Working Waterfront

GOVERNMENT
Energy bill gives feds final say on LNG sites
by CRAIG IDLEBROOK

Federal legislation giving the federal government exclusive jurisdiction in approving proposed Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) ports and refineries and could affect the status of three contested LNG site proposals on the Maine coast.

Until recently, state and federal governments shared the decision-making process for proposed LNG sites, but states have often opposed LNG sites. With increased pressure to lessen reliance on foreign oil sources, the federal government called upon an old law to grant the final decision to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

"The Natural Gas Act of 1938 clearly pre-empts states on matters of approving and siting natural gas infrastructure," the energy legislation states.

In an online White House press release, the Bush administration said the recent energy bill "clarifies FERC jurisdiction...to accelerate development of a global market in natural gas and help reduce prices for U.S. consumers."

States-rights advocates, environmental groups and coastal civic leaders panned the new regulation. Jerry Taylor, natural resources council for the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, wrote of a "stampede to shove liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals down the collective throats of communities that simply don't want them given the risk of potentially-dangerous industrial accidents."

Locally, Vivian Newman, co-chair of the conservation committee of the Maine chapter of the Sierra Club, expressed concern.

"It makes it much more difficult for states or local communities to challenge the site," she said in a phone interview.

Most natural gas is shipped from abroad on 1,000 to 1,500-foot supertankers. In order to ship natural gas efficiently, it is cooled and condensed to 1/600 of its original volume. At such a pressure, it can be highly explosive. Some fear that LNG supertankers wouldn't be able to safely navigate Maine's shallow, rocky bays. Others worry that the tankers would be an inviting target for terrorist attacks.

Currently, the only LNG site in New England is located in Everett, Massachusetts.

Proposals for Maine sites have been defeated by local opposition in Harpswell, Searsport and Gouldsboro. Three other site proposals are still under consideration, all in the economically-depressed coastal region of Washington County.

-- December 2005

Safety and LNG? Will We Ever Be Told?

LBReport.com



News
CA Energy Comm'n Says FERC & Port of LB Have Thus Far Blocked Its Access To Safety-Related Info Needed For Agency's Comments on LNG Draft EIR/EIS; Negotiations Pending, Time Extension Sought



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(December 6, 2005) -- In a stunning revelation within an otherwise mundane legal filing, the California Energy Commission (CEC) indicates that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Port of Long Beach (PoLB) have thus far prevented the state agency from seeing information related to state and local safety matters, censored from routine disclosure in the publicly released version of a draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement on an 80+ million gallon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility proposed to be located in the Port of LB.

Disclosure that FERC and LB Port staffs have effectively blocked safety-related information from reaching the state agency named by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to receive it -- preventing the Governor's office from seeing it -- comes amid charges by critics of the proposed project who say the publicly released FERC/PoLB draft EIR understates the LNG facility's risks.

In a December 5 motion filed with FERC and PoLB, lawyers for the CA Energy Commission seek an extension of time to file comments on the draft EIR/EIS "in order to receive and analyze Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII)" and "prepare and file supplemental comments addressing solely State and local safety matters arising from its analysis of this CEII."

FERC defines CEII as "information concerning proposed or existing critical infrastructure (physical or virtual) that relates to the production, generation, transmission or distribution of energy; could be useful to a person planning an attack on critical infrastructure; is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; and gives strategic information beyond the location of the critical infrastructure." FERC determines what conditions, if any, to place on release of information it deems CEII and "where appropriate" asks those receiving it to sign a "non-disclosure agreement" [our translation: a gag order] promising not to disclose it to others.

The CA Energy Commission says the PoLB hazards analysis (including "worst case" scenarios) produced by a Port-retained consultant "draws conclusions based upon studies designated by the Commission’s [FERC] staff as CEII. For that reason these studies, as well as other safety-related CEII material are not publicly available." It says "CEC is presently engaged in negotiations with the Planning Division of the Port of Long Beach regarding the terms under which the CEC may gain access to this data. It is expected by both sides to these negotiations that the CEC will soon be able to access this data on mutually satisfactory terms. However, until the CEC is able to access this data, it is unable to fully evaluate the safety review prepared by the Port’s consultant and determine the scope, and final contents of its comments, on this aspect of the DEIS/EIR."

The CA Energy Commission filing continues:


Similarly, there are other safety-related matters addressed in the DEIS/EIR which, to varying degrees, rely on material deemed CEII. This material is held in the Commission's non-public files, precluding the CEC’s access to this material. Nevertheless, the CEC staff considers this material necessary in order for the CEC to fully evaluate the safety aspects of the proposed LNG terminal, offer comments and effectively fulfill its role under the EPA-05 as a consulting State agency.
For a number of weeks the CEC has been in discussions with the Commission’s staff regarding the CEC’s access to this CEII material. The CEC deems these discussions necessary because the Commission’s traditional State agency form of non-disclosure agreement, which predates the EPA-05, fails to take into account the newly-created consultation role of designated State agencies, such as the CEC. This traditional agreement would severely inhibit the ability of the CEC to share CEII data both internally and with the Office of California’s Governor. The CEC is hopeful that it will soon reach a resolution of this issue with the Commission’s staff that will not only allow the Commission to maintain the confidentiality of this information, but will also allow the CEC to act in furtherance of its obligations as a designated "appropriate State agency," on behalf of the Governor and People of the State of California.

The CA Energy Commission sites its "present and temporary lack of access to CEII material, the ongoing negotiations to obtain access to this material, and the CEC’s unique standing and participation in this proceeding conferred under the EPA-05" as good cause for granting an additional 30 days [from CEC's last receipt of requested CEII material] to let CEC "file supplemental comments on the DEIS/EIR addressing State and local safety matters."

It's unclear to what extent, if at all, members of LB's Board of Harbor Commissioners or City Council have been allowed to see such information and if they were allowed to see it, what restrictions, if any, were placed on their ability to discuss it after seeing it.

In September (as previously reported by LBReport.com) CA Energy Commission staff transmitted a safety advisory report to FERC that recommended using a standard of 1.5 Kw/m2 to calculate the distance at which people could be affected by radiant heat from a catastrophic LNG fire. Instead, the FERC/PoLB draft EIR/EIS went on to use 5.0 Kw/m2 which produces a significantly smaller risk area, basically limited to the LNG site itself or slightly beyond.

In an October FERC motion (separate from the EIR process), the CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) opposed siting the LNG facility in the Port of LB, citing testimony by its retained expert, Dr. Jerry Havens, who indicated he considers the minimum credible distance at which a terrorist related LNG event might affect people is roughly three miles. Downtown LB is roughly two miles from the proposed LNG site at the eastern end of the Port on Pier T.

The LNG project applicant has indicated it is attempting to validate the figures used in CPUC's motion (which is pending as we post).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return To Front Page
Contact us: mail@LBReport.com

No Preparation, just another web of incompetence?

NEWS: DOWNEAST

State tables LNG permit request
Saturday, December 03, 2005 - Bangor Daily News << Back

PLEASANT POINT - The state Bureau of Parks and Lands has asked an Oklahoma developer of a proposed liquefied natural gas facility to "table" its application for a submerged lands lease on the Pleasant Point Reservation until that company is better prepared to go forward.

Dan Pritchard, bureau director, said Friday the agency recently informed Quoddy Bay LLC that there would be no further review of the application for a project on Passamaquoddy tribal land until it is made more complete.

"We reviewed it, and we have discussed with the applicant the possibility of tabling it until such time they are ready to proceed," Pritchard said.

"My understanding, while not written, is that they are agreeable to that."

Quoddy Bay first announced its intentions to build a $400 million LNG import facility in May 2004 in partnership with the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point. The company is concurrently looking at securing land in either Perry or Robbinston on which to site LNG storage tanks.

The proposed site at Split Rock would involve the construction of a pier extending 2,000 feet into Passamaquoddy Bay, north of Route 190.

The project has raised considerable local opposition, both internally from some tribal members living at Pleasant Point and from others living in surrounding communities.

Eight tribal members last month filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Bangor against the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which gave approval to the tribe's lease agreement of the Split Rock site with Quoddy Bay.

Reached for a response Friday, the project manager for Quoddy Bay said he did not consider the decision by the Bureau of Parks and Lands a setback.

"We have agreed [with the Bureau of Parks and Lands] to hold off the permit application until we permit with the rest of the state agencies," Brian Smith said. "They prefer that, because all the applications involve a duplication of tasks - public meetings and environmental reports.

"We happily will do it that way."

The new plan for Quoddy Bay's submission of permit applications to several agencies at the same time is a change of direction for the company.

Gaining a permit for the submerged lands lease would have given Quoddy Bay some standing to apply to the other state agencies to construct a pier at Pleasant Point.

"Originally we thought we could get the submerged lands lease permit before all the rest, but now we are happy to do them all at the same time," Smith said.

Quoddy Bay had submitted its permit application to Bureau of Parks and Lands on Sept. 19. Quoddy Bay indicated at the time that it had not completed its environmental studies that should accompany its application.

Pritchard said that was one of the reasons that the application was tabled.

Further, Pritchard said, "our normal operations [for permitting] is to conduct a parallel review with other state agencies."

Pritchard wants to see the application when Quoddy Bay makes applications to the several other state agencies that will review the company's requests for other permits.

"Since each application would likely require some sort of public forum, we could hold joint hearings, so the public would only need to gather once to voice their concerns or support," Pritchard said. "The individual agency staffs would be able to review the entire proposal at once, too."

Those plans don't sit well with Linda Godfrey of Eastport, the coordinator of Save Passamaquoddy Bay, the local opposition group.

"While it may be that the state feels that this would be for some purpose of convenience, the issues are so significant and so life-changing that we will be speaking with the governor's office and his LNG-designee, Martha Freeman of the State Planning Office," Godfrey said Friday.

"We wish that each step of the state's permitting process would require individual attention, and individual public-input sessions."

Representatives of several state agencies met last week with Quoddy Bay at the Augusta law offices of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson for an overview of the project proposed for Pleasant Point.

The decision to put the permit application on hold coincides with the apparent recent departure of Craig Francis, the attorney for the Passamaquoddy Tribe.

He has been working hand-in-hand with Quoddy Bay to bring its proposed LNG facility to the Split Rock area of Pleasant Point for nearly two years.

Francis had his first day on the job on Thursday for a private law firm in Portland, Jensen, Baird, Gardner & Henry, according to his new secretary. His title there is chair of the Indian Law Practice Group.

Neither of the Passamaquoddy tribal governors at the Pleasant Point and Indian Township reservations, Melvin Francis and Robert Newell, respectively, could be reached Friday to confirm Francis' departure.

However, Smith said: "We have been informed that Craig Francis has left the direct employment of the tribe."

Francis did not return a call to his Portland office.