PHILADELPHIA—Philadelphia
City Council voted 12-2 today in favor of a resolution announcing the
Council’s intended opposition to any liquefied natural gas (LNG) import
facility plans within the city’s limits. Philadelphia Gas Works’ (PGW)
has been promoting plans for an LNG import facility in northeast
Philadelphia, despite the serious public safety concerns associated
with the plan and widespread opposition from neighborhood associations
and environmental groups.
“PennEnvironment
applauds City Council for recognizing the public safety threat posed by
LNG, and for sending a clear message to PGW that their dangerous plan
is not wanted,” said Nathan Willcox, energy advocate with
PennEnvironment. “If an accident were to occur on an LNG tanker on the
Delaware, tens of thousands of Philadelphians would be at risk.”
The
resolution was introduced by Councilwoman Krajewski, and co-sponsored
by Council President Verna and Councilman DiCicco. All three represent
districts along the Delaware River, and in a recent opinion piece,
cited the “overwhelming and fierce opposition and uproar from our
constituents” as key in their decision to author and introduce the
resolution.
PGW
has announced its intentions to build a liquefied natural gas import
facility in the Port Richmond neighborhood of northeast Philadelphia,
which would serve as a docking station for LNG tankers traveling from
the Atlantic Ocean and up the Delaware River. Liquefied natural gas, or
LNG, is natural gas that has been converted to liquid form by cooling
it to negative 260 degrees Fahrenheit. This enables energy companies to
more economically transport greater quantities of natural gas, as the
LNG is 1/600th the volume of the substance in its gaseous form.
However,
LNG import facilities and tankers pose a significant public safety
threat. Specifically, a study done for the U.S. Department of Energy
found that if a leak from an LNG tanker were to occur due to an
accident or attack, a resulting explosive fire could result in “major
injuries and significant damage to structures” within a third of a mile
from the spill site, and “potential for injuries and property damage”
up to one mile from the spill site. Tens of thousands of people live
within the one mile risk area of the Port Richmond site, as well as
tens of thousands more citizens in the Philadelphia neighborhoods along
the Delaware River transport route.
“In
the 1970s—long before 9/11and the terrorist threats we face
today—Congress said LNG import facilities were too dangerous to be
cited in large metropolitan areas,” said Willcox. “The risk is even
greater than it was thirty years ago, yet PGW still thinks a facility
can be built while protecting the public safety of Philadelphians. It
simply doesn’t add up.”
While
spending over $2 million to sell its LNG plan, PGW has promoted the
idea that this plan will lower Philadelphians’ gas bills—but this claim
is misleading at best. The utility has said that the LNG facility could
bring in $25 million annually, which works out to a roughly $3/month
reduction for the average home heating bill in Philadelphia.
Furthermore, the $3 figure assumes that PGW passes along all LNG
revenues to ratepayers, and does not account for who would pay for the
numerous necessary public safety measures. Municipal officials in
Boston have determined that LNG tankers pose enough of a threat that
the city must use undercover investigators at the docking station to
guard against terrorist attacks, deploy an underwater dive team to flag
underwater hazards, and require police and the U.S. Coast Guard to
provide ten boats to escort each LNG tanker into port. All of these
security measures would carry significant price tags for Philadelphia—a
burden that could be placed on the city’s taxpaying citizens.
“Philadelphia
ratepayers should not be footing the bill for a proposal that has more
public safety questions than PGW has answers,” Willcox said. “Numerous
studies have shown the safety risks of LNG import facilities to
surrounding communities—risks that the residents of Philadelphia should
not have to live with, much less pay for.”
Neighborhood
associations from Bridesburg to Bella Vista have held neighborhood
meetings on the issue, and the Old City Civic Association has submitted
a letter to City Council officially opposing any plans for an LNG
import facility in Philadelphia.
Today’s
Council vote was critical because PGW has said that the utility needs
the approval of Philadelphia City Council to proceed with construction
of the new LNG facility. Today’s resolution was not binding, though,
and PennEnvironment and other public interest advocates will continue
to strengthen community opposition to PGW’s dangerous LNG plan.
Additional Council hearings could be held if and when PGW ignores
today’s clear message and submits an official proposal to City Council.
“Despite
public opposition to the idea of an LNG import facility in
Philadelphia, some officials have said they are waiting for an official
PGW proposal before taking a position,” said Willcox. “But given the
inherent threat posed by any LNG import facility, the details of PGW’s
proposal won’t change anything—these facilities simply do not belong in
large metropolitan areas, and we applaud City Council for recognizing
that today.”
