Broadwater debate needs more 'What's in it for us?'

Joye Brown

April 8, 2008

Gov. David A. Paterson is promising a decision on Broadwater before the week ends.

Technically, he'll decide on a conservation waterways permit. A 'No' from the governor would effectively block Broadwater, while a 'yes' would allow the project already approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to proceed.

The problem is that after more than three years of debate over the proposed floating liquefied natural gas terminal, the project has yet to move beyond the Beauty or the Beast stage:

Question: Anybody want a gas barge moored to the floor of Long Island Sound? Answer: Heck, no, that's beastly!

Joye Brown Bio | E-mail | Recent columns

Question: Anybody want more plentiful, cheap fuel? Answer: Heck, yes, that's beautiful!

Broadwater, as proposed, certainly didn't measure up to an acceptable solution for Long Island. Otherwise FERC wouldn't have imposed more than 80 environmental, security and public safety conditions.

Presuming it meets those conditions, Broadwater - which will make life harder for a handful of fishermen, leisure boaters, and some rare turtles or whales unlucky enough to get in the way - isn't going to turn the Sound into the Bermuda Triangle.

In the days before Paterson's promised decision, one thing seems certain. It's time for a different debate.

The argument should be about how the region's going to keep the lights on, at reasonable rates, for a populace slow to build power plants, and slower to curb a reliance on fossil fuels.

So, while there's a day or two left before Paterson weighs in, let's push the debate's parameters.

For one, it's not the only LNG platform proposed for the region, and perhaps not even the best. One is proposed for an artificial island off Long Beach, and another off the New Jersey coast. Does the region need more natural gas? Absolutely. Does it need three LNG facilities? No, it needs alternative sources of energy more.

Yet, officials from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, the major benefactors, haven't come together to consider how that might work.

One irony: Connecticut wants New York's help in blocking Broadwater, but Connecticut's hurting New York by blocking the Islander East pipeline, which would bring much-needed energy.

Meanwhile, the issue of Broadwater is, uh, floating out there.

Since Long Island would bear most of the burden of the facility, shouldn't Long Island - which would get only 25 percent of its liquefied natural gas - net a more significant benefit? What about years of lower electric rates (since plentiful LNG would feed local electric power plants).

The Long Island Association, in letters to Paterson and former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, and Broadwater, proposed just that - and more.

And heard back nothing.

Yesterday, John Hritcko, Broadwater's senior vice president, said the company "was not adverse to talking about a community benefits plan."

Now - rather than later in the process - would be a great time.

Because if Long Island doesn't get enough back, then Broadwater must go.