Text size:

Sources: Gov. Paterson to oppose Broadwater Thursday

BY TOM INCANTALUPO AND JAMES BERNSTEIN | tom.incantalupo@newsday.com
james.bernstein@newsday.com

9:11 AM EDT, April 10, 2008

Gov. David A. Paterson is expected to say Thursday that he opposes the Broadwater liquefied natural gas project proposed for Long Island Sound, according to sources familiar with the governor's plans.

Paterson, who has a a news conference scheduled at Sunken Meadow State Park for 2 p.m., is expected to say -- as project opponents have contended for more than three years -- that the facility is not needed in Long Island Sound. He also will say that it would not guarrantee low-cost natural gas to Long Island, would disrupt commercial and recreational fishing, and would, in essence, turn over a section of the Sound to a private company at the exclusion of the general public, sources said.

The state's expected rejection will effectively kill the proposal for the 1,200-by-200-foot floating liquid natural gas processing plant unless its promoters, Shell and TransCanada, successfully appeal it to the U.S. Department of Commerce or the courts.

Although some business groups, unions and organizations representing working-class families have supported the project, opponents had claimed it would present an inviting target for terrorists.

Paterson's long-awaited announcement will cap weeks of speculation about the new governor's stand on Broadwater, one of the most controversial projects to be proposed for Long Island since the Shoreham nuclear power plant two decades ago.

To help develop energy alternatives for Long Island, Paterson also will announce the establishment of a state energy planning panel, sources said, and he will promote new electricity conservation initiatives by the Long Island Power Authority and New York State Power Authority.

Broadwater Energy had hoped to have the facility in operation in 2011. It would, they say, take on super-cold liquified natural gas from tankers, heat it to return it to a gaseous state and then ship it west via a new 25-mile-long pipeline that was to be laid on the Sound floor. That pipeline would have connected with an existing one that runs across the Sound from Connecticut to Northport.

Paterson and his staff declined comment Wednesday evening on what the governor would announce Thursday, but a source close to him said, "The governor believes we must protect Long Island Sound while also responsibly and aggressively planning to meet our energy demands. He doesn't accept the premise that you have to sacrifice one to achieve the other."

Broadwater Energy's top executive on Long Island, John Hritcko Jr., said through a spokeswoman, "We do not have any information regarding the decision or its outcome and would not want to speculate. ... Depending upon the nature of the determination, Broadwater has a number of options and we will review the decision and findings, then evaluate our next steps."

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, a staunch opponent of Broadwater, declined to comment Wednesday on word of Paterson's decision.

A key Broadwater opponent on Long Island, executive director Adrienne Esposito of the Farmingdale-based group Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said, "We're holding our breath until 2 o'clock [Thursday], but, if it's true, the shout of joy from Long Island will be heard all the way to Albany."

Paterson was working against a deadline of Saturday by which the state's Department of State had to decide whether to grant a permit for the regassification plant, which Broadwater Energy has contended would increase gas supplies for the region's growing needs and help control price increases.

Now, the State Department is expected later Thursday, after Paterson speaks, to formally deny Broadwater its permit.

Last month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously voted in Washington, D.C, to approve the project, which would have been sited about 9 miles north of Wading River. But it had issued 80 stipulations that the project's designers would need to take to reduce the environmental and safety impacts of what would be the nation's first floating liquefied natural gas processing plant.

The State of Connecticut, which has opposed the project from the start, last week formally asked the federal energy agency to reconsider its approval. Connecticut officials also vowed to fight in federal court if their request is rejected. A spokeswoman for the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, based in New Haven, said in an e-mail, "If it rejects Broadwater, New York will send a strong message to oil companies that environmental recklessness is not the answer to meeting energy demand."

A consultant's report released in July by the Long Island Power Authority said the billion cubic feet of additional gas from Broadwater would save New Yorkers a total of $14.8 billion in natural gas and electricity costs between 2010, when the facility would begin operating, and 2020. The report did not promise rates lower than they are now, however -- only lower than what they would have been without Broadwater, which would be about 17 percent lower in the case of natural gas, it said.

Broadwater opponents conceded the need for more energy but contend that a site in the Atlantic Ocean and further from land is preferable to Broadwater's mid-Sound site.

In fact, ExxonMobil and a private investor group each have proposed liquid natural gas terminals in the Atlantic -- east of New Jersey and south of Long Island. Both projects are pending federal approvals.

"This is good news for Long Island," said another project opponent, state Assemb. Marc Alessi (D-Manor Park), whose district includes the Wading River shoreline, the point of Long Island land closest to the proposed mid-Sound Broadwater site. "It goes to show what happens when a community stands up and is persistant in deliverinig message to leadership like our governor."

Staff writer Rick Brand contributed to this story.