Philadelphia LNG Export Task Force Approves Report Supporting Dangerous Export Terminal
Yesterday, the Philadelphia LNG Export Task Force approved a report supporting locating a dangerous, economically unsound liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Southeast Pennsylvania without addressing community concerns. In Fall 2022, the Pennsylvania General Assembly voted to form the Philadelphia LNG Export Task Force to address the “existing obstacles, economic feasibility, economic impact and the security necessities” associated with turning the Port of Philadelphia into a liquefied natural gas export terminal. Yet no one consulted with members or representatives of potential host communities when drafting the bill. After its passage, the Council, joined by several community and environmental groups, unsuccessfully requested that the Task Force include local community members instead of only governmental and industry representatives. The text of the bill and initial Task Force discussions indicated that its analysis would be limited to the Port of Philadelphia. Even a Task Force member was unaware until April 2023 that the Task Force would focus heavily on a Chester site, with the possibility first being discussed in Fall 2022. Yet a 2016 report by Penn America, the company that would likely be building any LNG export terminal, analyzed building an LNG project on the Chester waterfront and the company had engaged in related clandestine discussions with elected officials in Chester and Harrisburg. Members of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL), who have long fought for environmental justice as their families are sickened by a concentration of polluting industries, were deeply disturbed by this lack of transparency. One CRCQL member described the process as “shrouded in secrecy.” A Minority Report by dissenting Task Force member State Representative Joseph C. Hohenstein explains why an LNG terminal in Southeast Pennsylvania would be dangerous, technically infeasible, and economically unwise. Regarding danger, Chester, for example, is an environmental justice community already overburdened with pollution. State Representative Carol Kazeem testified that Chester has a 27% childhood asthma rate and a 19.3% infant mortality. Emissions from an LNG facility would increase that burden. Additionally, LNG is heavily compressed, highly volatile gas. Colorless and odorless, leaking gas is difficult to detect and could rapidly displace air and asphyxiate anyone within range. If ignited, it can explode catastrophically, as when a June 2022 explosion at Freeport LNG caused a 450-foot-high fireball. Distance from population centers is crucial to physical safety, yet both Chester and Philadelphia are densely populated areas without any room to maintain distance from residents. Moreover, the climate crisis would be exacerbated both by methane releases and by further entrenchment in fossil fuel infrastructure. The potential export terminal locations are also infeasible because the large ships would need to travel narrow and shallow river sections, risking accidents. A restrictive covenant on the Chester site also prohibits its use as an LNG plant for the next 19 years—a barrier ignored in the Majority Report. Economically, the project makes little sense because the LNG export market is being flooded and demand in the European Union, the Task Force’s envisioned LNG market, is predicted to decrease drastically. Nevertheless, any contracts would likely be locked in for 20 years and involve tremendous capital investment. The Task Force majority’s recommendations are out of touch. It emphasizes large direct and indirect economic benefits based on an economic impact analysis. Yet, as shown by Texas AMU Professor John Crompton, “Most economic impact studies are commissioned to legitimize a political position rather than to search for economic truth.” Such analyses ignore costs to communities, including other lost opportunities. Here increased costs for domestic energy, healthcare, and climate change are ignored.
