Member Note: This advocacy based upon LWVUS Energy and Resource Management Positions

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Public Hearing

January 16, 2007, Branford High School

Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS 0196D

 Broadwater LNG Project

Docket numbers PF05-4,CP06-54-000,CP06-55-000

Comments submitted by Cheryl Dunson, Vice President, Public Issues

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut, comprised of approximately 2,500 members across the state, is a nonpartisan, political organization committed to effective public policy through education and advocacy.  We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS or the “Report”) and the process being used to assess Broadwater Energy’s application to construct an offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Long Island Sound. 

The League provides testimony on public policy issues based upon positions derived from member study and consensus. The League believes governmental policies and actions must promote resource conservation, stewardship, reduction of energy growth rates and promotion of renewable energy sources. Additionally, the League believes that wise decision-making requires adequate data and a framework within which alternatives may be weighed and intelligent decisions made.

The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that this project should be denied because:

1) The Draft EIS fails to provide adequate scientific data required to support its conclusions.

2) The federal government has failed to promote coordinated energy-planning and decision-making to enhance states’ capabilities for resource management.

1) The Draft EIS Fails To Provide Adequate Scientific Data Required To Support Its Conclusions

The Draft EIS states “we believe that the impacts associated with the proposed Broadwater Project would be relatively minor…”[1] Yet, Connecticut’s leading scientists on Long Island Sound were unanimous in their assessment that the Draft EIS fails to provide adequate scientific data required to support its conclusions regarding minimal environmental impacts. It was with alarm that the League listened to the expert testimony submitted at the 12/7/06 Long Island Sound LNG Task Force public hearing in Hartford.

Ralph Lewis, a retired state marine geologist, former member of the National Academy of Sciences Ocean Sciences Board and author of over 100 papers on the geology of Long Island Sound, noted that the Draft EIS uses a report that is over 35 years old (i.e., Williams 1981) to describe the geology of Long Island Sound rather than the recent 2005 Stone, et al., USGS Scientific Investigations Map 2784. As a result, while the Draft EIS acknowledged that lake clay deposits were present in Long Island Sound,[2] it did not present a good understanding of the extensiveness of clay deposits which in some areas are up to 600’thick. In terms of construction implications, he notes that rather than the 165’ long pilings needed to reach bedrock as suggested in the report, pilings 3 times that length may be needed. Clearly, a detailed and accurate understanding of the geology of Long Island Sound must be demonstrated before approval can be considered.

Another concern was the Draft EIS’ description of seismic activity in this region. The Report  references a USGS database and states “there are no active faults that run through Long Island Sound”[3] as if this were “cut and dried.”  However, Mr. Lewis noted that seismic activity is not well understood in the Northeast because we do not have the type of plate-boundary faults characteristic of California. He noted that the Report failed to incorporate the work of the Weston Observatory that is the leading center of information on Northeastern US seismic activity.  

Even a cursory review of Weston Observatory website notes that this region indeed has faults but they are different in nature: “The occurrence of earthquakes in the northeastern United States apparently violates the plate tectonic model. The past several decades of research on this topic, however, have demonstrated that it may be possible to explain the occurrence of earthquakes in the Northeast within the framework of plate tectonics. The challenge in figuring out why the Earth quakes in New England is that the earthquake process in plate interiors is more complex than at plate boundaries. Unlike the situation in California, there is no obvious relationship between earthquakes and geologically mapped faults in most intraplate areas.”[4][original emphasis] A map and companion narrative based upon the Weston Observatory archives of earthquakes recorded by the Northeastern United States Seismic Network from 1975-1999 notes “An interesting feature of the pattern of earthquake activity in the Northeast is that between 1975 and 1999, some relatively large earthquakes occurred in areas that were not particularly active in the earlier part of the century.”[5] This newly active area includes 2 earthquakes within Long Island Sound! The absence of a clear understanding of seismic activity alone should be a basis for a denial at this juncture.

Roman Zajac, Professor of Biology and Environmental Science at the University of New Haven, noted that no detailed statistical analysis was provided in the report regarding the marine organisms found during the April and May 2005 surveys referenced in the report.[6]  For example, while the report suggests it would be unusual for mollusks to be located in the middle of Long Island Sound, he notes that clams typically are found in the middle of Long Island Sound. While the report focuses on the presence of lobsters, it fails to include mention of any data from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection that gathers lobster data annually. He also noted that the Report uses recovery estimates based upon research from dredged “mounds” even though pits and trenches are hydrologically different; while there may be applicability, the lack of quantitative data brings into question the recovery assessment.   Prof. Zajac stressed that a detailed environmental baseline is crucial to make any predictions about marine community recovery and that given the report’s low level of quantification, there is no basis for the conclusions.

Peter Auster, an Associate Professor with the University of Connecticut’s National Undersea Research Center and Department of Marine Sciences, made similar observations regarding the lack of critical data and analyses. For example, the report indicates that the potential for introducing invasive species from ballast water is minimal because Broadwater will follow Coast Guard requirements and standard shipping practices.[7] The Report fails to take into account coastal shipping of LNG from the Gulf of Mexico and the type of mitigation measures for invasive species that would be necessary for ships that stay within 200 miles of the coast. Another example is when the Report acknowledges potential impacts of underwater sound pressure to fish during the construction phase but fails to provide any data or analysis on the effects of chronic sound from the operation of the facility. Prof. Auster also noted that there were no works on disturbance ecology referenced in the report to substantiate the recovery dynamics outlined for the construction and operational phases of the project.  Given the importance of  Long Island Sound’s fisheries to the economic health of the region, the lack of data and analysis should be a basis for denial. 

Lance Stewart, an Associate Professor at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Connecticut and Chairman of the Connecticut’s Lobster Restoration Commission, expressed concern that the Draft EIS states that water temperature would be affected on a “very limited basis”[8] but fails to provide any entropy studies that would support that conclusion (i.e., the potential impact the project could have in raising water temperatures thereby impacting the health of marine populations in the Sound). Additionally, he noted that the report failed to assess the affects of light-attraction on marine populations (e.g., the potential for increased mortality of certain species such as squid which are attracted to light). In other words, the Report’s conclusion that lighting “would not significantly alter the migratory, spawning, or feeding behaviors of the aquatic species in the vicinity” is unsubstantiated. Again, given the importance of Long Island Sound’s fisheries to the economic health of the region, the lack of data and analysis should be a basis for denial. 

Public trust and confidence are severely undermined – and potentially disastrous projects can be approved - when a federal agency bases its decision on an EIS that is data-light. The League of Women Voters of Connecticut believes that this project should be denied because the Draft EIS fails to provide the scientific data required to support its conclusions

2. The Federal Government Has Failed To Promote Coordinated Energy-Planning And Decision-Making To Enhance States’ Capabilities For Resource Management.

Certainly one of the most densely populated areas in the nation is going to have future energy needs.  But where is the framework for comprehensively evaluating all energy strategies within the region?  How many LNG facilities does our region need? According to a Briefing Paper prepared by Northeast Gas Association in December 2006, there are 17 proposals stretching from Delaware to Nova Scotia to supply LNG to the Northeast U.S. and Eastern Canadian markets.[9]  Which of these alternatives have the most promise of providing additional supply to this region with the least environmental impact and public safety risk? According to this data-light Draft EIS, it’s Broadwater.[10]

Five of the 17 proposals have received US federal, state or Canadian approval and a sixth is currently under construction in Canada.[11] In this LNG marathon, these lucky 6 made it to the finish line first. The Draft EIS acknowledges that “gas from the Canaport pipeline not consumed in Canada and New England potentially could be transported to other markets…through existing interconnections…but no specific information regarding project upgrades or associated impacts has been made available.”[12]As has been pointed out, “the Bear Head and Canaport LNG import terminals in eastern Canada, for example, are expected to begin receiving deliveries and transporting gas to the northeast United States as soon as 2008…these supplies will be available at least two years earlier than Broadwater could begin operations. These facilities, which are already under construction, are among a number of supply and demand alternatives which do not threaten the integrity of a national environmental treasure.”[13] [emphasis added]

Additionally, the Draft EIS concludes that “renewable energy sources or energy conservation would individually reduce energy demands in the region by only a small amount.”[14]  The League believes that federal policies and actions must encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable sources through research and development, financial incentives, rate-setting policies and mandatory standards, including standards for energy-efficient buildings, appliances and automobiles.

Lest there be any doubt regarding the critical role of efficiency in maintaining a reliable supply, a study conducted by the International Energy Agency concluded that energy efficiency improvements, as opposed to structural changes, were primarily responsible for the drop in energy use per unit of GDP in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries (OECD), including the US, over the last 30 years. [15]

The IEA study further concluded:

“Experience across different OECD countries demonstrates that appliance and vehicle efficiency standards, funding of home energy retrofits, utility DSM programmes, and other types of energy efficiency initiatives are very cost-effective even when factors such as rebound effect, free riders, and real world performance are taken into account.”[16]

Efficiency is a “resource” that, by reducing energy needs, achieves the same benefits as increasing the supply of energy but without the disadvantages.  Contrary to the draft EIS conclusion, there is ample evidence that efficiency can lead to significant reductions in the demand for energy.  Reducing energy needs through increased efficiency should be a higher priority than seeking new LNG energy sources.

There is wide consensus that increasing our national “energy security” requires reducing the amount of oil we import from politically unstable regions of the world.  That goal applies equally to imported LNG.  A federal policy that promotes increased importation of LNG runs counter to that goal since most of the LNG will come from equally unstable regions. According to the Northeast Gas Association Briefing Paper[17], the leading supply areas to the U.S., ranked by volume, 2005, were:

1. Trinidad & Tobago

2. Algeria

3. Egypt

4. Malaysia

5. Nigeria

With the exception of Trinidad and Tobago, the US State Department is posting significant warnings on each of the remaining top 4 exporting nations. The warnings include reports of kidnappings, bombings, ambushes, assassinations, attacks on oil company facilities, and al-Qaeda linked terrorist groups capable of carrying out transnational attacks in locations where Westerners congregate.[18]

Additionally, Algeria and Nigeria, as members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), are notorious for cutting production to prop up market prices and can be expected do the same for LNG export. Indeed, just this weekend Algeria’s Energy and Mines Minister Chakib Khelil announced that OPEC members are considering another cut in oil production to address a 15 percent price drop as a result of curbed oil demand due to a mild winter. [19]

In conclusion:

1)The Draft EIS fails to provide adequate scientific data to support its conclusions on  a number of important issues. Expert witnesses have testified to the failure to use up-to-date data and to overlook instances where data is lacking that are essential for properly characterizing the environmental impact of the Broadwater project. In addition, the complex and uncertain behavior of earthquakes that appears to have been inadequately considered. Furthermore, according to expert testimony, the depth of the mud layer at the mooring site, in the absence of adequate data, remains highly uncertain, possibly requiring much longer pilings to reach bed rock.

2) The federal government has failed to promote coordinated energy-planning and decision-making for energy resource management. The U.S. government has failed to create a comprehensive long-term energy plan. Part of such a plan would define regional requirements for energy growth and conservation. In the absence of adequate guidelines, realistic alternatives to the Broadwater project have been inadequately addressed in the draft EIS. The role of greater energy efficiency and alternative energy generation have been dismissed as having little impact on growing energy needs. Yet several independent studies strongly support the opposite conclusion. Finally national “energy security” requires reducing our dependence on imported energy from unstable regions of the world. That goal applies to imported LNG as well as oil.

Broadwater is not a [Long Island] Sound project and should be denied.

[Back] [LWVCT] [Home]

©2008 The League of Women Voters of Connecticut, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.