Save The Brewsters

Legislative News and Notes

History of House Bill No. 4500

Latest News

September 2006

The Massachusetts State Legislature is currently in recess and no action is currently being taken on House Bill No. 4500.

Summary

In mid-September 2005, AES, an Arlington, VA, based company, announced a proposal to buy or lease Outer Brewster Island, part of the Boston Harbor Islands National Park and Recreation Area, to site a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) regasification plant and terminal there. The company's intention was to rush it through the legislature and have it voted in before the November 16th-legislative recess. The Hull Board of Selectmen has voted to oppose any action that would forward LNG siting on Outer Brewster at this time.

On Thursday, October 26, 2005, House Bill No. 1663, called for a commission to study the Commonwealth's needs for energy, public safety and security surrounding energy distribution and facilities, and the environmental and safety considerations and roles of the state and local government in the siting of such facilities. The bill is currently in the Joint Committee for Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (see members* below).

On Friday, October 28th, 2005, House Representative Brian Dempsey, (D-Haverhill), filed a bill (House Bill No. 4500) calling for a 99-year lease of Outer Brewster for the purpose of siting an LNG regasification plant there. The bill was sent to the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets**, because it entails a lease of state land.

After a hearing on the bill was held March 8, 2006 (see testimony in opposition), the Committee sent the bill to study, which oftentimes indicates a bill's virtual demise. On March 2, 2006, Senate Bill no. 2379 calling for an investigation and study by a special commission relative to liquified natural gas facility siting passed unanimously, and a public hearing was held May 22 at the State House.

House Bill no. 4500 sent to study. The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets sent House Bill no. 4500 to study, essentially shelving the bill. This often means the bill is put to rest for the remainder of the legislative session; however, AES Corporation of Virginia is planning to press on to resurrect the bill. Under Article 97, a two-thirds vote by both the house and senate is required to release park land from the national park system. However, should a vote be called, enough representatives and senators have signed a letter addressed to Senate President Robert Travaglini and Speaker Salvatore DiMasi stating that they will vote against the bill to assure the bill's demise. (For a transcript of the March 2, 2006, testimony in opposition to the bill, click here.)

About House Bill No. 4500
House Bill No. 4500 utilizes a number of fallacious arguments, and relies upon deceptive language to incite a hurried supposed need for its passage.

These include:

• The bill should be voted on immediately, as an emergency measure, so as to preserve public convenience (implying that there is immediate danger of LNG shortages, which is not the case).
• Massachusetts residents need another source of LNG (We already have access to LNG, by housing the Distrigas plant in Everett, Mass, one of the four LNG regasification plants supplying the nation's LNG needs.).
• The short outages of heat and electricity in winter months in recent years is due to a lack of supply of energy sources.
  (This is not the case. Last year, Hull experienced an interruption in gas service, due to outdated pipes delivering the gas. That problem has been rectified. There was never a lack of supply of LNG.)
• LNG terminals on the mainland represent safety and security risks.
  (They will continue to present these risks. There is NO plan to dismantle any existing terminal. The Distrigas terminal in Everett will continue to operate. The terminal that AES proposes will bring additional tanker traffic into Boston Harbor, and likely will triple the amount of tankers Boston sees on a weekly basis, just for starters. The Outer Brewster terminal will pose additional safety and security risks to the people of Hull, and to the people of coastal Massachusetts, and have permanent effects on the environment.)
• Offshore LNG facilities will adversely affect the commercial fishing industry.
  (Blasting and dredging on and around Outer Brewster and erecting massive terminals on what is likely the most pristine Boston Harbor Island, will also seriously disrupt and have considerable adverse effects on the commercial fishing and lobstering industries, as well as on recreational boating in Boston Harbor.)
• Outer Brewster is an island "littered with abandoned structures" in "close proximity to the natural gas distribution system".
  (In fact, Outer Brewster is the one of outermost Boston Harbor islands, and the most frequented by numerous species of migratory birds, as well as home to the only colony of seals in Boston Harbor. Furthermore, the natural gas distribution system is already in existence, and connecting to it from any offshore location is feasible and financially sound for the energy industry.)
• Constructing an offshore LNG site lessens the severity of damage from both accidental and intentional spills of LNG.
  (The behavior of LNG on water is very different from and much less containable than its behavior on land. It moves swiftly across water, and travels with the direction of the wind when gasified (as would occur in an accidental or intentional spill. Studies of its behavior on water are very limited and less well documented than those on land. In fact, the severity of damage could be far greater on water.)
• It is possible to construct LNG facilities in an environmental safe and sensitive manner.
  (Blasting out holes for numerous partially sunk gas holding tanks in an island, dredging miles of the ocean floor, laying pipeline, and constructing an industrial site on a national park may sound environmentally sensitive to some, but to others, well, it smells a little fishy.)

* Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

**Members of the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets include: