Sierra Club Home Page   Maryland outdoors  
       
Maryland Chapter     Explore, enjoy and protect the planet  
       
 
Chapter Home
Environmental Issue
Sign Up for e-Alerts
Take Action
Calendar
Local Groups
Get Outdoors
Politics and Elections
Legislative Priorities
Chesapeake Newsletter
Intern or Volunteer
History
Contacts
National Site
Join or Give
 

Rebuttal to Washington Gas Light

Washington Gas Light (WGL) is sounding an alarmist and misleading information campaign in Annapolis this year, in response to a local Prince George’s zoning bill. By positing only one extreme, $500 million alternative to a proposed LNG storage facility next to the West Hyattsville Metro Station, dire future rate hikes are predicted. There are actually several intermediate alternatives and dramatically less expensive solutions to the future supply and current pressure problems Washington Gas says it wants to address by placing LNG storage in Chillum, but none have been publicly assessed or reviewed.

  • The current statements contradict previous Gas Company statements made to several elected officials at a public forum in March of 2005, when asked about alternatives and costs. They stated that alternative sites to Chillum Rd. could cost up to $20 million more for related new pipelines.
  • Pressure issues can be remedied by the installation of low cost compression stations along the terminal distribution spurs. Several options are also available for LNG or natural gas storage reserves, and might not require extensive new pipeline construction to solve the supply goals.
  • If an LNG facility is built at a suitably zoned alternative to Chillum, we estimate the cost to be about $190 million. This estimate includes property costs, pipeline extensions, and construction costs. This option is feasible, requires cooperative planning, and is less costly than the alternative Washington Gas is considering.
  • There has been no independent and objective peer review of any kind to document any of the extreme predictions being made in the face of proposed State legislation to strengthen land-use decisions and zoning authority at the County level.

How can one assess the veracity of a claim that an alternative to the Washington Gas’ proposal will lead to $500,000,000 of additional system costs?

Has there been an independent, transparent assessment or review of WGL’s claims? No. Washington Gas’ filings to the Public Service Commission of their 5-year Gas Portfolio Plan projections are confidential and not subject to public review and scrutiny.

Does Washington Gas publicly and cooperatively develop planning projections to meet demand with any County Planning Agency (as WSSC does for a ten year planning horizon)? No. Washington Gas does not publish or participate in any public, capital or infrastructure planning process or review in Prince George’s County.

Does Washington Gas employ an independent committee or board to review proposed capital budgets and system investments in Prince George’s County to consider alternatives to mitigate community or environmental impacts as WSSC does?

No. Washington Gas has not responded to public and private requests from locally elected officials to work with citizens and legislators to better coordinate their activity with the public. WGL does not want to work cooperatively with County planners and local jurisdictions. They prefer to hire lawyers, lobbyists, and public relations firms rather than to sit down with regional planners, residents, and stakeholders to address the alternatives before making controversial facility proposals. (3/2/06)
   
   
Up to Top