Rell Wants FERC to Postpone Broadwater Decision

Governor Jodi Rell has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take Broadwater off its agenda for Thursday, arguing that the New York State government is in flux and Governor David Paterson will need time to brush up on the issue.

That may be, but why should that concern FERC, which hasn't been bothered by any of New York State's serious misgivings about Broadwater before?

The Department of Environmental Conservation has said Broadwater's environmental impact statement is incomplete, that it doesn't contain adequate information to analyze all the environmental affects of the big LNG platform.

But that hasn't stopped FERC.

The state Department of State has said there's strong evidence that Broadwater conflicts with state policies for use of the coastal zone.

But that hasn't stopped FERC.

Maybe Jodi Rell, a Republican, has the ear of FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher. If so, great.

But FERC is not concerned with a true analysis of the environmental impacts, it's not concerned with the long-term well-being of Long Island Sound. FERC is not concerned with anything except approving Broadwater as quickly as possible.

So let them formalize the decision that everyone knows they're going to make anyway, and let's concentrate on stopping Broadwater in Albany.

When FERC Approves Broadwater This Week, Call It What It Is -- A Sham Decision

It seems as if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will make its Broadwater decision at a meeting in Washington on Thursday (here and here for details). The decision of course will be an approval – the FERC staff has already said it doesn’t think the project poses any environmental risk, and the commission itself will rubber-stamp it.

The question is, what will it mean?

Broadwater will try to use it as a major component of its public relations push.

It will spin the FERC decision as a major victory, proof that the liquefied natural gas platform it wants to put in the middle of Long Island Sound is not just harmless but beneficial.

It will take out ads, issue a press statement, perhaps generate phony letters to the editor, in an effort to gull residents (of Long Island in particular, but elsewhere in New York too and in Connecticut) into believing that we really need a permanent energy factory in the Sound.

The press of course will go along with Broadwtaer, framing their stories as a major victory instead of as the inevitability that many of us have said it would be almost from the beginning.

And Broadwater will use the decision and whatever publicity it generates in its effort to convince New York’s new governor, David Paterson, that he should approve the project.

How should opponents view it? As it really is: a sham decision by a commission that has not given enough consideration to the environment, to safety and to local wishes.

In fact they should start sending that message now.

Did Broadwater Answer All the Questions New York Asked 21 Days Ago?

On the day after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission released the Broadwater final environmental impact statement with the conclusion that the LNG proposal is genrally a sound and safe one, it's worth reiterating that Broadwater not only needs approval from FERC, it needs approval from New York State, including several permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

It was just three weeks ago, on December 21, that the DEC sent this letter to Broadwater and its attorneys, with copies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, detailing why Broadwater's permit applications were incomplete and inadequate and why, the DEC believed, the environmental impact statement should be changed to address the incompletions and inadequacies.

A lot of them critiques are technical and hard for me to understand. But they raise an interesting point as to timing. Here's one example, regarding air quality and tiny particles of pollution that Broadwater's Long Island Sound terminal would spew into the air. It's tough reading but slog through it and then I have a question and a larger point:

The application discusses the impacts of the project on PM2.5 levels in the context of Commissioner's Policy 33 (CP-33. Assessing and Mitigating Impacts of Fine Particulate Matter Emissions. 12/29/2003) on pages 4 8 to 4 10. It concludes that even though these impacts are above the thresholds in CP 33 that would require an environmental impact statement, such a Draft EIS has been submitted to FERC. We previously commented on this analysis and do not know yet FERC's conclusions in the Final EIS.

However, it is seen from Tables 11 to 13 that the impacts from AERMOD predictions are above the 24 hour PM2.5 standard of 35 ug/m3 with and without the carriers next to the FSRU, when the maximum regional background level from the protocol is added to the project impacts. If this background level is used for the OCD model results in Tables 8 to 10, the same standards violations would result. As noted previously, these results do not account for comments 1 and 2 above which could increase the level of impacts.

These projected violations are unacceptable for inclusion in the FERC EIS, and for DEC permitting purposes. Broadwater can revisit the background levels, which they note to be conservative, using procedures allowed in EPA's Modeling Guidelines. In addition, the application (and FEIS) should discuss all measures which Broadwater can take to minimize the impacts of PM2.5 not only to meet CP 33 requirements, but also because the location of the project can be deemed to be in the PM2.5 nonattainment area. [emphasis added]

Now, I haven't read the 2,000-plus-page environmental impact statement, but is it possible that in the 21 days between the DEC's letter and the release of the EIS, Broadwater has answered the state's question and modified the EIS? The state's letter is long and is filled with similar critiques and requests for further information and analysis. In 21 days, could Broadwater have satisfactorily addressed all of them?

The state's decision will be based on the application and the supporting information in the EIS. If Broadwater hasn't responded adequately, is there any way the state can approve a permit? If the EIS was not modified in the 21 days since the DEC sent its letter, presumably Broadwater would still have time to change its application to the state. But if Broadwater modifies its application to the state, doesn't the information and analysis in the application have to correspond to the information and analysis in the EIS?

The answer might be simple: Broadwater answered all the state's concerns and the environmental impact statement was modified over the last three weeks to reflect that. Or Broadwater didn't answer the questions.

There's another possibility: the state's letter was a formality, sent to create a record of the state's concerns, and that in reality the state officials and Broadwater had been working together all along to solve the state's issues. In other words, the letter was the conclusion of a collaborative process and Broadwater had plenty of time to change the EIS.

I have no idea which scenario is the right one. At some point perhaps I'll wade into the EIS and try to figure it out. But for now, it will be fascinating to watch how New York State responds.

Unsurprisingly FERC Says Yes to Broadwater, Which Leaves the Real Decision Up to New York and Maybe the Courts

People might be outraged but nobody who is honest is surprised that the staff of FERC thinks Broadwater is a good idea, as FERC announced today when it released the final environmental impact statement for the project. As I've said before, expecting FERC to say no to a big energy project is like expecting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to shut down a nuclear power plant: it's not going to happen because that's not the business they're in.

So the questions now are whether New York State will live up to its history of courageously rejecting bad projects -- like Davids Island in the western end of the Sound and the Iroquois pipeline crossing of the Hudson River and the St. Lawrence Cement plant near the city of Hudson -- and reject Broadwater too. I think it will.

But if it does, will Broadwater prevail in federal court, which is no doubt where it will go, arguing that the federal energy act trumps the federally-authorized state coastal zone laws? We'll see.

Read more from FERC about today's announcement, here.

It's not a surprise that the staff of FERC thinks Broadwater is a good idea. Back in May Judy Benson in The Day explained why we shouldn't be surprised at the announcement, here.

And the commision itself of course won't reject Broadwater. Among other reasons, one of the commissioners used to be a partner in the law firm that represents Broadwater, as Denise Civiletti pointed out back in July (here):

Joseph Kelliher, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the federal agency that decides if Broadwater gets approved, was previously a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm representing Broadwater before FERC: LeBeouf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae. According to the firm's Web site, it's been "intimately involved" in representing clients before FERC for 30 years.

A lot of news stories about the announcement moved this afternoon. Here's The Day, in which Adrienne Esposito says she's not surprised. Here's Denise Civiletti, who characterizes the FEIS as a major hurdle -- perhaps, but if so, it's a low one. Here's the Journal News blog. Here's Jodi Rell saying the FEIS is a travesty (as if she's read it), Richard Blumenthal saying he'll sue on Connecticut's behalf if he has too, and Chris Dodd saying the project is too dangerous and disruptive to be approved.

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.

Don't Worry, Jodi Rell, Your Buddies At FERC Will Watch Out For You

The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has written a “don’t worry” letter to Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, telling her that all appearances to the contrary Connecticut will have “an important role in the Broadwater whitewash.”

That’s not quite an exact quote, but I think he meant something like that. And I’m sure Jodi’s fears have been completely alleviated.