Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

This story is part of theWHYY News Climate Desk, bringing you news and solutions for our changing region.From the Poconos to the Jersey Shore to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, what do you want to know about climate change? What would you like us to cover?Get in touch.The Philadelphia Gas Commission on Tuesday approved $213 million for Philadelphia Gas Works’ fiscal year 2027 capital budget. In a unanimous vote that included four of the five commissioners present, a decision on the utility’s controversial request to spend $182 million to replace its natural gas liquifier in Port Richmond was tabled for the second time.The proposal would increase PGW’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas by 1 billion cubic feet, about one-third larger than its current 2.2 billion cubic feet processing facility. Instead, the commission approved $1 million for an environmental impact study and $4 million for an engineering study.The studies will “evaluate the liquefier’s current condition, structural integrity, operational efficiency, and remaining useful life along with emissions and air quality effects,” according to a press release sent immediately after the vote by City Controller and Chair of the Philadelphia Gas Commission Christy Brady and City Councilmember and vice-chair of the commission Mike Driscoll.Driscoll and Brady said more information is needed to review the impact of an expanded liquified natural gas facility.“We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” From the Poconos to the Jersey Shore to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, what do you want to know about climate change? What would you like us to cover?Get in touch.The Philadelphia Gas Commission on Tuesday approved $213 million for Philadelphia Gas Works’ fiscal year 2027 capital budget. In a unanimous vote that included four of the five commissioners present, a decision on the utility’s controversial request to spend $182 million to replace its natural gas liquifier in Port Richmond was tabled for the second time.The proposal would increase PGW’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas by 1 billion cubic feet, about one-third larger than its current 2.2 billion cubic feet processing facility. Instead, the commission approved $1 million for an environmental impact study and $4 million for an engineering study.The studies will “evaluate the liquefier’s current condition, structural integrity, operational efficiency, and remaining useful life along with emissions and air quality effects,” according to a press release sent immediately after the vote by City Controller and Chair of the Philadelphia Gas Commission Christy Brady and City Councilmember and vice-chair of the commission Mike Driscoll.Driscoll and Brady said more information is needed to review the impact of an expanded liquified natural gas facility.“We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” The Philadelphia Gas Commission on Tuesday approved $213 million for Philadelphia Gas Works’ fiscal year 2027 capital budget. In a unanimous vote that included four of the five commissioners present, a decision on the utility’s controversial request to spend $182 million to replace its natural gas liquifier in Port Richmond was tabled for the second time.The proposal would increase PGW’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas by 1 billion cubic feet, about one-third larger than its current 2.2 billion cubic feet processing facility. Instead, the commission approved $1 million for an environmental impact study and $4 million for an engineering study.The studies will “evaluate the liquefier’s current condition, structural integrity, operational efficiency, and remaining useful life along with emissions and air quality effects,” according to a press release sent immediately after the vote by City Controller and Chair of the Philadelphia Gas Commission Christy Brady and City Councilmember and vice-chair of the commission Mike Driscoll.Driscoll and Brady said more information is needed to review the impact of an expanded liquified natural gas facility.“We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” The proposal would increase PGW’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas by 1 billion cubic feet, about one-third larger than its current 2.2 billion cubic feet processing facility. Instead, the commission approved $1 million for an environmental impact study and $4 million for an engineering study.The studies will “evaluate the liquefier’s current condition, structural integrity, operational efficiency, and remaining useful life along with emissions and air quality effects,” according to a press release sent immediately after the vote by City Controller and Chair of the Philadelphia Gas Commission Christy Brady and City Councilmember and vice-chair of the commission Mike Driscoll.Driscoll and Brady said more information is needed to review the impact of an expanded liquified natural gas facility.“We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” The studies will “evaluate the liquefier’s current condition, structural integrity, operational efficiency, and remaining useful life along with emissions and air quality effects,” according to a press release sent immediately after the vote by City Controller and Chair of the Philadelphia Gas Commission Christy Brady and City Councilmember and vice-chair of the commission Mike Driscoll.Driscoll and Brady said more information is needed to review the impact of an expanded liquified natural gas facility.“We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” Driscoll and Brady said more information is needed to review the impact of an expanded liquified natural gas facility.“We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” “We need a fuller picture of the proposed LNG liquefier replacement before moving forward with the approval of PGW’s $182 million cost estimate,” Brady said in a statement. “It hasn’t been shown that the replacement project was ready and lacked important details such as design plans and the total costs to ratepayers.”Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” Speaking after the vote, Patrick Houston, who testified against the project as part of the coalitionHERE 4 Climate Justice, said he’s happy with the decision to table the approved funding for now.“It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” “It’s a move in the right direction,” Houston said. “They are not allocating the $182 million for the LNG plant, and that’s exactly what we demanded. We need greater scrutiny from the Gas Commission on PGW for any new energy projects, and we need to start to direct our money towards more affordable renewable alternatives and not more fossil fuel infrastructure.”Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” Neighborhood residents, health care workers and climate activists have testified against the plans to replace and expand the plant, which sits along the Delaware River in the Port Richmond neighborhood.Gas Commission staff reverses their position on PGW’s proposed Port Richmond LNG projectIn March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” In March, the commission’s staff had reviewed the proposal as part of the utility’s 2027 capital budget andrecommended that the five commissioners reject the $182 million project,saying the design plans were incomplete and that the utility did not justify the increased capacity. ThePublic Advocate agreed, saying the new proposal was oversized and could overburden PGW customers with higher rates.But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” But PGW argued approval for the plant was urgent, as the utility needed to have the liquefier operating by 2030 for safety and affordability. The utility said the increase in size is needed to meet demand and at the commission’s meeting April 15, urged the commissioners to reject the staff’s recommendation. Liquefied natural gas requires a substantial amount of energy to cool methane in its gaseous form to -260° Fahrenheit, where it becomes a liquid. The plant has been operating since the 1970s and stores the gas in 12-story white storage tanks.One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” One issue continues to be a lack of agreement between the two sides as to how much money the LNG plant saves ratepayers, and how much of the expansion costs would fall to ratepayers.But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” But in a surprise move at the commission’s meeting April 15,the commissioners tabled the vote.In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” In anupdated recommendation by the commission staff posted a week and a half later on April 27, the hearing examiners continued to recommend rejecting the $182 million for the LNG plant in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget due to a lack of engineering plans. But it reversed course on other issues based on new information it said PGW provided. The commission staff now agrees with the utility that it needs to update the plant for safety reasons and agreed that it needs an increased capacity.Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” Community Legal Services supervising attorney Rob Ballenger, who serves as the Public Advocate, told the commissioners Tuesday that staff should not have reversed its position on the need and size of the LNG plant.“I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” “I fundamentally disagree with staff’s conclusion that PGW has substantiated its need for a liquifier capable of producing 3.3 [billion cubic feet] of LNG annually,” Ballenger told the commissioners. “Staff previously recognized PGW’s proposal was outsized, and so could adversely impact rates. Staff now completely ignores those findings, placing customers at risk.”Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” Ballenger said PGW relied on “unsubstantiated and severely outdated” data that dates back to the 1960s to justify the capital expense.“It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” “It has never faced a shortage of gas with its existing facility capable of producing no more than 2.2 [billion cubic feet]. In fact, in many years, PGW has had excess supply. It has sold that excess supply in off-system transactions … to be trucked out of its facilities outside of Philadelphia.” PGW’s proposed liquefied natural gas plant in Philadelphia’s Port Richmond neighborhood now in limbo PGW says it needs to replace an aging liquefier in Port Richmond. Philadelphia Gas Commission staff had recommended not to approve the project. PGW says it needs to replace an aging liquefier in Port Richmond. Philadelphia Gas Commission staff had recommended not to approve the project. 4 weeks ago In an emailed statement, PGW said the expansion would enable it to provide more affordable rates.“Without a budget that includes funds to support critical components of PGW’s LNG (liquefied natural gas) infrastructure – customer safety, reliability and affordability are put at risk,” said Christina Clark, director of media relations at PGW. “Just a few months ago, Winter Storm Fern caused reliability and affordability challenges across the northeast. PGW customers were spared price spikes and service interruptions due to PGW’s LNG infrastructure. That infrastructure saved customers an estimated $90 million in additional expenses.”Ballenger has said the $90 million figure does not factor in the operating costsof liquefying the gas.PGW has two LNG facilities: the Richmond Plant in Port Richmond has one liquifier and the Passyunk Plant in South Philadelphia stores LNG. The utility uses the facilities to liquefy and store gas that it purchases at a lower price during the offseason and then sells to customers during cold winters when demand is high.PGW is also negotiating a public-private partnership to fund the new plant, which, if successful, would negate the need for the $182 million in capital funds.Public commenters challenge the city’s climate commitments and Gas Commission’s transparencyDuring the public comment period, several residents said expanding the city’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas does not align with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. “Without a budget that includes funds to support critical components of PGW’s LNG (liquefied natural gas) infrastructure – customer safety, reliability and affordability are put at risk,” said Christina Clark, director of media relations at PGW. “Just a few months ago, Winter Storm Fern caused reliability and affordability challenges across the northeast. PGW customers were spared price spikes and service interruptions due to PGW’s LNG infrastructure. That infrastructure saved customers an estimated $90 million in additional expenses.”Ballenger has said the $90 million figure does not factor in the operating costsof liquefying the gas.PGW has two LNG facilities: the Richmond Plant in Port Richmond has one liquifier and the Passyunk Plant in South Philadelphia stores LNG. The utility uses the facilities to liquefy and store gas that it purchases at a lower price during the offseason and then sells to customers during cold winters when demand is high.PGW is also negotiating a public-private partnership to fund the new plant, which, if successful, would negate the need for the $182 million in capital funds.Public commenters challenge the city’s climate commitments and Gas Commission’s transparencyDuring the public comment period, several residents said expanding the city’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas does not align with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Ballenger has said the $90 million figure does not factor in the operating costsof liquefying the gas.PGW has two LNG facilities: the Richmond Plant in Port Richmond has one liquifier and the Passyunk Plant in South Philadelphia stores LNG. The utility uses the facilities to liquefy and store gas that it purchases at a lower price during the offseason and then sells to customers during cold winters when demand is high.PGW is also negotiating a public-private partnership to fund the new plant, which, if successful, would negate the need for the $182 million in capital funds.Public commenters challenge the city’s climate commitments and Gas Commission’s transparencyDuring the public comment period, several residents said expanding the city’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas does not align with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. PGW has two LNG facilities: the Richmond Plant in Port Richmond has one liquifier and the Passyunk Plant in South Philadelphia stores LNG. The utility uses the facilities to liquefy and store gas that it purchases at a lower price during the offseason and then sells to customers during cold winters when demand is high.PGW is also negotiating a public-private partnership to fund the new plant, which, if successful, would negate the need for the $182 million in capital funds.Public commenters challenge the city’s climate commitments and Gas Commission’s transparencyDuring the public comment period, several residents said expanding the city’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas does not align with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. PGW is also negotiating a public-private partnership to fund the new plant, which, if successful, would negate the need for the $182 million in capital funds.Public commenters challenge the city’s climate commitments and Gas Commission’s transparencyDuring the public comment period, several residents said expanding the city’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas does not align with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. During the public comment period, several residents said expanding the city’s capacity to liquefy and store natural gas does not align with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2050.Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Port Richmond resident Sara Baier asked the commission to consider the city’s goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 and objected to the lack of public engagement over the project in her neighborhood.“We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. “We should not have to learn about a $182 million project like this through social media, neighborhood groups or back channels,” Baier testified. “We deserved a seat at the table from the beginning.”Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Baier said her Port Richmond neighbors organized because they felt the process lacked transparency.Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Commissioner Dominic McGraw urged PGW during the meeting to follow the city’s best practices for community engagement.PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. PGW did not answer WHYY News’ questions about past or future public outreach plans.Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Dr. Paul Devine Bottone, a pediatrician, told commissioners to reject the LNG plant due to its potential to increase climate warming emissions and public health concerns, especially since Port Richmond residents are exposed to air pollution from I-95.“When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. “When we think about the extraction, the processing, the transport, the storage of natural gas, we know that lots of volatile organic compounds that have been extensively linked to cancer are at much higher rates in the areas around those plants,” Devine Battone said.Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Devine Bottone also questioned the reversal of staff recommendations between the commission’s April and May public meetings.“It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. “It’s very concerning to me that all of a sudden this review that said one thing last time now says something different,” Devine Bottone said. “It was very confusing to everybody why last time we all just kind of adjourned. There was no decision made. Now we’re all coming back, and there’s this new report that says something different. So it raises the concern that something happened behind the scenes that we didn’t get to see.”PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. PGW’s capital budget now heads to Philadelphia City Council for approval. Get daily updates from WHYY News! The free WHYY News Daily newsletter delivers the most important local stories to your inbox. WHYY is your source for fact-based, in-depth journalism and information. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on financial support from readers like you. Pleasegive today. Penn researchers are turning food scraps into building materials — from pineapple peels to celery stalks At Penn’s DumoLab, researchers work to solve multiple problems: how to keep food waste out of landfills, make healthier building materials and tackle climate change. At Penn’s DumoLab, researchers work to solve multiple problems: how to keep food waste out of landfills, make healthier building materials and tackle climate change. 18 hours ago Philly climate activists celebrate a rare win in their battle to reform PGW The settlement with PGW lowers the utility’s planned rate hikes, and forces the natural gas provider to hold public hearings over climate impacts. The settlement with PGW lowers the utility’s planned rate hikes, and forces the natural gas provider to hold public hearings over climate impacts. 9 months ago On Earth Day, protesters call on Mayor Parker to denounce PGW and gas lobby efforts to upend green energy Local climate activists rallied against Philadelphia Gas Works’ financial support to an industry group lobbying against clean energy. Local climate activists rallied against Philadelphia Gas Works’ financial support to an industry group lobbying against clean energy. 1 year ago

U.S. oilfield services company Weatherford International has lined up new assignments with two offshore drilling players, U.S.-headquartered Noble Corporation and Brazil’s Constellation Oil Services. Weatherford has been awarded multiple managed pressure drilling (MPD) contracts and a global aftermarket agreement with Noble, strengthening the duo’s long-standing relationship. These awards entail the delivery of two deepwater managed pressure drilling systems to support the rig owner’s Guyana operations, with delivery expected before year-end. Girish Saligram, Weatherford’s President and Chief Executive Officer, commented:“Our MPD systems are designed to provide precise pressure control, enhance safety, and improve drilling efficiency, and our global manufacturing and aftermarket capabilities ensure consistent performance throughout the asset lifecycle.” The oilfield services player is executing an upgrade on a third-party MPD system, which is being assembled and configured at the firm’s Managed Pressure Wells Center of Excellence in Houston, with deployment to Nigeria expected in the third quarter. The duo has also entered into a global aftermarket agreement covering MPD systems across Noble’s fleet, providing standardized life-cycle support, parts, and services to enhance operational reliability worldwide. This content is available after accepting the cookies. Noble scores over half a billion dollars in drilling gigs for rig sextet Joey Kawaja, Noble’s Senior Vice President of Operations, underlined:“Managed pressure drilling plays a critical role in enabling safe and efficient execution in some of the world’s most complex offshore environments. “Weatherford has been a trusted partner to Noble for many years, and these awards reinforce our confidence in their MPD technology, operational expertise, and global support capabilities. The addition of new systems further strengthens our ability to deliver top-tier performance across our fleet and support our customers worldwide.” Weatherford claims that its MPD solutions deliver precise wellbore pressure control to support drilling performance in complex and high-pressure environments while improving safety and reducing non-productive time. This content is available after accepting the cookies. Transocean, Noble, COSL, Seadrill, and Valaris pinpointed as rig backlog powerhouses Aside from the deal with Noble, the company has secured two contracts with Constellation Oil Services to support offshore operations in Brazil, strengthening its long‑standing presence in the country’s deepwater market. These deals, which span both well intervention and drilling activities, are interpreted to reinforce the oilfield services firm’s position as a trusted partner to drilling contractors operating in Brazil’s most complex offshore environments. Under the first contract, Weatherford will expand its services on Constellation’sGold Starultra deepwater (UDV) semi-submersible rig, which operates offshore Brazil, focused on theCamposandEspírito Santobasins. The additional scope of work is perceived to support plug and abandonment and workover activities, enhance the Gold Star rig’s capability for offshore well intervention work, and strengthen its position within the Brazilian offshore market. The company intends to execute the work using local teams and infrastructure in the South American country. The new deal started in March 2026 and is expected to run through December 2028, aligned with the term of the Gold Star rig’s contract. This content is available after accepting the cookies. Rig gigs with Petrobras bring Constellation $1.1 billion in additional backlog “This marks the first time such an integrated service has been incorporated into the rig’s scope of work and the first instance of this model being contracted by the end client directly through the rig,”elaborated Weatherford. The second, independent award from Constellation Oil Services enables the U.S. oilfield services player to support a new offshore drilling campaign in Brazil, with a focus on theBúzios field, one of the country’s largest offshore production areas. The scope encompasses the provision of drilling technology for the Brazilian drilling firm’sBrava StarUDW drillship, under which Weatherford will provide equipment and operate and maintain the system, commencing in the first quarter of 2027 through December 2030. Saligram highlighted:“These awards reflect Weatherford’s ability to execute complex offshore operations at scale, combining proven technology with strong local delivery and the continued confidence Constellation places in our operational capabilities. “Across intervention and drilling activities, our solutions are supporting safer operations, improved performance, and high reliability in deepwater environments, backed by dedicated infrastructure and experienced teams in Brazil.” Take the spotlight and anchor your brand in the heart of the offshore world! Join us for a bigger impact and amplify your presence at the core hub of the offshore energy community!

Londres, Inglaterra – (5 de mayo de 2026) — Los debates en la84.ª sesióndelComité de Protección del Medio Marino (MEPC)de laOrganización Marítima Internacionalsubrayan un punto fundamental: la reducción de emisiones a largo plazo en el sector marítimo no se logrará únicamente mediante combustibles y políticas, sino a través de la calidad del mantenimiento de los buques e infraestructuras durante toda su vida útil. La prevención de la corrosión, la integridad de los activos y la gestión del ciclo de vida son esenciales para lograr un progreso significativo y sostenido hacia los objetivos de sostenibilidad global. Como organización no gubernamental (ONG) participante en la OMI, la Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP) aporta experiencia técnica y estándares globales para garantizar que estos elementos críticos sean reconocidos dentro del diálogo regulatorio internacional. Mientras continúa el progreso hacia un Marco Global de Cero Emisiones Netas, el diálogo en curso destaca la necesidad de soluciones prácticas y escalables que proporcionen mejoras de rendimiento mensurables en la actualidad. La prevención de la corrosión es una de las herramientas más inmediatas y rentables disponibles para mejorar la eficiencia y reducir las emisiones. Extender la vida útil de los buques, reducir el mantenimiento no planificado y minimizar los retrabajos disminuye directamente los costes del ciclo de vida y la huella ambiental de las operaciones marítimas. En la MEPC 84, las deliberaciones continuas sobre medidas de reducción de gases de efecto invernadero pusieron de manifiesto la complejidad de lograr una alineación global. AMPP, la principal autoridad mundial en protección y rendimiento de materiales, señala que la integración de prácticas de integridad de activos como la preparación adecuada de superficies, recubrimientos de alto rendimiento e inspección cualificada puede proporcionar beneficios mensurables hoy, incluso mientras los marcos a largo plazo aún están en desarrollo. El Comité también confirmó el progreso hacia una convención independiente sobre bioincrustación, un desarrollo que AMPP considera estrechamente alineado con su misión. La gestión eficaz de la bioincrustación depende en gran medida del rendimiento del sistema de recubrimiento y del estado del casco, ambos directamente influenciados por las prácticas de control de la corrosión. Un rendimiento deficiente del recubrimiento puede provocar un aumento de la resistencia, un mayor consumo de combustible y una degradación estructural acelerada. Un sistema de recubrimiento bien mantenido no es solo una cuestión de mantenimiento; es una cuestión de eficiencia energética y emisiones. Cuando la corrosión no se gestiona adecuadamente, la industria paga por ello dos veces: una en mayores costes operativos y otra en un mayor impacto ambiental. Mientras los Estados miembros continúan evaluando vías hacia la descarbonización, AMPP enfatiza que la integridad de los activos debe formar parte del conjunto de soluciones. Un marco global que pase por alto la gestión de la corrosión conlleva mayores costes del ciclo de vida y oportunidades perdidas de mejoras de eficiencia. Por el contrario, integrar la prevención de la corrosión en las estrategias regulatorias y operativas favorece una mayor vida útil de los activos, una mejor fiabilidad y menores emisiones acumuladas. AMPP mantiene su compromiso de apoyar a la industria marítima mediante el desarrollo de estándares, la formación de la fuerza laboral y la experiencia técnica que mejoran la fiabilidad de los activos, reducen los costes del ciclo de vida y contribuyen a los objetivos ambientales a largo plazo. Para obtener más información sobre las formas en que AMPP protege la infraestructura marítima, visiteProtect Maritime Infrastructure with Targeted Corrosion Control Strategies – AMPP. La Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP) es un líder mundial dedicado a la protección de activos y el rendimiento de materiales industriales y naturales. Establecida en 2021, AMPP reúne casi 150 años de experiencia combinada de organizaciones predecesoras para impulsar soluciones que mejoran la seguridad, la protección y la sostenibilidad en todas las industrias. Al servicio de más de 41.000 miembros en más de 150 países, AMPP es la organización más grande de su tipo, proporcionando estándares innovadores, certificaciones, formación y recursos. Con sede en Estados Unidos y oficinas en Houston y Pittsburgh, AMPP también opera oficinas regionales en Brasil, Canadá, China, Dubái (centro de formación), Malasia, Arabia Saudita y el Reino Unido.www.ampp.org Fuente y foto:AMPP

Where do theHouston Texansrank entering the 2026 summer ahead of a new season? It was a quietly productive offseason for Houston following its playoff loss to New England. After moving off of Tytus Howard, theTexansshored up the offensive line in free agency with the signings of Braden Smith and Wyatt Teller. On defense, Houston extended several candidates, including All-Pro Will Anderson Jr., and brought in outside names like defensive back Reed Blankenship and defensive tackle Logan Hall. Eight players were selected last month during the NFL draft. Several, including offensivelineman Keylan Rutledgeanddefensive tackle Kayden McDonald, should be Day 1 contributors. Others, liketight end Marlin Kleinanddefensive back Kamari Ramsey,are likely long-term depth pieces to shore up question marks for the future. So, where does Houston rank entering the summer? Sports Illustrated's Connor Orrrecently revealed his newest power rankings after the draft. While the Texans didn't take the top spot in the AFC, they did rank fourth among contenders in the conference and sixth overall, trailing theBuffalo Bills(No. 3),Denver Broncos(No. 4) and Kansas City Chiefs (No. 5). When prompted to break down the Texans' ranking, Orr pointed to the additions of Rutledge and McDonald as game-changers for the trenches, thus creating more stability in the weakpoint of the squad from last year. "Keylan Rutledge and Kayden McDonald with the first two picks is a dream scenario for Houston,"Orr wrote. "This offensive line will have at least three new starters, and McDonald gets to slot in behind Sheldon Rankins, one of the more underrated modern defensive tackles, whose evolved understanding of the defense allows playmakers behind him more opportunities. McDonald is going to swallow blocks and set the Texans’ screaming linebacker corps free." Houston returns nine starters from the No. 1 defense a season ago. McDonald won't be a Day 1 starter opposite the recently-signed Sheldon Rankins, but he is expected to rotate in with Tommy Togiai on run-heavy snaps to contain backs from breaking to the outside. As for Rutledge, while he played guard in college, some believe he's destined to shift inside even more to center. Jake Andrews started there last fall, but it would be far from shocking to see the Georgia Tech standout shift inside and build a rapport with C.J. Stroud. To read the entire power rankings,click the link here.

Shipyards in the US and Canada have completed several escort-class harbour tugs, as ports and terminals are expanded and larger ships welcomed Owners in North America welcomed newbuild tugs in Q1 2026 as demand for marine services increased in expanding ports, driven by rising energy exports. In the US, Master Boat Builders was busy launching and completing newbuild tugs for various domestic owners in the first three months of this year, as operators expand their fleets in Gulf Coast ports. The latest delivery by the Coden, Alabama-headquartered shipbuilder was 28-m harbour tug,Jill, built for Gulf LNG Tugs operations to handle gas carriers in Port Arthur, Texas. The ABS-class tug was constructed to Robert Allan Ltd’s RApport [2800 design with a beam of 12 m and 85 tonnes of bollard pull, with twin diesel engines linked to an exhaust aftertreatment system for compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards. Gulf LNG Tugs is a joint venture between US owners Bay-Houston Management, Bay Towing, Moran Towing and Suderman & Young Towing. The partnership operates at four LNG terminals along the US Gulf Coast and has more than 400 years of combined experience in ship assistance and towage services. “We have delivered a vessel that is not just a milestone in a series, but a powerhouse designed to meet the highest standards of safety and performance in the industry,” said Master Boat Builders president, Garret Rice. It has deck machinery ready to escort, tow and manoeuvre gas carriers and a FiFi1 firefighting system for emergency response during terminal support operations. In early April, Master Boat Builders launchedSaturnas the first H500 series tugboat it will be delivering to Texan owner, Suderman & Young Towing. "A powerhouse designed to meet the highest standards of safety" Four 30-m, ABS-class escort tugs are being built for the owner to Robert Allan’s RApport 3000 design, with accommodation for six crew members, a beam of 13 m, a bollard pull of 90 tonnes and a top speed of 13 knots. Propulsion for each consists of two diesel engines with a combined power of 5,220 kW, compliant with the EPA Tier 4 standards, driving two azimuth thrusters on the stern. This newbuilding programme comes as Suderman & Young is expanding its fleet and marine services in two ports in Texas, Brownsville and Isabel, near the Mexican border. In late March, Master Boat Builders also launchedMarauder, the first of eight tugboats being built for Maritime Partners. These 27-m tugs will be classed by ABS as escort tugs with automated machinery systems, underwater inspection in lieu of drydocking, FiFi1 firefighting capabilities and twin engines that comply with EPA Tier 4 requirements. All eight of these tugs are under some phase of construction after the shipyard started cutting steel on the eighth vessel in April. In Florida, Eastern Shipbuilding Group (ESG) launched the second of four 26-m escort tugs it is building for Seattle, Washington-headquartered Saltchuk Marine, with the first close to completion. These tugs are being built at ESG’s facilities in Allanton and Port St Joe for ship escort and towage across the US West Coast, Hawaii and Alaska. The first was launched in December 2025 and the second in April 2026 by crane lift from the shore to a quayside at the shipyard. “These four vessels set a new maritime standard that will positively impact the industry by meeting new rigorous environmental requirements.” said Saltchuk Marine president and chief executive, Jason Childs. They are being built to Robert Allan’s RAmport 2600 design with a moulded beam of 13 m, a moulded depth of 4 m, navigation draught of 6 m and accommodation for eight crew members. Their propulsion consists of two Caterpillar-manufactured Cat 3516E main diesel engines, each developing 2,610 kW at 1,800 rpm, and compliant with EPA Tier 4 regulations, driving two Schottel rudderpropellers of type SRP 510. Saltchuk’s new tugs will have a bollard pull of 86 tonnes and a top speed ahead of 12 knots. They feature a Markey Machine single-drum, class II hawser winch, with 56 kW of type DEPGF-52. Moran’s latest fleet addition, 395-gt, 28-mJ. Themistoclis Moran, is operating in Beaumont, Texas, after its delivery in early 2026. This 28-m tug was built to Robert Allan’s RApport 2800 design with a 12-m beam, and two Cat 3512E diesel engines, compliant with EPA Tier 4 standards, driving two Kongsberg US 2055 azimuthing Z drives with a fixed-pitch propeller. In Q1 2026, McAllister Towing mobilised its latest newbuild harbour tugboat,Gerald McAllister,from the shipyard in New England to expand its fleet supporting ships calling at terminals in New York. It is the fifth in a six-tug series of 84-tonne bollard pull tugs that Washburn & Doughty Associates is building in Maine for the New York-headquartered owner. This ABS-classed, 28-m tug has 5,050 kW of installed power from two Cat 3516E, EPA Tier 4-compliant engines, driving two Schottel azimuth Z-drives. Canadian newbuilds Ocean Industries has delivered the third of four 24-m harbour tugs it is building for the Royal Canadian Navy at its shipyard in Isle-aux-Coudres, Quebec, Canada, with the fourth scheduled for completion in Q4 2026. Canadian Forces auxiliary vessel (CFAV)Cansoleft the shipyard in January and started operations in Halifax in March 2026. It followed delivery of CFAVHaroand CFAVBarkervillein 2024 and their deployment in Esquimalt, British Columbia. Ocean is building these naval tugs to Robert Allan’s RAmparts 2400 design and with a bollard pull of 60 tonnes and a top speed of 12 knots, coming from two Everllence-manufactured 12-cylinder 12V 175D-MM high-speed engines, with CFAVStella Marisstill under construction. In Q1 2026, Ocean received a contract extension to build two more of these tugs, with deployment of CFAVSansumin Esquimalt and CFAVBelle Islein Halifax anticipated in 2027 and 2028. Forillon Shipyard delivered 12-m tugboatHollyAnnto Quebec-headquartered Centurion Foundation. It has twin Cummins QSL9 engines, each rated at 250 kW, a beam of 4 m and a draught of 2 m. This 14-gt tug can be transported on a single flatbed lorry. The28th International Tug & Salvage Convention, Exhibition & Awardswill be held in Gothenburg, Sweden, in association with Caterpillar, 19-21 May 2026.Use this linkfor more details of this industry event and the associated social and networking opportunities. Events © 2026 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.

Subsea Integration Alliance (SIA), comprising SLB OneSubsea and Subsea7,hasbeen tasked by U.S.-headquartered energy giant ExxonMobil with the engineering, procurement, construction, and installation (EPCI) scope of work at an oil project in Block 15 off the coast of Angola. The award of what is described as a substantial engineering, procurement, construction, and installation contract, worth between $150 million and $300 million, will enable Subsea Integration Alliance to handle a subsea tie-back associated with ExxonMobil’sRedevelopment 2.0 Likembeproject in Block 15, offshore Angola. David Bertin, Senior Vice President for Global Projects Centre East for Subsea7, commented:“This project builds on our track record in West Africa, Australia and the US. Together with ExxonMobil, we are committed to delivering the project safely, efficiently and to the highest standards, while continuing to support the development of local capabilities in Angola.” While project management and engineering will be managed by Subsea7’s offices in Paris, Luanda, Lisbon, and Sutton. SLB OneSubsea will execute the umbilical scope from its Center of Excellence in Moss, Norway, supported by project management and engineering teams based in Houston, as part of SIA’s integrated delivery model. Olivier Blaringhem, Subsea Integration Alliance Chief Executive Officer, highlighted:“This award further strengthens our relationship with ExxonMobil. It demonstrates how early collaboration through Subsea Integration Alliance enables an optimised development solution and underpins our integrated commercial model.” The U.S. giant drilled the Likembe-01oil discovery wellbetween February and April 2024. Located at a water depth of 1,200 meters, the well crossed reservoirs of Miocene age and reached a final depth of 3,013 meters within the perimeter of the Kizomba B development area. Block 15 is operated by ExxonMobil in partnership withAzule Energy,Equinor, andSonangol. Angola’s National Oil, Gas and Biofuels Agency (ANPG) described Likembe-01 as the first well drilled within the scope of the preliminary agreements of the incremental production project, aiming to provide incentives to investors to produce additional volumes in concessions currently in production. Subsea Integration Alliance recently won multiple new assignments, including afront-end engineering design (FEED)deal with Equinor for a Canadian deepwater oil project and inkeda collaboration agreementwith Petronas for field development projects in Suriname. Take the spotlight and anchor your brand in the heart of the offshore world! Join us for a bigger impact and amplify your presence at the core hub of the offshore energy community!