Type: Nuclear

Opposition: The MOX project is opposed by Nuclear Watch South, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and Nuclear Information & Resource Service before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A public hearing will be held about MOX high-alpha waste issues and material [plutonium] control and accounting issues. The environmental groups' lawsuit is supported by public interest attorney Diane Curran and Union of Concerned Scientists physicist Dr. Edwin S. Lyman.

Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and its members groups including Nuclear Watch South, Beyond Nuclear and WAND with Friends of the Earth and Union of Concerned Scientists maintain ongoing legislative lobby in Washington, DC.

Prospect: Poor

Background: U.S. Department of Energy project to "dispose" of half the U.S. inventory of weapons-grade plutonium, 50 tons. Began as bilateral treaty with Russia, Russia program has no progress due to lack of funds. The premise is to secure weapons-grade plutonium by re-processing into reactor fuel and irradiating in reactor. The alternative preferred by environmentalists which has been all but abandoned by DOE in the course of several Environmental Impact Statements is plutonium immobilization in highly radioactive liquid waste glassification process.Project is 10 years behind schedule. Project costs have ballooned from $1.2 billion to $4.6 billion. Reactor irradiation services would be deferred to eight years in the future under the most optimistic circumstances since Duke Power's test failed and TVA has not committed nor begun lengthy licensing and testing phase. Fukushima nuclear disaster creates negative public opinion climate for MOX plutonium fuel program continuance.

Duke Power withdrew from project after failed MOX plutonium fuel test in the Catawba reactor in SC near Charlotte. TVA and Washington Public Power Supply are being courted for MOX use in their reactors, of which most under informal consideration are of the old GE Mark I design which exploded at Fukushima.

Two top-level insiders have been public with concern about unresolved chemical safety hazards in the plutonium aqueous polishing process and MOX high-radiation waste.

Sources: Nuclear Watch South: http://www.nonukesyall.org/plutonium.html
Union of Concerned Scientists: http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3332906391/its-time-to-pull-the-plug-on-the-mox-factory-to
Friends of the Earth: http://www.foe.org/secret-plan-exposed-use-surplus-weapons-plutonium-washington-state-nuclear-reactor
New
York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/us/11mox.html
WISE Uranium Project: http://www.wise-uranium.org/epdcs.html

User submitted on June 6, 2011

Type: Our organization wants to replace the dam with a hydroelectric facility and dredge the silt in order to restore the former lake and wetlands plus restore a native trout stream habitat. The hydroelectric facility would provide a source of green energy and the revenue received would proved a source of sustainibilty for the dam and lake.

Opposition: Most opposition is local: Farmers that might lose a small acreage and residents of the area that are afraid of the cost and that their taxes would increase. Also there are few grants available for building dams.

Prospect: Friends of Douglas Creek Watershed & Melrose Mill Pond, Inc. is a small 501c3 organization that is attempting to raise funds and get this project going forward. Feasibility study has been done and it is favorable for constuction and hydroelectricity. The Dam has a 33 feet drop and is a natural site for good water flow.

Background: Oup organization has been working for two years on the project.. The Village of Melrose owns the dam and have a WDNR permit to rebuild the dam. The Village has no money for the project. They are for the dam and lake restoration and we have a good cooperation from them. We need funds and some outside support.

Sources: This project is sponsored by:
Douglas Creek Watershed & Melrose Mill Pond, Inc.
N2108 St. Hwy 54, Melrose,WI 54642
Phone: (608) 488-4855

Village of Melrose
112 N Washington Street
Melrose, WI 54642
Phone: (608) 488-3191

User Submitted on April 8, 2011
 

TYPE: Biomass – 35 MW Green Energy Biomass Facility

OPPOSITION: Local and regional coalition of environmental activist

PROSPECTS: Indeterminate

BACKGROUND: Palmer Renewable Energy, LLC (“PRE”) is developing a biomass to renewable energy plant at 1000 Page Blvd, Springfield, MA. In doing so, PRE has focused on developing a plan which offers numerous short-term and long-term benefits to the Springfield area. These are summarized as follows:

• Process fuel from biomass waste to produce “green” power thereby reducing the Commonwealth’s reliance on fossil fuels
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the disposition of wood waste in landfills and the resulting production of methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more harmful to the environment than CO2
• Create over 250 new permanent and part-time jobs in the Springfield area
• Attract new business, especially high-tech, with cost-effective production of power
• Reduce the costs associated with biomass, solid waste transportation and disposal
• Position Springfield and Massachusetts as a nationwide leaders in renewable energy generation

PRE will prepare the site, design and construct a facility to process fuel derived from green wood waste to generate renewable electrical power. This plan will include the construction of a building to house the processing units that will generate 35 MW of net electrical power from 1200 tons per day of green wood chip material derived from tree-trimming activities. 

Draft Final Air Permit was received on March 7, 2011.  The Massachusetts regulatory process requires a 30 day comment period and then the Air Permit is issued final.

When this regulatory schedule is completed, PRE will proceed with construction – expected to occur in the second quarter of 2011 and with the customary 20 – 24 months schedule for equipment delivery and construction, PRE would be start-up testing for operations by the first quarter of 2013

SOURCES: Caletta Renewable Energy: info@calettarenewable.com; Biomass Power and Thermal Magazine: www.biomassmagazine.com; http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/palmer_renewable_energy_drops.html; http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/proposed_springfield_biomass_p.html; 
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/group_opposed_to_proposed_springfield_biomass_asks_further_study.html

User Submitted on April 5, 2011
Contact: Victor E. Gatto, Jr. Ed. D. - vicgatto@achievetelnet.com

TYPE: Wind

OPPOSITION: Friends of the Boundary Mountains

PROSPECTS:  Complete 

BACKGROUND:  The Kibby Wind Power Project developed by TransCanada is the largest wind power development in New England.  The wind farm is located in the community of Eustis, Maine.   The project is capable of producing 132 megawatts of electricity and is valued at $350 million. Construction began on the project in September 2008. This wind power project has generated around 315 construction jobs during the construction period and now it has 13 full time employment opportunities to manage the functions of the wind turbine and its maintenance.

TransCanada has spent several years working to mitigate environmental impacts by downsizing the project and relocating the project site to minimize the project’s impact on threatened species in the area.   In June 2007, the Appalachian Mountain Club, Maine Audubon, and Natural Resources Council of Maine announced support for the project. However, Friends of the Boundary Mountains, a grassroots group, continues to oppose the project, arguing that the mountain landscape should be preserved and that the turbines are a threat to birds.

The project was completed and operational as of November 1, 2010.

SOURCES: TransCanada Project Main Page: http://www.transcanada.com/kibby.html;
Natural Resources Council of Maine: http://www.nrcm.org/kibby_mountain.asp;
Market Watch: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us350-million-kibby-wind-power-project-delivers-additional-power-to-maine-2010-11-01;
Industrial Wind Action Group: http://www.windaction.org/news/12045

Last updated November 15, 2010

TYPE: Natural Gas

OPPOSITION: Environmental groups, local residents

PROSPECT: Dead

BACKGROUND: After Maine Governor John Baldacci signaled an interest in developing liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects in the state, TransCanada Corporation sought to build an LNG terminal on Hope Island, a privately-owned island in Maine's Casco Bay. TransCanada decided on Hope Island after losing its bid to build an LNG facility in nearby Harpswell. The Hope Island project would use 30-40 acres of the island and would consist of two tanks, four or five auxiliary buildings, and a port for tankers to dock. The project would cost $350 million.

In June 2004, the town council of Cumberland, Maine, voted six-to-one to move forward with the initiative. Opponents cited negative impacts on fishing and residents' quality of life. Opposition from local residents and environmental groups was so heated—with some threatening secession and over 150 people packing the council meeting—that one week later, the council reversed course and voted to abandon the project by a five-to-two margin.

SOURCES: Chebeague Island News: http://www.chebeague.org/news2004.htm1;
LNG in World Markets:  http://www.poten.com/Opinion.aspx?id=2614;
Portland Press-Herald (no longer available online).

Last Updated: November 23, 2010

TYPE: Natural Gas

OPPOSITION:  Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco; environmental groups

PROSPECT:  Indeterminate

BACKGROUND:  McMoRan Exploration Co. filed a Deepwater Port License application with the U.S. Coast Guard and Maritime Administration in 2004 to construct the $1 billion Main Pass Energy Hub, an offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) project and adjoining pipeline.  The project as designed would transmit 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.

Environmental groups and fishing activists warned of the dangers of the project’s “open loop” vaporization system to the marine environment.  Despite two years of studies by the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration that found minimal environmental threat from the project, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco succumbed to environmental groups’ pressure.  In May 2006, Gov. Blanco exercised the power available to her under the Deepwater Port Act and vetoed the Main Pass Energy Hub.  McMoRan was then forced to switch to a “closed loop” design.

The revised project was to be completed in 2010, but appears to have been suspended.  McMoRan’s 2009 public filings indicate that it is still considering restarting the project, although nothing has happened to date.

SOURCES:  New Orleans Times-Picayune: http://www.nola.com/business/t-p/index.ssf?/base/money-3/1164956820166850.xml&coll=1;
hydrocarbons-technology.com: http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/main-pass/;
Rigzone: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=31925;
Sierra Club: http://louisiana.sierraclub.org/lng.asp         

Last Updated:  November 19, 2010

TYPE: Natural Gas

OPPOSITION:  Environmental groups

PROSPECT:  Likely

BACKGROUND:  Port Dolphin LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Höegh LNG AS, submitted an application in March 2007 for a license to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas (LNG) deepwater port 28 miles off the coast of Tampa, Florida, along with a subsea pipeline connecting the port to shore.  Gas would be warmed from cold LNG to natural gas in two specially-designed regasifaction ships, which would then be unloaded at Port Dolphin and transmitted to shore.  The port would eventually be capable of achieving an average throughput of 800 billion cubic feet of gas per day (bcf/d) and a peak capacity of approximately 1.2 billion bcf/d.  The project will cost $1 billion to construct.

Environmental groups argued that the port would heavily impact fisheries and the pipeline will prevent significant recovery of sand needed to replenish beaches.  On June 19, 2008, Port Dolphin officials re-routed the pipeline to address those concerns, but the groups argued that re-routing made no difference.

The project received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in December 2009 and the Manatee County Port Authority in March 2010, and it received its federal deepwater port license in April 2010.  Construction of Port Dolphin, which is estimated to take 22 months, is scheduled to begin at the end of the second quarter of 2012.  Earlier plans had sought to have the project operational by 2013.  Still, completion seems likely.

SOURCES:  Port Dolphin official site: http://www.portdolphin.com/index.php;
Florida Department of Environmental Protection: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cmp/links/files/currents_summer_2010.pdf;
Anna Maria Island Sun: http://www.amisun.com/pipeline.htm;
Oil & Gas Journal: http://www.ogj.com/index/article-display.articles.oil-gas-journal.transportation-2.lng.2010.03.manatee-county_approves.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html;
UPI: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2009/12/08/Port-Dolphin-approved-for-Florida-LNG/UPI-64901260290259/;
Rigzone.com: http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=43755;
PRNewswire: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/port-dolphin-energy-receives-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-certificate-to-build-on-shore-pipeline-supporting-deepwater-lng-port-serving-florida-78690282.html;
Downstream Today: http://www.downstreamtoday.com/projects/project.aspx?project_id=141;
The Islander: http://www.islander.org/6-25-08/pipeline_2.php       

Last Updated:  November 19, 2010

TYPE: Natural Gas

OPPOSITION:  Environmental groups; local residents; Rhode Island Legislators including, Rep. Fausto C. Anguilla (D-Dist. 68) of Bristol and Warren, Rep. Jan P. Malik (D-Dist. 67) of Warren and Barrington, Rep. William Enos (D-Dist. 71) of Little Compton, Portsmouth and Tiverton; Rep. Joseph N. Amaral (R-Dist. 70) of Portsmouth and Tiverton, and Rep. Henry C. Rose (D-Dist. 63) of East Providence and Pawtucket

PROSPECT:  Dead

BACKGROUND:  In 2003, Somerset LNG announced plans to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility on 15 acres of land at the Brayton Point, MA, Power Station.  The Brayton Point Power Station is a 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant that has been operating since 1951.  The Somerset LNG facility would be built alongside the existing power plant, and would rely on hot water from the power plant to warm the LNG as it converts from supercooled liquid to gaseous form.  Environmental groups had criticized the power plant’s wastewater discharge for its impact on marine life, and Somerset LNG’s proposal would at least partially address the issue by reducing the power plant’s hot-water discharge into Mount Hope Bay.  Somerset LNG was projected to cost $300 million to construct, and would transmit as much as 700 million cubic feet of gas per day.

Environmental groups and local residents opposed the Somerset LNG project, claiming environmental harm and increased vulnerability to terrorist attacks.  State Rep. Raymond E. Gallison Jr. of Bristol and Portsmouth introduced legislation to prohibit the transport of liquefied natural gas “by way of tanker or any other means on the Sakonnet River or under the Mount Hope Bridge.”  The legislation was cosponsored by other legislators from Rhode Island’s East Bay.  Rep. Gallison stated:  “I am not sure that the communities in Bristol County or on Aquidneck Island are prepared for that kind of situation, either in terms of potential security dangers or environmental disasters . . . [w]e plan to be active in our opposition to this plan and the first step, through this legislation, is to prohibit the shipment of LNG along the Sakonnet or under the Mount Hope Bridge.”

PG&E National Energy Group, Brayton Point Power Station’s parent company, voluntarily filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on April 6, 2001.  In March 2004, Somerset LNG announced that the project would not go forward until PG&E National Energy Group emerges from bankruptcy.  Although the company has emerged from bankruptcy, the power plant has been sold to the electric utility Dominion, and Somerset LNG appears to have been abandoned.

SOURCES:  Providence Journal: http://www.projo.com/massachusetts/content/projo_20040309_so9lng.eaa7e.htm; http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20040104_lng4.225610.html;
Rhode Island General Assembly: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/News/pr1.asp?prid=949;
Coalition for Responsible Siting of LNG Facilities: http://www.nolng.org/;
Green Futures: http://www.greenfutures.org/projects/LNG/LNG1-4-04.html

Last Updated:  November 23, 2010

TYPE: Natural Gas

OPPOSITION:  Environmental groups, local residents

PROSPECT:  Complete

BACKGROUND:  GDF Suez Energy North America announced in February 2005 that it sought to build a deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) port, called Neptune LNG, 10 miles off the coast of Gloucester, Massachusetts.  Natural gas would be transported and converted from liquid to gaseous state on specially-designed ships that would moor at the port and connect to a specially-designed subsea pipeline, bringing the gas to shore.  Neptune LNG would cost $1 billion to construct, and once operational would transport an average of 400 million cubic feet per day (mmcf/d) of natural gas, with peak output of 750 mmcf/d. 

Environmental groups and local residents voiced opposition to the project.  Challenges to the project’s environmental impact statement led to the issuance of a stop-clock letter (which suspends the clock for making a determination) in late 2005 in order to collect more information.  The stoppage lasted four months.  The Maritime Administration and U.S. Coast Guard issued a second stoppage, lasting three months, in July 2006 to collect additional information on environmental issues.  Opponents generally warned of environmental harm and increased risk of terrorism—a concern exacerbated by foiled attempts on Christmas Eve 2009 to attack a Northwest Airlines flight by men trained in Yemen, a country of origin for some GDF Suez gas shipments.

Despite the opposition, Neptune LNG has been one of the few LNG success stories of recent years.  In October 2005, the U.S. Coast Guard deemed Neptune’s application complete.  Governor Mitt Romney approved the project in December 2006.  The spring of 2007 brought approval and licensing by the U.S. Maritime Administration.  Construction began in July 2008.  On May 21, 2010, GDF Suez announced that the project was partially operational, and that it expected its first shipments of LNG in August 2010.  That is roughly six months delayed from the initial project delivery date, which given the difficulty faced by most LNG developers in recent years must be considered a massive success.

SOURCES:  GDF Suez: http://www.suezenergyna.com/ourcompanies/lngna-neptune.shtml; http://www.suezenergyna.com/press/NeptunePress.shtml;
Gloucester Times: http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x2023216134/LNG-port-off-Gloucester-coast-now-open-for-business;
Maritime Administration: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/USCG-2005-22611-0465__Neptune_LNG.pdf;
Clean Ocean Action: http://www.cleanoceanaction.org/index.php?id=657

Last Updated:  November 23, 2010

TYPE:  Natural Gas

OPPOSITION:  Environmental groups, U.S. Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, local residents

PROSPECT:  Likely

BACKGROUND: The Sparrows Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) project is a proposed LNG import and re-gasification facility to be constructed, owned and operated by AES Sparrows Point LNG, a subsidiary of AES Corporation.  The project would be located at the Sparrows Point Industrial Complex near Baltimore, Maryland.  Output would be 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas; AES estimates that it will cost $400 million to construct.  AES would also build an 88-mile pipeline in a separate project, called the Mid-Atlantic Express, to connect Sparrows Point to existing natural gas pipelines.

AES began the process of obtaining roughly 100 needed permits in 2006, with the hope that the construction would begin between 2008 and 2010, and operations would commence in 2012.

In 2006, responding to public opposition to the siting of an LNG terminal at Sparrows Point, the Baltimore County Council approved Bill 71-06, which amended the County’s Zoning Regulations as it pertains to siting of LNG facilities near residential and commercial areas, a move that would effectively bar AES from constructing the Sparrows Point LNG project.  AES sued in federal court and won an injunction barring the county from enforcing the ordinance.  The County responded in 2007 by passing Bill 9-07, which changed coastal zoning regulations to again bar Sparrows Point LNG.  Once again, AES sued, arguing that Bill 9-07 was preempted by the Natural Gas Act.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with AES.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) conditionally approved Sparrows Point LNG in January 2009.  Nearly a dozen government, business and community groups, including the state of Maryland and Baltimore County, appealed FERC decision in federal court.  A judgment is pending.  One of the conditions AES must meet under the FERC approval is the issuance of a water-quality permit by the Maryland Department of Environment, which denied approval of the company’s dredging plan.

The opposition to Sparrows Point has not only been in federal court.  In March 2010, U.S. Senators from Maryland Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin introduced legislation that would repeal FERC’s authority to site LNG facilities and would instead give control over them to the state.  The Senators explicitly referenced Sparrows Point LNG as the reason they introduced the legislation.  The bill did not receive a floor vote in the 111^th Congress.

SOURCES:  AES Sparrows Point LNG: http://www.aessparrowspointlng.com/;
Baltimore Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2010/03/01/daily26.html;
Baltimore Sun: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-12-18/news/bal-md.co.lng18dec18_1_sparrows-point-lng-natural-gas-million-project;
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-13/news/bal-md.co.lng13feb13_1_liquid-natural-gas-terminal-lng-opposition-team-aes-sparrows-point-lng;
Baltimore Sun (via istockanalyst.com): http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3245494;
FindLaw: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1055641.html

Last Updated:  November 23, 2010