LNG group would block N.J. review of facility
Clean Ocean Action wants state's status upheld
BY MELISSA KARSH Staff Writer

Rendering of the proposed Safe Harbor Energy facility.

SEA BRIGHT - A group of investors is appealing the U.S. Maritime Administration's (MARAD) decision to grant New Jersey review power on a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility 19 miles off the coast.

The Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG) requested an appeal of MARAD's Nov. 2 decision to designate New Jersey as an adjacent coastal state (ACS) under the Deep Water Port Act (DWPA) of 1974.

Local activist groups like Clean Ocean Action (COA), a broad coalition of ocean advocates, are concerned that ASIG is trying to block the state of New Jersey from having a voice in the project's application review process.

"The ASIG has consistently worked to oppose New Jersey's voice and wrote to federal agencies in September 2007 asserting that there are no risks to the coastal environment of the state of New Jersey from the proposed facility," said COA executive director Cindy Zipf in a Dec. 5 press release.

"This company's fight to block New Jersey's right to vote is appalling. New Jersey's resources are at risk and citizens' voices must be heard."

The New York City-based investment group had previously submitted an application to build and operate Safe Harbor Energy, a 62.5-acre deepwater LNG port in the Atlantic Ocean off the coasts of New York and New Jersey.

"Traditionally the way the ACS status works is that one state always has ACS status and that is the state that has the closest proximity to the project. In this case, that is New York State, so that is why they have been granted ACS status," said Julie Roginsky, a consultant to ASIG.

She continued, "There is not one thing that we are doing that the state of New Jersey is not aware of. New Jersey has been [kept] very much in the loop proactively by the ASIG," said Roginsky. "[ASIG] is not appealing [MARAD's decision] because it wants to keep New Jersey out of the loop, it is appealing it because New Jersey has been in the loop through every step of the process."

She said giving New Jersey ACS status as well as New York is unprecedented and the litigation would create additional costs, which would delay the project.

Roginsky added, "The whole point of the project is to bring a cheaper source of energy to the whole area including New Jersey."

According to U.S. Maritime Administrator Sean T. Connaughton, in a Nov. 19 letter, the DWPA does not set forth a formal appeals process for determining ACS status.

Connaughton continued in the letter, "However, I would be more than willing to review your request to reconsider the Safe Harbor ACS determination."

The letter also gave representatives from the Safe Harbor project until Dec. 17 to present Connaughton with documentation supporting their position that New Jersey should not be designated as an ACS, which has left many environmental groups concerned.

"The AIG is acting like it is above the law, trying to appeal under a law that clearly does not apply," COA Water Policy Attorney David Byers in a press release. "This is a desperate attempt where the ASIG already went out of its way to oppose Gov. Corzine's request, and MARAD found their arguments unmeritorious."

He added, "Instead, the MARAD properly held that New Jersey deserves a true voice because of the magnitude and scope of the proposed project and its potential for significant environmental impact to the state of New Jersey."

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine had signed a letter Sept. 6 to Admiral Thad W. Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard and Connaughton requesting ACS status under the DWPA, citing the New Yorkbased project's close proximity to New Jersey, impediments to marine transportation, and the effect on the coastal environment of the state.

According to Corzine's letter, ACS status is defined as being located within 15 miles of the proposed island.

According to Byers, the state falls within 19 miles of the proposed manmade island. He said previously with the inclusion of proposed alternative pipeline alignment, New Jersey is about nine miles away from the facility.

"This was the right decision and it means New Jersey now gets a seat at the table in determining the future of this island," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (DN. J.) in a Nov. 2 press release about New Jersey's adjacent coastal state status.

"The potential impact of this facility on our state and our region could be enormous. The current proposal would destroy an important prime fishing area and have a large impact on our endangered species. A facility of this magnitude raises serious safety and security concerns which could have a devastating impact on the health and economy of New Jersey and the entire region."

Lautenberg, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6) and many conservation and environmental groups had also sent letters supporting Corzine's request.

"The U.S. Maritime Administration made the right decision last month because New Jersey's voice must be heard in this vitally important issue," said Pallone in a statement. "Based on New Jersey's close proximity to this proposed facility and the impact such a facility would have on our coastal environment, it should have been granted adjacent coastal state status all along."

According to the Web site, Safe Harbor Energy will have the capacity to deliver 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day to 65 million consumers, ending the area's dependence on natural gas shipped up to 1,200 miles from Gulf Coast terminals.

ASIG Chairman Howard Bovers had previously said the proposed facility was designed to help alleviate global warming and ensure adequate supplies of natural gas.

"When you have a project that has absolutely no negative environmental impact but only would provide a cheaper source of energy for the millions of people in New Jersey and the tri-state area, it's a shame it has to be litigated," said Roginsky. "Natural gas is: A) cleaner than oil, and B) not as expensive as oil. If this project gets built, there will be an influx of cheaper energy source into New Jersey, and I don't know how any environmentalists in good conscience could be against it."