GDACC

FW: Energy Plan forecasts -4

FW: Energy Plan forecasts – mary.beilby@gmail.com – Gmail.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Keith Schue <keithschue@yahoo.com> wrote:

Larysa,

I too was troubled in reading the particular provision on Article 6 that you cited:

“b) Any energy-related action or decision of a state agency, board, commission or authority shall be reasonably consistent with the forecasts and the policies and long-range energy planning objectives and strategies contained in the plan.”

This really underscores how harmful the many “forecasts” in the draft plan are–anemic growth in renewables dropping to nothing after 2020, the continued expansion of natural gas over the next 30 years, and let’s not forget the tripling of gas production in New York itself due to fracking (which I’ll repeat the plan does indeed forecast on page 88 of Vol2-sources).

The statute appears to say that once these forecasts are made, they must then be used as a pathway for future planning–a circular “self-fulfilling prophesy” whereby the plan forecasts what would occur on its own in the absence of action and then relies on those same forecasts to create the future that they predict.

I believe our challenge will be to argue that instead of relying on passive “forecasts” (which are throughout the entire document), the plan must instead establish proactive“forecasts” which buck trends as needed to achieve the necessary outcome–namely an 80% reduction in total GHG emissions by 2050, which we can rationally argue requires a major shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Keith

Acceleration of gas infrastructure in draft NYS Energy Plan

[Shaleshock] Acceleration of gas infrastructure in draft NYS Energy Plan [3 Attachments] – mary.beilby@gmail.com – Gmail.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Bruce Ferguson <bafbafbafb@gmail.com>
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:13 AM
Subject: [sustainableotsego] Fwd: [PRESS RELEASE] NO PLACE FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS IMPORTS, OR PORT AMBROSE, IN NEW YORK’S ENERGY FUTURE

PRESS RELEASE

                  

**For Immediate Release**

January 14, 2014

Attachment: COA, CCSE, CCOM Logos

Contacts:

Bruce Ferguson, Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, (845) 468-7063

Jeremy Samuelson, Concerned Citizens of Montauk, (631) 238-5720

Sean Dixon, Clean Ocean Action, (732) 872-0111

 

NO PLACE FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS IMPORTS, OR PORT AMBROSE, IN NEW YORK’S ENERGY FUTURE

NYS 2014 Draft Energy Plan points to a diminishing need for LNG imports and ignores Port Ambrose altogether

Albany, NY – On January 7, 2014, the New York State Energy Planning Board released its Draft 2014 New York State Energy Plan for public comment. The Draft Plan, which runs to over 600 pages, is a comprehensive assessment of every aspect of New York’s energy matrix, including supply, demand, and infrastructure needs for the next twenty years.  While the Plan suggests that natural gas will play an important role in the state’s energy future, it sees no role for imported liquefied natural gas (LNG); and although other infrastructure projects are considered in detail, it doesn’t even mention Port Ambrose, the proposed Deepwater Port that would be constructed off Long Island and import LNG into the metropolitan area.

In its few remarks on the subject, the Plan notes that the need for LNG imports has diminished and that they now (in 2012) account for “less than 1 percent of total U.S. natural gas.” The Plan goes on to warn that natural gas markets are shifting to exporting LNG – which could “cause price volatility in the future” and have a disruptive impact on New York energy costs.

So where does this leave Port Ambrose? “This is further evidence, if any were needed, that there isn’t any demonstrable need for LNG imports for Port Ambrose,” noted Sean Dixon, Coastal Policy Attorney with Clean Ocean Action; “in aiming for affordable energy, resiliency, and market-based solutions, LNG facilities are clearly inconsistent with NYS’s Energy Future.”

“New York State must reject the false promise of carbon based fuels as a bridge to a sustainable future and stand as a leader in creating a new energy economy based on renewable resources,” said Jeremy Samuelson, Executive Director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk. “Our energy future will reflect exactly what we incentivize.  Economic growth, environment protection and greater national security are the inevitable by-products an aggressive transition to renewable energy.”

“New York State’s Energy Plan offers further evidence that Port Ambrose is not viable as an LNG import facility,” said Bruce Ferguson of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.  “In all likelihood, if this project goes forward it will be used to export shale gas and that will inevitably lead to more fracking in the Northeast, and that’s something none of us want to see.”

A State Energy Plan is required under state law and is open for a 60-day public comment period.  As noted in the Board presentation and press release announcements on the readiness of the Draft Plan, there will also be six public hearings (in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Long Island).

In June 2013, Liberty LNG’s proposed Port Ambrose LNG import facility application became active, triggering a year-long review process under the federal Deepwater Port Act.  Liberty LNG proposes building a port about 25 miles off of Jones Beach, NY, and a 20-mile pipeline which would connect with the existing offshore Williams-Transco pipeline just 2 miles off the coast of Atlantic Beach, NY.  Liberty LNG purports to be planning to use the facility strictly to import natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico and foreign nations.  Under federal law passed in December 2012, the license for this port could be amended to allow for natural gas exports.

The groups quoted above, along with an anti-Liberty LNG coalition of organizations from across the nation, continue to call on Governors Christie and Cuomo to exercise their statutory right to veto this proposal.  Such a veto, under the federal Deepwater Port Act, can be transmitted to the reviewing agencies (the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration), at any time.