Welcome
to the GHNCAP, AES Dundalk Sparrows Point LNG Plant information page.
All information found on this page is for the informational
purposes of the reader, and the views
and opinions of the written content contained herein, are not neccessarily
those opinions and views of the Trustee Leadership and Sponsors of the
New Greater Holabird Norwood Community Alliance Partnership, Inc.
AES Sparrows Point LNG Website
FERC Gives Tentative Approval Of LNG
Plant
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Baltimore County wouldn't be too harmful to the environment.
The
environmental impact statement issued Friday by FERC staff clears the way for
the commission to vote on whether to approve the project. It concludes that the
facility "would have mostly limited adverse environmental impact."
The AES
Corp. wants to build the terminal at the old Bethlehem Steel shipyard at
Sparrows Point. Liquefied natural gas would be shipped to the terminal, then
converted back to its gaseous state and pumped to Pennsylvania through an
88-mile pipeline.
Local Baltimore County political leaders are virtually united in their opposition to the project. They say the plant would be a target for terrorists and would put nearby residents at risk. Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith said in a written statement that he will ask the new Obama Administration to block the facility. However, some labor groups say the terminal would bring much-needed jobs to the area.
The following letter from Baltimore
County Executive Jim Smith is a special edition of the Community Update:
October 9, 2008
Dear Concerned Citizens,
I am including the text of an editorial that ran in today's Baltimore
Sun. As this editorial points out we will continue to fight the proposed
LNG plant in Dundalk. As you know, we remain steadfast in our belief that
this is the wrong plant, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Sincerely,
Jim Smith
Baltimore County Executive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Baltimore Sun's Editorial
Point of View:
The rejection of one appeal doesn't spell the end of LNG plant opposition;
plenty of questions remain over the safety and impact of the proposed facility.
Officials at AES Corp. and others who advocate for the proposed liquefied
natural gas terminal at Sparrows Point would be wise to view the U.S. Supreme
Court's recent decision not to take up the matter as a minor victory at best.
While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is most likely going to
eventually approve the LNG facility at the former Bethlehem Steel shipyard as
well as the connecting 88-mile gas pipeline - perhaps even within a matter of
weeks - it's far too early to plan a groundbreaking in 2009.
Before construction can even be contemplated, there are a host of items that
require approval, including the final environmental impact statement, state
wetland license and water quality certification. And you can bet that Gov.
Martin O'Malley, Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr. and members of
Maryland's congressional delegation will object to each and every one of them,
virtually ensuring the matter will drag out for years.
Call it the passive-aggressive defense, but Mr. Smith isn't even letting county
officials meet with AES to discuss such concerns as security and emergency
response needs. If there's a door that can be shut on the project, he has
apparently decided, it should be closed, locked, dead-bolted and a chair propped
against it - at least until some federal judge or official orders the county to
make accommodations.
That may strike some as harsh, but Mr. Smith and other opponents have a point.
Deciding where LNG terminals can be built shouldn't be up to FERC alone. The
Bush administration has a poor record in regulatory matters, particularly
involving the energy industry.
Opponents have legitimate concerns about Sparrows Point from the impact of
local dredging to the security implications of having large LNG tankers so far
up the Chesapeake Bay. The former requires finding a site to dispose of
millions of cubic yards of contaminated soil, and the latter may mean
disrupting marine traffic to give the ships a wide berth.
Perhaps many of these can be solved. But solutions haven't been offered, and a
temporary holding pattern may be just what the project needs to give the next
administration time to develop its energy policy - and perhaps allow states a
greater say in where LNG facilities ought to be located.
The appeal rejected by the Supreme Court was on a relatively minor point
involving local land-use planning and federal pre-eminence. Much more is left
to be resolved, and it's hard to see that happening in the near future no
matter how FERC rules.
UPDATED: 7:06 pm EDT
October 7, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Supreme Court has
refused to hear an appeal by Baltimore County concerning the construction of
liquefied natural gas terminals.
|
The
court on Monday refused to hear the appeal of the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruling in May. That ruling found that Baltimore County violated the
Natural Gas Act by changing zoning rules to bar LNG facilities in coastal
areas. |
The federal appellate court ruled that the county
overstepped its authority.
Arlington, Va.-based AES Corp. wants to build a terminal
and an 88-mile pipeline to Pennsylvania.
Labor leaders said Tuesday that they expect to see a new
era of blue-collar jobs centering on the construction of the terminal. "There's going to be great economic
development -- jobs, clean energy that's really needed in this region, reduced
utilities prices and a real shot in the arm for the economy here," said
Rod Easter of the Building Construction and Trades Council.
But Russell Donnelly, head of the citizens group opposing
the terminal, said Tuesday that his congressional delegation will continue the
fight, saying it's too dangerous to put a plant like that in such a populated
area”. Donnelly was also quoted saying
“that most elected officials in the area agree, that undo power has been
endowed to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 that has drastically changed and altered the methods by which these
energy projects are determined”.
However, labor leaders did not agree with Donnelly and
area elected officials.
In response to Donnelly and opposing groups comments, Rod
Easter of the Building Construction and Trades Council stated, "this collation that has been formed,
and their leaders that are standing behind me, are concerned that elected
officials haven't taken the correct steps to prepare the community and this
region for the newly proposed LNG terminal."
updated October 1st, 2009