EAB Chairman denies involvement in decision to waive EIA for Wales Gas Plants

Mar 06, 2024 ExxonMobil, News, Oil & Gas

---

Kaieteur News – Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA), Mahender Sharma has denied any involvement in the decision made to waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the two gas plants to be constructed at Wales, West Bank Demerara.

In an affidavit filed in response to a court case brought by rights activist, Danuta Radzik, Sharma denied having direct or any other interest in the projects.

In the court document drafted by Attorney- at-Law, Arud Gossai, Sharma explained that the EAB’s role in this process was that of an appellate tribunal, reviewing the decision made by the EPA. He noted that the case file by Radzik does not relate to the decisions of the EAB but the EPA.

Sharma reasoned, “The EAB was not engaged in making a determination on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required or not.  There is no challenge in these High Court proceedings to the EPA’s decision to waive that requirement.”

He continued, “There is no allegation made herein that either myself or [Mr Joslyn] Mckenzie played any part in the decision made by the EPA to waive the requirement. The exemption of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment was made by EPA not by the EAB. The EAB deliberated as an appellate tribunal in this matter.”

Further, the GEA CEO denied any conflict of interest on his part.

“I deny that any reasonable person, armed with knowledge of the role and function of GPL and the EAB would possibly conclude that there exists a conflict with my duties as director of GPL and as Chairman of the EAB,” Sharma said.

He explained further that the two entities, GPL and EAB operate in different spheres.

“GPL is responsible for the generation and supply of electricity and the EAB is an appellate tribunal, created by law to review decisions made by EPA and which are challenged/appealed to the EAB. I have no personal interest, direct or indirect, pecuniary or otherwise in the project. Further I am not a shareholder of either GPL or GPG   or director of either of those companies,” he stated.

The EAB had issued a decision in May 2023, upholding a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exempt the gas facility from an EIA.

Radzik seeks an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision to exempt the gas facility from a thorough impact assessment. She argues that the decision of the EAB is flawed and/or contrary to, or in breach of the law.

In court documents seen by Kaieteur News, Radzik through her attorney Mohamed Ali has the High Court to declare the decision a nullity; is void and of no legal effect; was made without or  want of or in excess of jurisdiction; is ultra vires; is unreasonable or irrational, arbitrary, capricious or erroneous at law; is illegal; disproportionate;  in defiance of logic; without any legal foundation or basis or authorization or authority; and/or contrary to or in breach of the provisions of the Act and/or the regulations.

In addition, the Court is being asked to issue an Order of Mandamus directed to the EAB, that the board reinstate the appeal against the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to exempt the gas facility from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and to hold new hearings in compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The grounds of Radzik’s application outline that the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is empowered by Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act Cap. 20:05 to conduct hearings into appeals lodged.

The document notes further that the composition and operation of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is set out in the Third Schedule of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap. 20:05.

The application outlined that, “…The disclosure of interest and recusal of any member of the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) is set out in the section 8 of the third schedule of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) Cap. 20:05…It was via Application for Environmental Authorisation dated the 14th day of November 2022, Guyana Power and Gas Inc., a company incorporated under the Laws of Guyana Companies Act Cap. 89:01, with its registered office at Lot 116-117, Cowan Street, Kingston, Georgetown (hereinafter called the Company), sought an environmental permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the construction and operation of a 300 MW Natural Gas-Fired Power Plant (the project).”

It noted that, “The project is strategically aimed at utilizing piped natural gas from the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSOs), which will be processed by a Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility which will generate lean gas that will be used to fuel a power plant that will generate and deliver electricity into GPL’s existing power grid. The completed project is expected to deliver every month 187.56 GWh of electricity into the Demerara Berbice Interconnected System to support Guyana’s current and projected economic development.”

The document also points out that Sharma as a director of GPL owes and performs fiduciary duties at the Guyana Power and Light Inc., duties which conflict with his duties as Chairman and member of the EAB as he cannot act in the best interest of both entities.

---

• court challenge, EAB, gas projects, Mckenzie, Sharma

---