N.J. to its neighbor: See you in court
philly.com
It plans to file a U.S. Supreme Court action soon in its feud with Delaware over a liquefied-natural-gas proposal in Logan Twp.
By Adam Fifield
Inquirer Staff Writer
The border dispute between New Jersey and Delaware over a pier for a proposed liquefied-natural-gas terminal in Gloucester County appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"New Jersey will determine its own destiny and what happens in New Jersey, and Delaware has no right to tell us what we can and cannot do," said Paul Fader, chief counsel for acting Gov. Richard J. Codey.
Fader said the state was planning to file an action with the high court as early as this week.
The disagreement stems from Delaware's rejection this year of oil giant BP's proposal to build a terminal in Logan Township to import liquefied natural gas. On Feb. 3, John Hughes, Delaware's environmental secretary, said the terminal's 1,900-foot pier would extend into Delaware waters and violate the state's Coastal Zone Act.
Dating back more than 300 years, the states' border includes a stretch that extends Delaware territory to the eastern side of the Delaware River.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the boundary in 1935. But New Jersey contends a 1905 interstate compact grants the Garden State control over facilities on its side of the river.
Philip Cherry, policy director for Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said his state was "prepared to defend the Delaware Coastal Zone Act."
The dispute has played out in both state legislatures.
Last week, Delaware House Majority Leader Wayne A. Smith introduced a bill that would authorize the governor "to call upon the Delaware National Guard to protect the territorial integrity of the State of Delaware and to block and/or remove any encroachments upon our boundary."
In May, New Jersey's Assembly passed without opposition a resolution urging Delaware to amend its Coastal Zone Act to the adhere to the 1905 compact. Among the sponsors was Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D., Gloucester), who in February called on Garden State residents to boycott credit cards issued by banks based in Delaware.
BP announced plans in December 2003 to build a $500 million Logan Township terminal that would import enough natural gas to serve five million homes. The Philadelphia Gas Works wants to find a partner to import liquefied natural gas into its existing Port Richmond storage facility. The two proposals are among more than three dozen nationally aimed at increasing the supply of natural gas, which is being squeezed by demand.
Liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is natural gas chilled to minus-260 degrees and condensed into a liquid. While not explosive, it vaporizes when exposed to air and can ignite into a massive fire.
The consequences of a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker are unknown. But in December, Sandia National Laboratories reported that such an attack could create a fire hot enough to cause second-degree burns on people a mile away and damage buildings within a third of a mile.
Industry representatives say that LNG has an excellent 40-year safety record and that releases are extremely unlikely.
Faced with Delaware's opposition, BP officials discussed taking their case to federal court or reconfiguring the pier so it would not reach into Delaware waters. But spokesman Neil Chapman said last week that BP was "moving forward on the project that is outlined."
While many politicians elsewhere in the country have fought proposed LNG terminals, New Jersey lawmakers have welcomed the plan for Logan.
The New Jersey Economic Development Authority is considering selling between $50 million and $100 million in tax-exempt bonds to help finance construction of the BP pier. The authority would own the project, and BP would pay rent that would cover the debt. The company also would pay additional administrative and security fees and contribute toward an economic-development fund, Fader said.
Opponents say New Jersey should not be in BP's corner.
Sharon Finlayson, board chair of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said the project carried too many dangers. "No matter how you look at it, the scenarios are extremely dangerous and could be costly to public health," she said.
Local opponents and supporters of the BP project agree on one point: The federal government should not have the final say on where LNG terminals go.
But a provision in the energy bill passed last week by the U.S. Senate would grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "exclusive authority" to approve the siting and construction of LNG import facilities.
The commission, which must approve LNG terminals, has insisted that it already has exclusive authority but asked Congress to clarify that authority after a challenge from California.
Contact staff writer Adam Fifield at 856-779-3917 or afifield@phillynews.com. |
