CT Sends Plea Across The Sound

by Marcia Chambers | April 7, 2008 4:40 PM | | Comments (8)

2broadwaterapr.JPGUnder chilly, overcast April skies, two Connecticut U.S. reps., the state’s attorney general and other elected officials made a united plea to New York’s governor Monday to reject the Broadwater LNG facility in Long Island Sound.

If New York Gov. David A. Paterson refuses, and his decision may be known as early as Wednesday, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal vowed at the Monday gathering at the Stony Creek dock “to straitjacket Broadwater in the courts so that a safer, saner project takes its place.”

Blumenthal, who is the state’s chief legal officer, said he sent a second letter to Paterson, urging him to reject the project in the interests of both states or face an intense legal and public battle. He held the letter high, saying, “Broadwater is an act of futility, irresponsibility and illegality that will never happen. So disapprove it now so we can work together for better alternatives.”

Blumenthal promised “to blockade and bar Broadwater. We will halt this atrocity and we will substitute better, bigger, safer alternatives,” he said before a group of 60 citizens who came to the rally. “Today marks a critical battle cry,” he declared.

Blumenthal said he has the ability to tie Broadwater up for years in litigation. “Broadwater will be a sitting terrorist target and a disaster waiting to happen.” He called the idea of “industrializing Long Island Sound” anathema, adding that the leaders of both states must be the stewards of Long Island Sound.

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of New Haven, who organized the gathering, commended the community involvement and made a last ditch plea to New York officials to deny the project.

“There is too much at stake for the people of Connecticut to remain on the sidelines here,” DeLauro said.

“Long Island Sound is the lifeblood of our community — a powerful source of economic, recreational and environmental opportunity for the 28 million people living within 50 miles of its shores, contributing more than $5 billion annually to our economy. It is held for the citizens of Connecticut and New York under the Public Trust Doctrine, and over the years, both states have taken this responsibility seriously, acting to preserve and protect the Sound.”

DeLauro said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) decision last month to approve the terminal violates that public trust doctrine. She called FERC’s decision a “reckless abdication of its most fundamental regulatory responsibilities.” FERC called the project safe, and necessary to meet the region’s energy needs.

IMG_0399.JPGDemocratic U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney (pictured) said the impact of Broadwater extends far beyond Branford. (If built, the 1,200-foot-long, 82-foot high terminal would be located 11 miles off Branford’s shoreline.) “From Madison to Stonington,” he said, “the impact of this facility would be devastating to every single community. We know from a safety perspective this is inadequately protected by the Coast Guard.” He said FERC made a “rush to judgment and FERC failed to test at almost every level.”

Courtney said FERC had approved an additional 22 LNG sites and there are more pending before the body. He said “the agency is out of control and it has a policy that at this point is incoherent and does not come close to advancing this country’s ability to have a workable energy policy.”

This is not a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) reaction, but a cry for a coherent, rational, integrated, regional plan, “not a race to the courthouse which is how FERC operates,” he said to applause.

Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz asked the State of New York to “have the courage that FERC has not and that is to say No to Big Oil, say No to an environmental disaster waiting to happen.”

She said she had been in touch with New York Secretary of State Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez this morning. She said her counterpart cancelled a meeting between the two officials that had been scheduled for this week. Bysiewicz said she learned from her this morning that a decision would be announced Wednesday or Thursday.

IMG_0402.JPGState Senators Ed Meyer (pictured), Andrea Stillman and Len Fasano all spoke. Meyer said that when FERC’s federal powers were beefed up on March 5, 2005, the states lost their seat at the energy table. That was the day when “our country took a new turn.” Like the others, Meyer said Connecticut must speak with “one voice about this monstrosity.”

Branford RTM member Lonnie Reed, co-founder of Hands across the Pond, told the crowd: “Feast your eyes on this site. This is Broadwater’s worst nightmare. Every person up here represents thousands and thousands of people in towns and cities in New York and Connecticut.

“Broadwater has brought us together. We have been working together to defeat this project …. Many of us have been back and forth on the ferry from Long Island to Connecticut for almost four years to attend one another’s rallies, to sign one another’s petitions, to help county legislatures adopt resolutions against Broadwater. And guess what? They are doing it.”

IMG_2121_CML_%20copy.JPG“We want to say to Gov. Patterson: You can be a hero this week. Say No to Broadwater. And if you do not, we are not going away. We are organized. We are together. We know we have to take control of our energy’s future. We came up with a great expression: ‘It’s our water not Broadwater’ and we intend to keep it that way,” Reed (pictured) said to enthusiastic applause.

IMG_0400.JPGBranford First Selectman Unk DaRos, who hosted the event, told the crowd, including several families who brought their dogs, that “you are overlooking some of the finest oyster beds in the world. And we want to make sure it stays that way.”

Comments

Posted by: rob | April 7, 2008 6:25 PM

Heres a riddle...

Q: How do you hide tons of toxic spills contaminating the land around your industrial facility?

A: Don't build the facility on land.

Posted by: DingDong | April 7, 2008 7:08 PM

Could someone tell me 1) why Long Island needs this facility so badly 2) if there have been previous, similar projects that have resulted in environmental problems or what other reason everyone in Connecticut has to be so certain that this will be an environmental catastrophe?

Posted by: Gil Kelman | April 8, 2008 7:42 AM

Broadwater poses a threat to the four million people that live along the coast of Long Island Sound,It is an accident waiting to happen! It has been proven that our government can not protect us from terrorist that would cause this tank of explosive LNG from divasating the Sounds Coast live.

Posted by: Sound Sense | April 8, 2008 11:36 AM

I am amazed at how much sway one private company has had against this enormous tide of opposition. Why do they insist so badly on this particular place against all of that? Maybe, because they would like to start drilling there, too! If you look into energy industry news, that's the only conclusion for it. Exxon's BlueOcean Energy proposal would be even better, out to sea, and perform just the same function, if drilling really wasn't the motive, but not enough people in the area know about these projects. Do a search on the proposed alternatives and read. The information is there Many other options have been discussed, for example expanding the existing infrastructure--if and when it is needed. People need to know that this issue has nothing to do with making gas cheaper, or the vague slogan about "market forces ," which is just another catchword for "more profits.". Shell [that is Royal Dutch Shell/Broadwater] in 2006 posted record profits of $25.4 billion, just a tad short of Exxon-Mobil's also-record-breaking $36.2 billion haul that year, and 2007 was even higher.

The point is to do things better, and not continually make things worse from reckless haste and impatience.

Posted by: scjerry | April 10, 2008 10:20 AM

Today, at 2:00 pm in Northport, Long Island, Governor Paterson is expected to publicly scuttle the Broadwater project, following the lead of the NY DEC's rejection on environmental grounds several months ago.

Let's not rest on our laurels, but let's get busy planning a regional energy strategy. Let's use this opportunity to get together with New York to define our regional interdependencies and create an environmentally acceptable distribution infrastructure.

Connecticut has already suffered enough environmental insults with the Iroquois pipeline installation. Several of their executives were convicted of criminal environmental violations and Milford shellfish beds were irreversibly destroyed. We need to convince NY to more fully utilize this existing resource in satisfying Long Island's needs. We've already paid the environmental price.

In 2003, the Long Island Sound Task Force recommended that the Connecticut Energy Advisory Board develop a regional plan. To their credit the CEAB has begun to develop a green house emissions strategy with neighboring states. But only under significant political pressure.

Now is the time for a comprehensive regional distribution and generation plan for not just New England but New York as well. Go to the CEAB website to monitor their activities at http://www.ctenergy.org/ Take a look at their 2007 report at http://www.ctenergy.org/pdf/2007_Energy_Plan.pdf and search for New York.

Only by convincing the CEAB to take on this task in their advisory role can we stave off the next energy plan du jour, motivated by corporate greed. Then it is up to legislative policymakers to take action. The first step is to create an entitiy such as New York State Energy Research and Development (NYSERDA). We must question why Connecticut has no such analogous center of expertise. Connecticut needs an independent pool of energy experts.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has proven their inability to say no to corporations. They have been empowered by Congress to the contradictory roles as both regulators and promoters of energy projects. They bend over backwards to accommodate the desires of energy companies. Only when the region has a well-thought-out environmentally sensitive energy plan can we counter the recycled energy executives that populate the Commission.

Posted by: Bruce | April 10, 2008 11:54 AM

FERC is just looking at the small picture -- get more fuel and more energy into that region. There are alternative ways of getting that fuel and energy there -- ways that don't trample the Sound.

http://www.surfrider.org/connecticut/Meeting_our_Energy_Needs2007.pdf

... that and demand management. Planners seem to always brush off conservation and efficiency, but there is no more cost-effective solution available. It's like spending negative dollars.

Posted by: scjerry | April 10, 2008 6:45 PM

Bruce
Seems like CCFE and I are on the same obvious page. A comprehensive energy plan must end up reducing total energy dependence. If renewable sources grow to meet demand, the infrastructure must still grow to accomodate a still increasing distribution load even though carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence have diminished.

The FERC by its own admission does no planning, but apparently, neither do the local regions. The three stages of environmental impact consideration are avoidance, mitigation and fixing the damage afterwards with marginal remediation. Avoiding LIS should be the focus of any regional plan..a recomendation that came out of the 2003 LIS Task Force.

BTW, the CEAB does afford citizens the opportunity to comment in public hearings. Here is a link to a report on energy conservation submitted to the GA. http://www.ctenergy.org/CEAB_Energy_Conservation_Program_Study.html

It's now up to our state reps to do something to implement a comprehensive energy policy.

Post a comment




Remember Me?

Preview:

Posted by:

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35