|
|
|
7/9- I’m Ruling Out a
Comptroller Run
- by County
Executive Jim Smith -
|
After much deliberation, I
have decided not to run for Comptroller in the 2010 election. Although
this has not been an easy decision, I am confident that I am making the
right choice. Having spent many months thinking about the duties of
Comptroller in the State of Maryland, I have concluded that it is not a
position to which I aspire. I have never pursued any elected office
because it was expedient. I always sought the opportunity to serve
because I thought I could make a real difference - as a councilman, a
judge and currently as County Executive. I did not feel that passion
when considering a run for Comptroller.
Thank You
To those of you who have supported me as County Executive, and
encouraged me to consider a statewide run in 2010, I thank you from the
bottom of my heart. Your enthusiasm is amazing, and I am truly grateful
for your counsel and support. Rest assured that I remain committed to
public service, and I look forward to finding new ways to serve in the
future.
Created A Renaissance
Working together with the people of Baltimore County, we've created a
renaissance that is visible from one end of the County to the other. I
am excited about what we’ve accomplished, and I am energized by the
work we have left to do. There are eighteen months left in my
term as County Executive, and I am focused on completing what we
started.
|
We
Will Fight AES’s
Attempt to Place a LNG Plant in
Sparrows Point
- by County
Executive Jim Smith -
|
The recent decision
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to permit a
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant in Sparrows Point/Turner Station is
extremely disappointing, but please rest assured that as Baltimore
County Executive I will continue to stand with residents in eastern
Baltimore County and the Baltimore region to fight this
operation.
AES's misguided claims suggest that the plant will help reduce energy
costs for Marylanders. This is simply untrue. The Sparrows Point
plant is but one part of the AES company's proposal. What they do not
mention is that the 87-mile pipeline that will require the condemnation
of numerous properties by AES before carrying the gas into Pennsylvania
for distribution to the mid-Atlantic and New England markets will do
nothing to address Maryland's energy needs.
At the larger scale is the unmentioned, disturbing fact that the rush
by energy companies to build almost 20 LNG plants in the U.S. will move
this country to even greater energy dependence on more and more foreign
sources. The U.S. now imports about five percent of its natural
gas from foreign companies. If all the proposed LNG facilities under
review by the federal government are approved, that dependence will
increase to 20 percent! This shortsighted policy will make this
country and its citizens beholden to countries that can use yet another
energy source to manipulate our economy and pocketbooks.
The company's claim that the transportation of LNG into the Chesapeake
Bay can be done safely is belied by the requirements for constant
security by the already overburdened Coast Guard. What other energy
product or cargo is there that is moved over our waterways, highways
and through our communities with Coast Guard escorts, gun boats and
mandated clearance zones stopping maritime commerce? As these ships
move into the heart of the Chesapeake Bay and Baltimore's harbor all
shipping must stop, and recreational boaters must be held at specified
distances while this volatile cargo is transported. Throughout the
journey and whenever in port, LNG ships must be protected by gunboats.
This sounds like anything but safe transport to me.
While the purported safety “precautions” may be reassuring to AES and
FERC, they have not satisfied the Coast Guard and will not satisfy the
people of Baltimore County and across the region. AES tries to reassure
us of the safety controls by stating, “At all times during transit and
once at the facility site the LNG will be no closer than one mile from
populated areas.” What about boaters and watermen or travelers on the
Bay Bridges? What about other ships in the bay? What about the
workers at the LNG facility? What about the 2,500 workers at the
Sparrows Point steel plant? A mile away? Does this mean no new
businesses or land uses will be able to locate on the Sparrows Point
peninsula? Does that mean approval of the LNG plant has thwarted
redevelopment for green businesses and new steel facilities? The fact
is that if a terrorist attack or malfunction occurs at any given point
of transport or processing thousands will be at risk and have few
options for safe escape.
AES also claims, “In its liquid state, it cannot explode and does not
burn.” Once again the company fails to tell the whole
story. The off-loading and conversion process that will occur at
Sparrows Point is a potentially dangerous and volatile operation.
Accidents or terrorist attacks which cause a leak can allow the
extremely cold LNG to form “clouds” of vapor which are, in fact,
subject to fire and explosion. These explosions can create a
“burn zone,” which would subject property and people to flash burns and
may extend up to one and one-half miles from the source. In a
recent GAO report the experts could not agree on the extent of the
“burn zone” that would protect citizens.
The questions regarding the location of an LNG plant near a residential
community are quite simple and straightforward. Are we willing to risk
the safety of thousands of our citizens, the disruption of building 87
miles of pipeline through our forests, streams, next to our highways,
homes and schools? Are we willing to gamble that these floating
time bombs will go unnoticed by terrorists eyeing new targets? Are we
willing to rely on FERC in Washington to have the safety and best
interests of our people guiding their decision making process? I
believe the answer to all of those questions is a resounding no! We are
not willing to “roll the dice” on the safety of our citizens, our
communities and the national treasure, the Chesapeake
Bay.
|
|
|
|
