Granite Bridge LNG tank is a liquefaction plant and not an electricity rate reducing project
Updated: Feb 2, 2019
With reservations, ECHO Action members testified at the HB404 hearing stating that due to the extreme risk of climate change, they were supporting the bill, but did so with concerns. Community rights ordinances and bills can backfire and make it easier to block renewable energy projects and end up keeping fossil fuel infrastructure in place or expanding the use of fossil fuels.
"The LNG tank is not just a storage tank, it's a liquefaction plant."
"This is supposedly not an electricity project. I keep hearing people conflate the savings from the Granite Bridge project with reduced electricity costs. This project is going to be paid by Liberty gas ratepayers, who are essentially heating their homes, so it’s a little disturbing to hear that."
NH STATE REPRESENTATIVE SEAN MORRISON (Epping)
DENNIS SULLIVAN, IBEW, LOCAL 490
LNG TANK EXPLOSION
"The explosion happened shortly after 8:00 a.m. on March 31, 2014 at the Plymouth LNG plant in eastern Washington, about 30 miles south of the Tri-Cities, where the company stores natural gas in liquid form in two 14-million-gallon tanks. Natural gas ignited inside the LNG processing equipment, creating a “rolling detonation” that generated a mushroom-shaped cloud and large fire. Members of the public felt the rumble of the explosion up to six miles away, and employees near the explosion were knocked off their feet by its force. Employees saw a ball of fire as large pieces of exploded metal equipment and piping flew by them.
The blast completely fragmented a large piece of the natural gas processing equipment called an adsorber, propelling 250 pounds of debris and shrapnel up to 900 feet away and injuring 5 employees. One employee’s injuries were so extensive that a coworker who helped him evacuate the grounds did not initially recognize him. The explosion caused extensive physical damage to buildings and electrical equipment and even bent the BNSF rail line near the perimeter of the facility’s property."
We ask you this...
1. If you live in fear of an explosion, is that not enough to say no? 2. Why are residents being pressured to take on the risk to health, safety and property values to pay for an LNG tank and pipeline that is not needed? 3. Why do state representatives think it's appropriate to endorse a risky, unneeded, unwanted project to pay for clean up of an MTBE tainted water system that should have been paid for by the polluter? 4. Why is there so much resistance to energy efficiency measures and renewable energy, which both cost far less than the Granite Bridge project, save energy and money, instead of costing more? 5. How does Liberty Utilities justify a promised savings that is based on no evidence whatsoever, making ratepayers pay, to maybe save?
Have you emailed the Science, Technology & Energy committee yet to voice your concerns?