N.J.'s right to review LNG facility challenged
Group seeks to block ruling upholding coastal state status
BY MELISSA KARSH Staff Writer
Agroup of investors is seeking an injunction to stay a decision by the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) giving New Jersey review power on a proposal to build a liquified natural gas (LNG) storage facility just miles off the coast.

On Feb. 15, the New Yorkbased investment group Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a preliminary injunction on the basis that they believe MARAD did not have the authority to make the designation. Also, ASIG said the agency did not apply the standards that Congress required when it created the ACS statute in 1974, according to a Feb. 19 ASIG press release.

The decision by U.S. Maritime Administrator Sean T. Connaughton to uphold his Nov. 2 decision designating New Jersey as an adjacent coastal state (ACS) under the Deep Water Port Act (DWPA) of 1974, was considered a victory for environmental activists.

"Despite desperate efforts by Atlantic Sea Island Group, 'Insanity Island' must face the people of New Jersey," said Cindy Zipf, executive director of local ocean advocacy group, Clean OceanAction (COA).

She added, "We applaud the administrator's decision affirming New Jersey's voice.We nowlook forward to getting down to business exposing this proposal for its lunacy, threat to the environment, acceleration of climate change and risks to port commerce."

ASIG appealed the decision in December. The proposal by ASIG is to build and operate a 60.5-acre deepwater LNG port, called SafeHarbor Energy on aman-made island, in the Atlantic Ocean off the coasts of New Jersey and NewYork.

"This is about adherence to the rule of law and the intent of Congress. This is about fairness, merit and the judicial review of a process…This is about an application that seeks to follow the spirit and letter of the law and is being punished for having done so," said ASIG Chairman Howard Bovers in the release.

In his Feb. 8 letter, Connaughton said as the Maritime Administrator, he acted within his authority to make the decision and that there was no legal provision to allow an appeal.

"Both Federal agencies, the MARAD and the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) interpret the delegations to provide exclusive authority to theMaritimeAdministrator to make such a decision evenwhen facedwith contradictory USCG regulations," Connaughton said.

The ACS designation allows New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine to review and approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application, and provides the opportunity for at least one public hearing to be held in the state on the project, according to a COApress release.

COA, a broad coalition of ocean advocates, and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6) had previously been outspoken in voicing concerns about ASIG trying to block the state of New Jersey from having a voice in the project's application review process.

The proposed location of the facility "is home to endangered species and is prime fishing grounds. A large-scale, man-made, open ocean island has never been constructed andASIGhas no experience in offshore development or with LNG," the COA press release said.

ASIG had originally tried to appeal New Jersey'sACS designation on the basis that ACS status is normally given to the one state in closest proximity to the project, and NewYork is located within 15miles of the proposed facility with New Jersey within 19 miles, according to a consultant toASIG.

ASIG also noted in the press release that the request for an injunction is not a way for the group to circumvent the environmental review process that has already been underway for three years.

According to the release, the facility is urgently needed to supply the New York metro region's access to natural gas supplies andwill be the only LNGproject built locally by local union labor.

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 York-based project's close proximity toNew Jersey, impediments tomarine transportation and the effect on the coastal environment of the state.

In a Feb. 8 letter, Connaughton writes, "There is no better example of legitimate regional interests under the Safe Harbor proposal than that of N.Y. and N.J. N.Y. and N.J. have historically shared environmental and economic concerns due to their geographic proximity, predominant ocean currents from N.Y. toward N.J., and common industry. They share the port and its facilities. The staging areas for the construction and operation of the Safe Harbor DWP implicateN. Y. andN.J.without distinction.Alternate sites required under the National Environmental Policy Act to be reasonably foreseeable bring the possible final site to within ninemiles of N.J., and both N.Y. and N.J. share equally in the inherent risk of losing the Cholera Bank fishery."

Connaughton also notes in his letter that in order to make his decision to designate ACS status, he did not at this time need to decide relative harm between the two states, and that he only needed to decide the relative risk of harm, of which he said New Jersey's was at least equal to NewYork's.

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