DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments on the Proposed Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (May 2018 Draft) Additional Comments Received Through August 31, 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments on the Proposed Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (May 2018 Draft) Additional Comments Received Through August 31, 2018 Comments on the Proposed Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (May 2018 Draft) Additional Comments Received through August 31, 2018 NAME GROUP/AGENCY TOWN DATE RECEIVED # OF PAGES Michael King Dowell 8/22/2018 1 Cynthia Gonzalez 8/22/2018 1 W.R. Boynton Prince Frederick 8/22/2018 2 Mary Ellen Boynton Prince Frederick 8/22/2018 2 Stephen Dargan Port Republic 8/22/2018 1 Carolyn Anderson Chesapeake Beach 8/22/2018 (x2) 4 Patrick Stepp Dunkirk 8/22/2018 1 Megan Brier Solomons 8/22/2018 1 Carol Grimstead Dunkirk 8/23/2018 1 Bob Priddy Solomons 8/23/2018 2 Charlene & Joe Kriemelmeyer Dunkirk 8/23/2018 18 Robert Smythe Owings 8/23/2018 1 Dottie Rodda Owings 8/24/2018 2 Cheryl Burge Dunkirk 8/24/2018 1 Betty Hunter Owings 8/24/2018 2 Renee Murphy Owings 8/25/2018 2 Kathleen Balderson Sunderland 8/25/2018 2 Virginia Smythe Owings 8/25/2018 2 Thomas Schmidt Dunkirk 8/25/2018 2 Harriet Gossett Prince Frederick 8/28/2018 2 Bucky Wells 8/28/2018 1 JP Sherkus & Phyllis Dunkirk 8/28/2018 1 JP Sherkus Dunkirk 8/30/2018 (x5) 5 Phyllis Sherkus Dunkirk 8/30/2018 (x7) 8 Tracey Dickerson Dunkirk 8/31/2018 (x2) 2 Page 1 of 2 Comments on the Proposed Calvert County Comprehensive Plan (May 2018 Draft) Additional Comments Received through August 31, 2018 NAME GROUP/AGENCY TOWN DATE RECEIVED # OF PAGES Gary Miller Dunkirk 8/31/2018 (x2) 3 David Cole Huntingtown 8/31/2018 2 Norman & Cynthia Junker Dunkirk 8/31/2018 1 Miriam Gholl Keep Calvert Country Port Republic 8/31/2018 26 Huntingtown Citizens Huntingtown Citizens Association Association Huntingtown 8/31/2018 9 Joe Kriemelmeyer, Jr. Dunkirk 8/31/2018 3 Charles Sadler 8/31/2018 2 Charlene Kriemelmeyer Dunkirk 8/31/2018 10 Page 2 of 2 Harrod, Felicia R. From: Michael King <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 4:43 AM To: Planning and Zoning Subject: Request For Studies BEFORE Growth Calvert County Planning Commission Members: As you are aware, Maryland Law requires that: "A Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan by carefully and comprehensively surveying and studying the present conditions and projections of future growth of the local jurisdiction." While the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan includes information about "present conditions", it lacks evidence that "projections of future growth" have been "carefully and comprehensively studied". Therefore, I am requesting that no growth be proposed in the Plan until studies are conducted to determine the effects on traffic, schools, the environment, water supply, budget, etc. before the Plan is approved. Specifically, the Plan should first answer the following basic question: 1 - How many households are projected if the growth in the Town Centers and Residential Areas are approved and if water and sewer is allowed to maximize density, as proposed? Based on the answer to the above, the following additional questions should be answered: 2 - How much traffic will be generated by the projected households? Can our roads accommodated the additional traffic? If not, what road improvements are needed? How will those improvements be funded? 3 - How many additional schools will be needed? How will they be funded? 4 - What impacts will the proposed growth have on our environment? How will those impacts be mitigated? 5 - Can our aquifers adequately supply water to the projected households? If not, what is the solution? If studies have in fact been conducted, I request that the results be added to the Plan and that they be shared with the public and the Planning Commission in a public presentation, with adequate time for review,questions and comments. If studies have not been conducted to answer the above questions, I request that the Planning Commission direct the Consultant and staff to conduct the necessary studies and that the results be presented to the Planning Commission and the public, with adequate time for review, questions and comments, before approval of the Plan. Thank you. Michael King [email protected] Dowell 1 Holt, Judy C. Subject: FW: Comments for Planning Commission From: Cynthia Gonzalez <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:49 AM To: O'Shea, Rachel D. <[email protected]> Subject: Comments for Planning Commission Rachel - Would you please forward these comments to the Planning Commission? There are no email addresses for the members listed on the Calvert County website. Thank you. Cynthia Gonzalez resident and voter Calvert County page 2-2 The draft CP states there are no major employers for the southern end of the county. I'm wondering what the definition of "major" is. How does PAX River impact employment in that area? Is is not a "major" employer? page 2-3 The draft CP notes an increase in the influx of workers to Calvert County from other locations. Is that to be explained by the lack of affordable housing for low-wage (minimum wage) employees? I know there is construction of workforce housing slated to begin this year. That construction will not solve the problem for our Wawa and McDonald's employees. What in the plan allows for solving this problem? 1 Harrod, Felicia R. From: W. R. Boynton <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 9:38 AM To: Planning and Zoning Subject: Request For Studies BEFORE Growth Calvert County Planning Commission Members: As you are aware, Maryland Law requires that: "A Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Plan by carefully and comprehensively surveying and studying the present conditions and projections of future growth of the local jurisdiction." While the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan includes information about "present conditions", it lacks evidence that "projections of future growth" have been "carefully and comprehensively studied". Therefore, I am requesting that no growth be proposed in the Plan until studies are conducted to determine the effects on traffic, schools, the environment, water supply, budget, etc. before the Plan is approved. Specifically, the Plan should first answer the following basic question: I - How many households are projected if the growth in the Town Centers and Residential Areas are approved and if water and sewer is allowed to maximize density, as proposed? Based on the answer to the above, the following additional questions should be answered: 2 - How much traffic will be generated by the projected households? Can our roads accommodated the additional traffic? If not, what road improvements are needed? How will those improvements be funded? 3 - How many additional schools will be needed? How will they be funded? 4 - What impacts will the proposed growth have on our environment? How will those impacts be mitigated? 5 - Can our aquifers adequately supply water to the projected households? If not, what is the solution? If studies have in fact been conducted, I request that the results be added to the Plan and that they be shared with the public and the Planning Commission in a public presentation, with adequate time for review,questions and comments. If studies have not been conducted to answer the above questions, I request that the Planning Commission direct the Consultant and staff to conduct the necessary studies and that the results be presented to the Planning Commission and the public, with adequate time for review, questions and comments, before approval of the Plan. Thank you. W. R. Boynton [email protected] Prince Frederick Having information concerning "carrying capacity" is needed and can be obtained. We need this information to guide plan development J 2 Harrod, Felicia R. From: Mary Ellen Boynton <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 12:48 PM To: Planning and Zoning Subject: Request For Studies BEFORE Growth Calvert County Planning Commission Members: As you are aware, Maryland Law requires that: "A Planning Commission shall prepare a Comprehensive Platt by carefully and comprehensively surveying and studying the present conditions and projections of future growth of the local jurisdiction." While the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan includes information about "present conditions", it lacks evidence that "projections of future growth" have been "carefully and comprehensively studied". Therefore, I am requesting that no growth be proposed in the Plan until studies are conducted to determine the effects on traffic, schools, the environment, water supply, budget, etc. before the Plan is approved. Specifically, the Plan should first answer the following basic question: 1 - How many households are projected if the growth in the Town Centers and Residential Areas are approved and if water and sewer is allowed to maximize density, as proposed? Based on the answer to the above, the following additional questions should be answered: 2 - How much traffic will be generated by the projected households? Can our roads accommodated the additional traffic? If not, what road improvements are needed? How will those improvements be funded? 3 - How many additional schools will be needed? How will they be funded? 4 - What impacts will the proposed growth have on our environment? How will those impacts be mitigated? 5 - Can our aquifers adequately supply water to the projected households? If not, what is the solution? If studies have in fact been conducted, I request that the results be added to the Plan and that they be shared with the public and the Planning Commission in a public presentation, with adequate time for review,questions and comments. If studies have not been conducted to answer the above questions, I request that the Planning Commission direct the Consultant and staff to conduct the necessary studies and that the results be presented to the Planning Commission and the public, with adequate time for review, questions and comments, before approval of the Plan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Weakest Link: the Consistent Refusal to Consider Far-Removed Indirect Effects of the Expansion of Lng Terminals
    RHODES FINAL 11/16/17 THE WEAKEST LINK: THE CONSISTENT REFUSAL TO CONSIDER FAR-REMOVED INDIRECT EFFECTS OF THE EXPANSION OF LNG TERMINALS Synopsis: The D.C. Circuit has recently ruled on numerous cases challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of the expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals to allow both export and import activity. Much of its analysis has focused on the delegation of authority between the De- partment of Energy (DOE) and FERC under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Envi- ronmental groups raised challenges to the Environmental Assessment (EA) com- pleted by FERC in each case, arguing that FERC failed to adequately consider direct and indirect effects of the expansion. The indirect effects would arise via a chain of events ultimately depending on the increased production and consump- tion of LNG. In each case, the Court has pointed out that FERC only has authority to regulate the expansion of the facilities themselves. Without approval by the DOE to allow the additional import or export at the individual terminal at issue, FERC’s approval can cause no indirect effects. Moreover, the Court has reiterated multiple times that since FERC’s approval does not cause these indirect effects, but the DOE’s approval does, these suits should have been brought against the DOE. In this note, I discuss one of these cases, EarthReports v. FERC, at length, as well as incorporate portions of other similar cases to come to an understanding regarding what steps potential challengers to similar approvals should take. If challengers hope to convince a court, particularly the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Imports and Exports Second Quarter Report 2019
    DOE/FE- 0615 Natural Gas Imports and Exports Second Quarter Report 2019 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement Division of Natural Gas Regulation Map shows the Exports of Domestically-Produced LNG Delievered by Vessel. (Cumulative starting from February 2016 through June 2019.) NATURAL GAS IMPORTS AND EXPORTS SECOND QUARTER REPORT 2019 Division of Natural Gas Regulation Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement Office of Oil & Natural Gas Office of Fossil Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-7991 [email protected] Table of Contents Summary ......................................................................................... 1 1 Quarterly Summary ...................................................................... 3 Maps of Imports & Exports by Point of Entry/Exit ........................................ 5 Graphical Summaries & Comparisons ............................................................ 11 Tabular Summaries & Comparisons ............................................................... 23 1a Quarter in Review ........................................................................................................................ 25 1b All Import/Export Activities YTD 2019 vs. YTD 2018 ........................................................... 26 1c All Import/Export Activities 1st Quarter 2019 vs. 4th Quarter 2018 ...................................... 27 1d All Import/Export Activities 1st Quarter 2019 vs. 1st Quarter 2018 .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • January 26, 2017 Hon. Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal
    Joshua A. Konecni Associate Counsel Rockland Electric Company 4 Irving Place, Room 1815-S, New York, NY 10003 Tel.: 212-460-3593 Email: [email protected] January 26, 2017 Hon. Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Re: Rockland Electric Company, Docket No. ER17-___856-000 Dear Ms. Bose: Pursuant to Sections 205 and 219 of the Federal Power Act,1 Part 35 of the Commission’s Regulations,2 and Order No. 679,3 Rockland Electric Company (“RECO”) respectfully requests that the Commission approve: (1) the attached Tariff sheets updating RECO’s stated annual transmission revenue requirement, transmission rates, and rate for Schedule 1A services;4 (2) a new RECO base return on equity (“ROE”) of 10.2 percent; and (3) a 50 basis point ROE adder for RECO’s continued participation in PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (“PJM”), a Regional Transmission Organization (“RTO”) (“RTO Participation Incentive”).5 RECO is thus seeking a new total ROE of 10.7 percent, which is less than its current ROE of 11.11 percent. In support of this filing, RECO submits the testimony and associated exhibits of: (1) Francis Peverly, Vice President - Operations, Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (“O&R”); (2) the accounting panel of John de la Bastide, Jack Deem, and Wenqi Wang, (“Accounting Panel”); and (3) Adrian McKenzie. RECO also submits the cost of service 1 16 U.S.C. §§ 824d and 824s (2012). 2 18 C.F.R. §35.13 (2016). 3 Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing Reform, Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Energy Landscape and Its Impact on Economic Development in America
    The Changing Energy Landscape and its impact on economic development in America The Changing Energy Landscape And its Impact on Economic Development in America International Economic Development Council IEDC is the world’s largest membership organization serving the economic development profession, with more than 5,000 members and a network of more than 25,000 economic development professionals and allies. From public to private, rural to urban, and local to international, our members represent the entire range of economic development experience. Through a range of services including conferences, training courses, webinars, publications, research and technical assistance efforts, we strive to provide cutting-edge knowledge to the economic development community and its stakeholders. For more information about IEDC, visit www.iedconline.org. Craig J. Richards, CEcD, FM President & CEO Tampa Hillsborough Economic Development Corporation, FL 2018 Chairman of the Board, IEDC Michael Langley, FM, HLM President & CEO Greater Minneapolis Saint Paul Regional Economic Development Partnership, MN 2017 Chairman of the Board, IEDC Jeffrey A. Finkle, CEcD President & CEO International Economic Development Council © Copyright 2018 International Economic Development Council 2 | E D R P – The Changing Energy Landscape Economic Development Research Partners The EDRP Program is the “think tank” component of IEDC, designed to help economic development professionals weather the challenges and grab opportunities from economic changes affecting our communities. EDRP members are leaders in the field of economic development, working through this program to improve the knowledge and practice of the profession. IEDC would like to thank the Economic Development Research Partners program for providing the impetus and resources for this project.
    [Show full text]
  • GIIGNL Annual Report Profile
    The LNG industry GIIGNL Annual Report Profile Acknowledgements Profile We wish to thank all member companies for their contribution to the report and the GIIGNL is a non-profit organisation whose objective following international experts for their is to promote the development of activities related to comments and suggestions: LNG: purchasing, importing, processing, transportation, • Cybele Henriquez – Cheniere Energy handling, regasification and its various uses. • Najla Jamoussi – Cheniere Energy • Callum Bennett – Clarksons The Group constitutes a forum for exchange of • Laurent Hamou – Elengy information and experience among its 88 members in • Jacques Rottenberg – Elengy order to enhance the safety, reliability, efficiency and • María Ángeles de Vicente – Enagás sustainability of LNG import activities and in particular • Paul-Emmanuel Decroës – Engie the operation of LNG import terminals. • Oliver Simpson – Excelerate Energy • Andy Flower – Flower LNG • Magnus Koren – Höegh LNG • Mariana Ortiz – Naturgy Energy Group • Birthe van Vliet – Shell • Mika Iseki – Tokyo Gas • Yohei Hukins – Tokyo Gas • Donna DeWick – Total • Emmanuelle Viton – Total • Xinyi Zhang – Total © GIIGNL - International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers All data and maps provided in this publication are for information purposes and shall be treated as indicative only. Under no circumstances shall they be regarded as data or maps intended for commercial use. Reproduction of the contents of this publication in any manner whatsoever is prohibited without prior
    [Show full text]
  • Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Snm-2501 Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc
    0V- Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060 £# Dominion® April 27, 2006 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Se rial No.: 06-279 Attention: Document Control Desk NLLOS/MB Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dcocket Nos.: 50-280/281 50-338/339 50-245/3361423 50-305 72-16 72-2 Lic,ense Nos.: DPR-32/37 NPF-4/7 DPR-21/65 NPF-49 DPR-43 SNM-2507 DOMINION ENERGY KEWAUNEE, INC. SNM-2501 DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY KEWAUNEE POWER STATION MILLSTONE POWER STATION UNITS 1. 2 & 3 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNITS 1 & 2 AND ISFSI SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 & 2 AND ISFSI SUBMISSION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71 (b) and 10 CFR 72.80(b), attached are copies of the Annual Report to Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10K for 2005 for Dominion Resources, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company. If there are any questions, please contact Mr. Dave Sommers at (804) 273-2823. Very truly yours, Eugene S. Grecheck Vice President - Nuclear Support Services Attachments: Form 1Ok for 2005 for Dominion Resources, Inc. Form 1Ok for 2005 for Virginia Electric and Power Company Commitments made by this letter: None (KAcb)4 - - SN 06-279 2005 Annual Financial Report cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I .475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center '1 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23 T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-8931 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IlIl 2443 Warrenville Road Suite 210 Lisle, IL 60532-4352 ,Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Imports and Exports First Quarter Report 2019
    DOE/FE- 0614 Natural Gas Imports and Exports First Quarter Report 2019 Prepared by: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement Division of Natural Gas Regulation Map shows the Exports of Domestically-Produced LNG Delievered by Vessel. (Cumulative starting from February 2016 through March 2019.) NATURAL GAS IMPORTS AND EXPORTS FIRST QUARTER REPORT 2019 Division of Natural Gas Regulation Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement Office of Oil & Natural Gas Office of Fossil Energy U.S. Department of Energy 202-586-7991 [email protected] Table of Contents Summary ......................................................................................... 1 1 Quarterly Summary ...................................................................... 3 Maps of Imports & Exports by Point of Entry/Exit ........................................ 5 Graphical Summaries & Comparisons ............................................................ 11 Tabular Summaries & Comparisons ............................................................... 23 1a Quarter in Review ........................................................................................................................ 25 1b All Import/Export Activities YTD 2019 vs. YTD 2018 ........................................................... 26 1c All Import/Export Activities 1st Quarter 2019 vs. 4th Quarter 2018 ...................................... 27 1d All Import/Export Activities 1st Quarter 2019 vs. 1st Quarter 2018 .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Calvert County Comprehensive Plan May 2018 Draft
    CALVERT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY 2018 DRAFT CA VERT 2040 Your county. Your future. Acknowledgements Board of County Commissioners Evan K. Slaughenhoupt, President; Tom HejI, Vice President; Pat Nutter; Mike Hart; and Steven R. Weems County Administrator Terry Shannon, County Administrator Planning Commission Carolyn McHugh, Chair; Greg Kernan, Vice Chair; Rob Reed; Richard Holler; Steve Jones; Maria Buehler; and John Toohey Department of Planning & Zoning Core Team J. Mark Willis, Director; Britany Waddell, AICP, Deputy Director/Planning; Mary Beth Cook, Deputy Director/Zoning Officer; Carolyn Sunderland, AICP, Planning Commission Administrator; Jenny Plummer-Welker, AICP, Long Range Planner; Patricia Haddon, AICP, Principal Planner; Will Selman, CNU-A, Community Designer; Rachel O'Shea, Rural Planner III; Kirsti Uunila, RPA, Historic Preservation Planner Ill; Tay Harris, Planner II; Ronald Marney, AICP, CFM, Planner II; George W. "Will" Hager, Planner I; Judy Holt, Planner I; and Rebekah Swieringa, Planning Intern Other Staff Ray Alvey; Michael Bayer; Tamara Blake Wallace; Chris Breedlove; Dr. Dave Brownlee, AICP; Denise Cherry; Christine Finamore; Ashleigh Goedeke; Lindsay Halterman; Felicia Harrod; Jennifer Jackson; Judy Mackall; Becky Parkinson; John Schwartz, CFM; Rick Stotler; Olivia Vidotto; and Roxana Whitt Calvert Library Carrie Plymire, Director, and Robyn Truslow Calvert Marine Museum Sherrod Sturrock, Director, and Jeff Murray Department of Communications and Media Relations Linda Vassallo, Director, Ruthie Buckler, Angela
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Power Plants and the Environment (Ceir-19)
    PPRP – CEIR-19 DNR Publication No. 12-102920-260 Maryland Power Plants and the Environment A review of the impacts of power plants and transmission lines on Maryland's natural resources December 2017 Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr., Governor u Boyd K. Rutherford, Lt. Governor The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) seeks to preserve, protect and enhance the living resources of the state. Working in partnership with the citizens of Maryland, this worthwhile goal will become a reality. This publication provides information that will increase your understanding of how DNR strives to reach that goal through its many diverse programs. Mark J. Belton, Secretary Maryland Department of Natural Resources The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. This document is available in alternative format upon request from a qualified individual with a disability. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tawes State Office Building 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401-2397 Toll Free in Maryland: 1-877-620-8DNR x8660 Outside Maryland: 1-410-260-8660 TTY users call via the Maryland Relay www.dnr.maryland.gov Printed on Recycled Paper PPRP – CEIR – 19 DNR Publication No. 12-102920-260 Maryland Power Plants and the Environment A review of the impacts of power plants and transmission lines on Maryland's natural resources December 2017 MARYLAND POWER PLANTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CEIR-19) Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Background ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 The Role of PPRP ............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Power Plant and Transmission Line Licensing ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dominion Covepoint Petition2007.Pdf
    -J Sevilla­ To Peter GoldlR3/USEPAlUS@EPA. Paul <qmakeda~chesapeake.net> Amold/R3/USEPAlUS@EPA. Dave a CampbeIVR3/USEPAlUS@EPA. Donald cc "Abrams. Ben" <[email protected]>. 101021200702:12 AM <[email protected]>. <[email protected]>. .. <[email protected]>. "Governor" bcc Subject Fw: APPEAL to EPA Re: Dominion Cove Point LNG - MOE Final Decision to Renew Title V Part 70 Operating Permit . ~i~tOfY:;; ... 'l'''~~~ ThI;~~ge~a~ been-fo~a~ded:- .•...=.__. Mr. Stephen L. Johnson, US EPA Headquarters Mr Oonald Welsh - EPA Region 3 Per letter from Peter Gold, below, I am resubmitting my appeal to the EPA and also the appeal on behalf of citizens of High Risk Communities (scroll down to appeal email sent July 24,2007, sent per instructions from MOE). I have also included a "big picture" drawing of the situation regarding this appeal. This "big picture" illustrates the situation at Cove Point and provides an integrated view of our concerns which have been detailed in the attached documents previously submitted to MOE and EPA. This appeal also reiterates the emphasis that must be placed on the "big picture" which affects us all, not just Cove Point. Human health, the environment, Homeland Security, and Maryland's seafood commerce are just a few of the reasons why we are appealing to regulators to look at this perspective to do the right thing. This means putting human health and the environment at the forefront. The reason EPA and MOE were established are evident in the agency titles and in your mission statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominion Cove Point LNG, 2009
    Dominion Cove Point LNG Page 1 of 2 Dominion Cove Point LNG Dominion Cove Point LNG is located on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, Maryland, south of Baltimore. It is one of the nation's largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facilities. Dominion acquired Cove Point from Williams on Sept. 5, 2002, and began receiving ships in the summer of 2003. In 2009, Dominion finished an expansion project that increased Cove Point's storage and production capacity by nearly 80 percent. Explore the left-margin links to learn more about the facility and LNG. Dominion Cove Point will play an increasingly critical role in coming years. Natural gas is the energy of choice for many Americans, and demand is expected to grow through the next decade. Although there are vast reserves of natural gas in the United States, many are not yet available. Reserves in a number of other countries are available and for sale, but the gas has to be transported. The most efficient way to transport natural gas across the ocean is to liquefy it and transport it in specially built ships. Dominion Cove Point is strategically located where it can receive transport vessels, store the LNG onshore, then transform it back to gas when it is needed to meet demand. Facility Operation Dominion Cove Point has a storage capacity of 14.6 billion cubic feet (BCF) and a daily send-out capacity of 1.8 BCF. The terminal connects, via its own pipeline, to the major Mid-Atlantic gas transmission systems of Transcontinental Gas Pipeline, Columbia Gas Transmission and Dominion Transmission.
    [Show full text]
  • CP13-113-000 Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP
    148 FERC ¶ 61,244 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Cheryl A. LaFleur, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, Tony Clark, and Norman C. Bay. Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP Docket No. CP13-113-000 ORDER GRANTING SECTION 3 AND SECTION 7 AUTHORIZATIONS (Issued September 29, 2014) Paragraph Numbers I. Background ............................................................................................................................ 3. II. Proposal ................................................................................................................................. 7. A. Dominion’s Cove Point Liquefaction Project .................................................................. 7. B. Virginia Facilities ............................................................................................................. 12. C. Services ............................................................................................................................. 18. III. Public Notice ....................................................................................................................... 20. IV. Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 26. A. Dominion’s Cove Point Liquefaction Project .................................................................. 26. B. Virginia Facilities ............................................................................................................. 34. 1. Subsidization
    [Show full text]