Rendell hails ethanol but looks beyond it

Like a baseball coach who praises his current squad but has an eye on up-and-comers in his farm system, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on March 13 praised developers of the state’s first ethanol plant at its groundbreaking ceremony but days later was encouraging research to hasten the day when fuel can be produced from such cellulosic sources as switch grass and wood waste.

Making fuel from corn is what BioEnergy LLC’s will be doing at its $265 million ethanol biorefinery now under construction in Clearfield County. It’s Pennsylvania’s first such facility and will be one of the largest in the nation.

The plant is expected to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol when operational in 2010–among the largest outputs east of the Mississippi and among the top 10 in the nation–and create at least 110 jobs.

Pennsylvania taxpayers played a significant role, contributing a total of $17.4 million to get the project off the ground.

On March 17, the governor told members of the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts that corn-based ethanol was the “near-term alternative,” a “technologically and economically viable alternative that can be put into our supply today to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

But, he added that he sees cellulosic ethanol technology as “more promising for the state’s future and the environment.”

Rendell plans to convene a cellulosic biofuels summit in Pennsylvania later this year. His administration is already investing in private research and development projects focusing on cellulosic ethanol that may be produced from biomass materials like switch grass, crop residues, small-diameter trees and agricultural waste.

The developers of the state’s first ethanol plant apparently are also looking to the future. BioEnergy plans to build a cellulosic research and development pilot plant next to the ethanol biorefinery to test different types of biomass including organic wastes.

Rendell hails ethanol but looks beyond it Read More »

How will Spitzer’s exit affect LNG project?

Even before Eliot Spitzer’s announcement yesterday that he is resigning as governor of New York, Connecticut politicians opposed to the proposed construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) platform in Long Island Sound were preparing to lobby Spitzer’s replacement.

The Hartford Courant reported on Tuesday that State Senate President Donald Williams “wants Connecticut to reach out to his (Spitzer’s) lieutenant governor and persuade him to oppose Broadwater.”

Broadwater Energy is a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. that is seeking to build a $700 million terminal some 9 miles from Long Island, N.Y., and 10 miles from the Connecticut shoreline.

Williams noted that Spitzer’s administration was expected to make a decision soon on state permits for the proposed LNG terminal.

The project is opposed by numerous political leaders in Connecticut, including Governor M. Jodi Rell, and the state’s vociferous Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

See our most recent post on the issue: The latest shot fired in the LI Sound LNG war

************************************************************

On Monday, when the news of the Spitzer sex scandal began to break, environmental writer Tom Andersen’s blog, SPHERE, published a post under the mischievous headline:

Expect Broadwater to Try to Influence Governor Spitzer with Results of Bogus Opinion Survey (although as of this afternoon, he may be preoccupied)

In it, Andersen writes about an email he received from a woman who said she lived on Long Island and had received a phone call last Thursday…

from a fellow who said he was from an “independent research company” asking me if I would like to take a survey…

You’ll learn a lot about public opinion polls by taking a few minutes to read what Andersen’s tipster had to report. (Just click on the link above).

Folks on both sides of this issue are hunkering down for a whiz-bang public opinion battle. It should be fun to watch.

And it may serve as a preview of coming attractions in New Jersey where ExxonMobil proposes to construct its own LNG receiving terminal 20 miles off the coast.

See: Offshore NJ natural gas proposal draws rapid & rabid response

************************************************************
POSTSCRIPT: Denise Civiletti, a Broadwater opponent, writes in her blog, Civiletti, that opponents who had been trying to get a meeting for some time with Gov. Spitzer now realize that the date on which they finally succeeded, February 11, was the same day that the governor reportedly was busy arranging an assignation with a high-priced hooker two days later at a Washington, D. C. hotel. She speculates about this in: What was on his mind? Not Broadwater!

How will Spitzer’s exit affect LNG project? Read More »

Disclosure when nature exceeds DEP limits?

Can a municipal planning board require, as a condition of approval, that a developer provide individual deed notices as to the presence of naturally-occurring environmental conditions (such as arsenic levels) that exceed New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s unrestricted soil use standard?

Yes, a state appellate court has ruled.

In the blog, New Jersey Zoning Watch, Saul Ewing attorney Philip Morin provides the background to the decision–and discusses its implications. You can read it here.

Disclosure when nature exceeds DEP limits? Read More »

The latest shot fired in the LI Sound LNG war

If you have not been following the verbal and written attacks and threatened law suits from Connecticut’s Attorney General Richard Blumenthal –all designed to sink BroadWater Energy’s plan to construct a liquefied natural gas platform in Long Island Sound–get yourself up to date by reading:

Connecticut’s LNG solution? Put it in Jersey
NY State must kill Broadwater to benefit public
New York postpones LNG facility decision

NY and CT face off over LNG terminal

With that background, now check out Broadwater Energy’s response. It came today in the form of a letter to the editor of Newsday from John Hritcko, BroadWater’s senior vice president and regional project director. We provide it below in its entirety:

“States win if Broadwater dies” by Richard Blumenthal implores us to repudiate “a false dichotomy between environmental protection and energy supply.” Yet, his arguments ignore the facts and widen the perceived chasm between energy and the environment. Blumenthal correctly points out that New York and Connecticut need more natural gas to feed a growing demand for energy, as well as to fuel cleaner power plants. Indeed, Connecticut’s own 2007 Energy Plan, published by the Connecticut Energy Advisory Board, recommends developing liquefied natural gas import facilities.

But the Connecticut attorney general claims that schemes such as Safe Harbor Energy and BlueOcean Energy, both primarily serving New Jersey and neither having undergone review, can somehow be better than Broadwater in delivering natural gas to Connecticut and New York.

Blumenthal’s record reveals his penchant for regulation through litigation, opposing every energy infrastructure project that could bring down the cost of energy in the region, shutting off electricity to Long Island and now threatening New York with lawsuits. This will lead us to consensus on the shared interests of energy and environment?

Businesses and working families in the region need relief from our high-priced energy. Blumenthal perpetuates the myth that we can’t have conventional energy and a clean environment.

Broadwater would deliver plentiful, affordable natural gas in a safe, environmentally responsible manner, but we need enlightened, confident leadership that is willing to face the difficult challenges of achieving energy security.

The latest shot fired in the LI Sound LNG war Read More »

Week’s top environmental & political news

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them
on our website for free public use.

Click the links below to access the stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and beyond that appeared during
the week of March 3-7, 2008.

March 7 2008
March 6 2008
March 5 2008
March 4 2008
March 3 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, just send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com

Week’s top environmental & political news Read More »

0-for-3 offshore wind power tries Jersey

Energy needs continue to grow in the Northeast. At a point not too far in the future we are told that the demand for electricity will exceed the ability of the region’s aging infrastructure’s to keep pace.

Since the old solution to the problem–building new generating plants powered by coal and natural gas–have fallen out of favor primarily for environmental reasons, and persistent safety fears (and enormous construction costs) continue to slow the prospects for a nuclear-power revival, you’d think that wind turbines would be near the top of the short lists of energy alternatives.

Especially when wind farms can be built off the coast, almost out of sight, and in neighborhoods where the NIMBY-ite whales and birds can’t scare any politicians with their votes.

But the industry’s record has been anything but promising so far.

New Jersey’s Board of Public Utilities announced this week that it has received proposals from three developers to build a total of 116 wind turbines some 16 miles off the coast. The first project, a joint venture involving the state’s largest utility, PSEG, calls for construction of 96 wind turbines arranged in a rectangular grid off the coast of Cape May and Atlantic counties. The wind farm would be virtually invisible from land, even though the wind turbines would rise between 450 and 500 feet above the water.

The second, proposed by Blue Water Wind (the company seeking to build a wind farm off the coast of Delaware) envisions a 348-megawatt wind farm, consisting of 116 turbines located more than 15 miles southeast of Atlantic City.

The third bid comes from Fishermen’s Energy of New Jersey, a consortium representing companies operating fishing vessels and owners of waterfront docks in South Jersey. Its proposal envisions 66 turbines, built in two phases, at an undisclosed distance off Atlantic City.

As Star-Ledger reporter Tom Johnson noted in his story today on the wind farm proposals, the projects “would help the Corzine administration reach ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gases, while shifting electricity production to cleaner sources of energy, such as wind and solar power”

But “…with project costs running upwards of $1 billion, the projects need to overcome numerous environmental and economic hurdles at a time when the commercial feasibility of wind power remains a question…”

You can say that again. Following is the history to date of coastal wind farm development in the Northeast.

In Massachusetts, Cape Wind Associates hopes to erect 130 wind turbines some 14 miles off the island of Nantucket. The project is expected to produce an average of 170 megawatts of electricity at any given time, about 75% of the average electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket island combined.

81% of Massachusetts adults support the project, 61% of Cape Cod residents support it, and only 14% of adults oppose it. Unfortunately for the project developers, one of the opponents is Robert Kennedy, Jr. whose family’s Kennedy Compound is within sight of the proposed wind farm. Robert’s uncle (and U.S. Senator) Edward Ted Kennedy has done his part to kill the project by adding a section to a Coast Guard reauthorization bill that would have banned any offshore wind project that is sited within 1.5 miles of a shipping channel.

A federal environmental impact study on the project is nearing completion but the jury’s still out on this one.

In New York State, soaring costs led Long Island Power Authority Chairman Kevin Law last summer to terminate a controversial plan to build a 40-turbine wind farm off the coast of Jones Beach. When LIPA first announced the plan, it estimated the cost to be between $150 million and $200 million. But LIPA did not disclose actual costs until Newsday filed a Freedom of Information Law in 2007.

Initially, LIPA denied the request, but on appeal it provided limited and outdated information disclosing that FPL Energy’s winning bid for the project in 2003 was $356 million. Newsday later reported that the cost had ballooned to $650 million. By the time the project was canceled, the LIPA was admitting to a total cost just shy of $700 million.

In Delaware, “Eager to become the first northeast state to supplant a chunk of its fossil-fuel-derived energy with wind power, Delaware’s Public Service Commission has been all but flogging the state’s largest electricity producer, Delmarva Power, into a long-term contract with upstart wind farm developer, Bluewater Wind.”

That’s what we reported on September 28, 2007 in our post A financial windshift for Delaware energy?

But the project has stalled in recent months and is now the subject of renewed hearing in the Delaware legislature. On February 20, we were writing in DE’s wind-power debate has implications for NJ that:

“The battle over a proposed 150-turbine wind farm off Delaware’s Rehoboth Beach intensified Saturday as the president of Delmarva Power published an op-ed letter in the Wilmington News Journal attacking Bluewater Wind project as too costly. “

There’s that word “costly” again, just like in New York. Look for it to reappear in the upcoming debate in New Jersey, as details of the three competing projects are made available.

One of the interesting differences in the Garden State, however, will be the fact that a utility (PSEG) is one of the wind farm developers instead of the main opponent as has been the case in Delaware.

It should be an interesting discussion.

0-for-3 offshore wind power tries Jersey Read More »