Guyanese activists have described the exemption of the 300-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant from an impact study as well as the issuance of a permit for the Gas to Energy (GTE) project as illegal, and are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke its decisions.
In a letter to Executive Director of the EPA Khemraj Parsram, environmental lawyer Melinda Janki wrote: “The agency’s decision to exempt the gas plant project from an environmental impact assessment is unlawful being inter alia unauthorised/contrary to law; an excess of jurisdiction; a failure to satisfy conditions required by law; an unreasonable irregular and improper exercise of discretion; an abuse of power; conflict with the policy of the Environmental Protection Act Cap: 20.05; irrational and arbitrary. Please immediately revoke/cancel your decision to exempt the gas plant project from an EIA and inform the applicant Guyana Power and Gas Inc.”
The letter was written on behalf of Ramon Gaskin and other concerned citizens.
According to Janki’s letter, the developer – Guyana Power and Gas Inc – did not submit a project summary, rather it was the Guyana Power and Light (GPL) that did so, thereby breaching laws under section 11 (2) of the Environmental Act.
It stated that Guyana Power and Gas needs to submit an application that complies with the requirements of the Act; and is correctly dated and signed by a duly authorised officer of the company. The letter stressed that the project summary submitted by GPL was deficient and thus should be discarded. The summary did not include the possible effects on the climate, the Demerara River, groundwater and lacks other critical information including how much pollution the project is expected to generate, the letter stated.
Further, it was stated that the EPA took into consideration irrelevant material including the GTE Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) which it relied on to make conclusions that an impact assessment was not required.
In addition, the letter said, despite the power plant project summary clearly stating that there was a potential health risk, the EPA concluded that there would not be any significant impact; a conclusion that could only be made if an EIA was done.
It was also emphasised that the impacts on people such as the noise pollution and air pollution identified in the project summary were sufficient on their own to require an independent EIA.
“The agency’s decision to exempt the gas power project appears to be an attempt to avoid the requirements of the Act for an independent EIA with full public participation. There appears to be a culture of secrecy within the agency which conflicts with the Act and the agency’s functions… All decisions of the agency based on inadequate or out of date science are irrational, arbitrary and unlawful,” the letter stated.
As it relates to the EPA’s decision to issue a permit to ExxonMobil for the development of a natural gas transport pipeline, materials offloading facility and natural gas liquids plant, Janki, on behalf of Elizabeth Deane Hughes and Vanda Radzik, wrote that it should be revoked as it was in breach of regulation 17(2) of the Environmental Protection (Authorisation ) Regulation.
The regulation states that a developer must provide proof that it “either owns the facility or has a lease or other agreement with the landowner or occupier to enable the applicant to conduct the activity on the facility or has the legal right of way to conduct the activity without the consent of the landowner or occupier,” the letter noted.
However, several Guyanese and not ExxonMobil own several tracts of land under transport and lease along the proposed pipeline route, it added.
“It is therefore incontrovertible that the route for the proposed pipeline will run on land that is not owned by EEPGL [Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited] , not held by EEPGL under any lease, and not subject to an agreement which would allow EEPGL to construct the onshore pipeline along the route proposed in the Environmental Impact Statement. It follows logically and simply that the permit was issued in breach of regulation 17. The agency did not have the legal power to authorise EEPGL to construct a pipeline in the absence of the proof required by regulation 17,” that letter stated.
It called for the revocation of the GTE permit.
