New developments in NY’s LNG barge saga

New York’s new governor David A. Paterson hasn’t had much time to weigh the pluses and minuses of the liquefied natural gas barge that TransCanada Corporation and Shell Oil are proposing to install in Long Island Sound, so the New York Times is trying to help him out.

In a March 31 editorial, the Times pleads:

“New York regulators and Gov. David Paterson may be the last hope for scuttling the project, although officials in Connecticut have promised federal lawsuits, too, if that is what it takes.”

The newspaper duly notes that the project has passed several environmental reviews since it was introduced in 2004, but then goes on to dismiss it in this light-hearted fashion:

“Long Island Sound could probably survive the addition of a permanent industrial barge the length of four football fields, and fishing boats and pleasure boaters could probably learn to cope with gas tankers, and everyone could probably live with the remote possibility of a big gas explosion in the Sound. But it’s not worth the accumulation of these insults to the Sound and its stressed ecosystem. Natural gas is cleaner than oil or coal but still a globe-warming fossil fuel.”

The editorial may have been the newspaper’s official position, but it wasn’t it’s final word.

Today, just three days later, in the paper’s “OUR TOWNS” section, writer Peter Applebome gave the project a few more kicks, noting that:

“political opposition to Broadwater has become something of a steamroller, with almost no visible support in Connecticut and only modest pockets on Long Island, including among some labor and business groups.”

So, there’s little left for the governor to do but to stick a big fork in the side of the 1,215-foot-long, 100-foot-tall energy barge. Right?

Well, not so quick. Applebome cautions that the project is “still very much alive.” He provides four reasons.

“One is the bottomless pockets of its big-energy sponsors, TransCanada Corporation and Shell Oil. The second is support, overt and covert, in New York, where the City Council has backed the project as part of a long-term strategy to provide natural gas to the city. The third is a federal regulatory process that is extremely friendly to the energy industry; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last month voted 5 to 0 in favor of the project. And fourth is the fact that one person matters in the regulatory process more than anyone else. That would be the governor of New York, who has enormous power to kill the project or keep it alive.”

We suspect that Mr. Applebome has four reasons of his own for not declaring the project DOA.

#1 He likes a good drama as much as much as the rest of us and hopes to write at least one more story on the Broadwater saga.

#2 He wants to appear fair-minded, despite the fact that his piece does its best to blow the barge clear out of the Sound.

#3 When dealing with New York politicians, he’s clearly learned to hedge his bets.

#4 He hasn’t yet read his paper’s March 31 editorial

For the latest news on why one of the “bottomless pockets” in the project is hanging tough, we turn to London where Thompson Financial News reported on Tuesday that:

“UK utility National Grid Plc says it will sell its 2,480 megawatt Ravenswood Generating Station in New York City to TransCanada Corporation for $2.9 billion. The disposal is a regulatory requirement associated with National Grid’s acquisition last year of Keyspan.”

The American financial press picked up the story and concentrated their focus on the cost of the acquisition. But Dan Durett, yesterday in his blog, made the connection between TransCanada’s Ravenswood purchase and the Broadwater proposal, writing:

“TransCanada owns or has interests in the producers of approximately 7,700 megawatts of power generation. The company also owns generators in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to its Web site. TransCanada, along with Shell US Gas and Power LLC, is also planning to build the Broadwater Energy liquefied natural gas terminal off Long Island Sound, which could bring the gas from Broadwater to Ravenswood and convert it to electrical power and sell it to the people of New York.”

So a veil slowly parts, and the plot thickens. Stay tuned.

More: Pols: FERC’s Broadwater Approval Is No Surprise
For Broadwater, All Eyes Are On Albany
NY and CN face off over LNG terminal

New developments in NY’s LNG barge saga Read More »

Is NJ facing an expanded nuclear future?

It’s starting to look that way.

The (Newark) Star-Ledger reported yesterday that it had obtained a copy of the state’s much anticipated Energy Master Plan revision. That document apparently concludes that:

“the greenhouse gas (reduction) mandates point toward nuclear energy to produce carbon-free electricity at a lower price per megawatt-hour than fossil-fueled plants.”

This shouldn’t come as shocking news , since the state’s largest energy company, Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), and a pro-nuclear advocacy group, the NJ Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition have been saying the same thing at every chance.

No amount of energy conservation and investment in alternative production technologies, like solar and wind, will provide enough new energy to keep pace with increasing consumer demand, they say.

The Star-Ledger story notes that PSEG is considering building a nuclear unit in Salem County, where it already has three nuclear stations. A state energy policy that makes a case for additional nuclear generation would be a major plus in helping the company overcome expected opposition from environmental groups and to attract support from the financial community.

PSEG surprised some observers last year when it broke ranks with other state utilities and provided an early endorsement for Governor Jon Corzine’s call for a 20 percent reduction in energy use in New Jersey by 2020 and a 20 percent shift in total power supplies to renewable sources like solar and wind.

In recent months, PSEG has announced plans for an ambitious program designed to help customers install energy-conservation measures and equipment. More recently, it filed an application seeking state approval to construct a major offshore wind park.

Are those announcements proof of a solid commitment to energy conservation and to alternative energy or simply smart public relations moves designed to provide environmental cover while the company pursues it primary objective –gaining state approval for a new nuclear plant?

It’s too early to say, but a recent development caused both the state Board of Public Utilities and the Office of the Public Advocate to raise questions.

Both are objecting to the company’s plan to disconnect its power plant in Bergen County from the regional power grid that serves New Jersey and to sell the plant’s electricity, instead, to energy-starved New York.

In a March 11 story, the Star-Ledger reported that…

“Both the BPU and Public Advocate’s rate counsel have intervened in the case, which is pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The case, although involving a relatively small power plant in the regional power grid, could have huge implications by setting a precedent in disputes centering around importing and exporting of electricity. ”

At the very least, we think it raises another question.

If New Jersey’s growing energy needs are so voracious that they mandate the construction of a new nuclear reactor, why is the state’s largest electric utility making deals to sell off a chunk of that precious supply to a neighboring state?

What are your thoughts? Let us know by clicking on the “comments” line below.

Is NJ facing an expanded nuclear future? Read More »

An oil spill grows in Brooklyn

Pop quiz:

What’s the largest oil spill ever in North America?

Answer:
The 11 million gallons of oil that spilled into Alaska’s Prince William Sound 19 years ago when the drunken skipper of the Exxon tanker Valdez piloted the huge ship into the rocks. Right?

True, that was the largest single oil spill into surface waters. But a plume of oil in New York City, apparently in the making for half a century underneath and around the city’s Newtown Creek, is estimated to be as large as 17 million gallons or more.

In fact, a report last year by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the Newtown spill could be as much as three times larger than the Exxon Valdez disaster.

The scenic Manhattan skyline shimmers above oil-polluted Newtown Creek, an industrial waterway separating Brooklyn’s Greenpoint neighborhood from the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens.

National Public Radio’s web site has an interesting story and audio report on the spill and current efforts to clean it up.

For the latest on a continuing Exxon Valdez court suit, check out NPR’s Supreme Court Hears Exxon Case.

An oil spill grows in Brooklyn Read More »

So you want to put a solar panel on your condo…

Let’s assume that :

1. You live in a condominium in New Jersey.

2. You’re alarmed by the rising cost of your electric bill.

3. You heard that the state is helping pay the cost of installing solar panels on the roofs of some homes and businesses.

4. You figure this is one way to reduce your energy costs and help the environment.

5. But you’ve also heard that others, like you, have run into major roadblocks when trying to get permission from their condo association boards for the installation of a solar panel installation.

Did you know that a recent change in state law, prompted by complaints from condo owners, now grants you the right to erect solar panels on the roof of your individual unit?

Sounds great, right?

Hold on, partner. As always, it pays to read the fine print.

Jonathan H. Katz outlines the new law’s opportunities–and a crucial limitation–in his post “Here comes the sun…” in Stark & Stark’s New Jersey Law Blog.

So you want to put a solar panel on your condo… Read More »

NJ-DEP’s busy alerting–and enforcing–in Spring

Spring is here and the enforcement staff at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has emerged from its winter den.

So far in the month of March, the DEP has already issued four compliance alerts. If you don’t want to be bitten, you’d better check them out:

Adoption of Enforcement Enhancement Bill strengthens provisions of environmental statutes, increases penalty authority

DEP Takes Steps to Bring Tire, Compost, & Wood Chip Pile Heights into Conformance with DCA Regulations

DEP Develops Guidelines for Proper Disposal of Household Medication


Smoke from Outdoor Wood Boilers ProhibitedAnd if you’re tempted to think these folks are all growl and no bite, take a look at the lengthy chart of enforcement actions commenced or completed in just the past 14 days.

Sure, it contains dozens of notices of violations–and many may prove to be minor. But, if you work your way down the entire chart, you’ll see some significant fines and settlements, including:

  • A $20,000 administrative penalty against Forman Glen, Mullica Twp.

  • A $10,000 settlement agreement with Newark International Airport

  • A $11,250 civil administrative penalty against DuPont Chambers Works, Pennsville

  • A $17,500 settlement agreement with Clean Venture, Inc. in Elizabeth

  • A $45,000 administrative penalty against Peters Scrap Yard in Trenton

  • A $50,000 administrative penalty against JNC Materials in Carteret

  • A $250,000 administrative consent order against Chart Corp, Inc in Paterson

And that’s just the last 14 days!

NJ-DEP’s busy alerting–and enforcing–in Spring Read More »

Verified by MonsterInsights