reduced by the 79 conditions FERC would impose on the project. The conditions were listed in its draft report. He also countered concerns about negative impacts of the LNG tankers using The Race and of the terminal's visual impacts.

“Due to the distance from shore,” he said, “the (terminal) would be visible but would appear to be about the size of a paper clip held at arm's length...”

Even though the Race is a narrow passage, he said, it could still be used by other vessels when the tankers and the required security zone are them are moving through.

“In conclusion,” he said, “LNG is a commodity which has and will continue to be transported safely in the United States.”

Which means that if anyone is going to stop Broadwater it's going to have to be New York State, in particular the Department of State, which oversees use of the coastal zone. The department has hired the Battelle Memorial Institute to study whether the Atlantic Ocean is a better place for an LNG terminal than the Sound, as Newsday reported, here. As I wrote here, the Department of State has already indicated that Broadwater might not be consistent with state policies for use of the coastal zone.

Broadwater, meanwhile, is ferrying reporters out to the proposed terminal site today in two boatloads, one from Connecticut, one from Long Island. I would have taken two Dramamine just for the chance to hear what the flacks and mouthpieces had to say, but my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail.

New York State Indicates That It Might Be Preparing to Say No To Broadwater

Broadwater, Shell and TransCanada got some bad news from New York State just before Christmas. Exactly how bad depends on what happens with the rest of the state’s review of the Broadwater environmental impact statement, and on whether that review and the decision that results can be overruled on the federal level.

Broadwater needs two things* from New York if it wants to build its huge liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound: an easement so it can use underwater lands owned by the people of the state to moor the terminal, and a determination that the easement and the project itself are consistent with the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program, which the state Department of State oversees.

On December 20, the Department of State sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (read it here) that indicated that the department was leaning toward determining that Broadwater was not consistent with the program.

Without a consistency determination, the project can’t be built, unless FERC has the power to overrule the state, or unless Broadwater can go to federal court and get a judge to agree that the federal energy act gives the feds the final say. Both of those results are possible, certainly, but they remain to be seen.

So for now, Broadwater has hit its first bit of regulatory trouble. Here are some excerpts from the December 20 letter. They refer to the policies in the Long Island Sound Regional Coastal Management Program (the letter was full of typos, which I helpfully corrected):

Policy 1 : Foster a pattern of development id the Long Island Sound (LIS) 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.
Subpolicy 1. I: Concentrate development and redevelop~ent in or adjacent to traditional communities
Subpolicy 1.2: Ensure that development or uses take appropriate advantage of their coastal location
Subpolicy 1.3: Protect stable residential areas
Subpolicy 1.4: Maintain and enhance natural areas, recreation, open space. and agricultural lands.
Subpolicy 1.5: Minimize adverse impacts of new development and redevelopment.

There is concern that a semi- permanent industrial facility in the middle of the LIS could impair the character of the Sound and of its traditional coastal communities that Policy 1 seeks to advance.

Policy 9: Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the LIS coastal area.
Subpolicy 9.1: Promote appropriate and adequate physical public access and recreation throughout the coastal area.
Subpolicy 9.2: Provide public visual access from public lands to coastal lands and waters or open space at all sites where physically practical.
Subpolicy 9.3: Preserve the public interest in and use of lands and waters held in public trust by the state, New York City, and towns in Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Subpolicy 9.4: Assure public access to public trust lands and navigable waters.

There is concern that the proposed project will limit public access to a portion of the LIS area currently held in public trust. Policy 9 provides guidance in considering the conditions for minimum standards of public access.

Policy 10: Protect the LIS's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-
dependent uses in suitable locations.
Subpolicy IO. I: Protect existing water-dependent uses.
Subpolicy 10.2: Promote maritime centers as the most suitable locations for water- dependent uses.
Subpolicy 10.3: Allow for development of new water-dependent uses outside of maritime centers.
Subpolicy 10.4: Improve the economic viability of water-dependent uses by allowing for non-water-dependent accessory and multiple uses, particularly water-enhanced and maritime support services.
Subpolicy 10.5: Minimize adverse impacts of new and expanding water-dependent uses, provide for their safe operation, and maintain regionally important uses.
Subpolicy 10.6: Provide sufficient infrastructure for water-dependent uses.
Subpolicy 10.7: Promote efficient harbor operation.

There is concern that the proposed project, involving both water-dependent and non- water dependent uses, could potentially displace, adversely impact or interfere with water-dependent commercial and recreational fisheries, navigation, and general recreational uses that Policy 10 seeks to support.

I’m not sure what the purpose of a preliminary letter like that one would be. If you were leaning toward determining that the LNG terminal isn’t consistent with state policies, why wouldn’t you just wait til you had made up your mind and then say so? Perhaps it’s a courtesy to let FERC and Broadwater know that the real bad news lies ahead. Perhaps it’s a way for the Department of State to signal to the people of Long Island that it is intent on protecting the region’s interests. Perhaps it’s a way for the DOS under the Pataki administration to stake out its position before the Spitzer administration takes over, and therefore make it harder for the new administration to dictate a contrary determination (not that I have any reason to believe it would).

Whatever the case, it at least seems possible that New York State will be looking for ways to say no to Broadwater.

* An astute reader has pointed out that Broadwater also needs an air permit and a water quality certification from New York State.