Wyden bill: Return LNG siting power to the states

By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 08, 2008 | 7 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news

Related Links

If liquefied natural gas terminals come to Oregon, the state’s Democratic senator wants the final decision made in Salem, not Washington, D.C.

Sen. Ron Wyden introduced legislation Monday that, if enacted, would give states the primary role in siting LNG terminals and related projects.

*Sen. Ron Wyden


Joining Wyden as co-sponsors for the bill were Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Chris Dodd, D-Conn.; and Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The stand-alone legislation, S.B. 2822, would repeal sections of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which gave the siting role to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The provision was enacted after a series of energy projects were stymied by states unwilling to build terminals in their communities. Some feared the lack of new construction would lead to energy shortages.

Now, critics of the legislation contend the new procedure would provide too much energy.

In the last two months, Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, and Oregon’s Democratic congressional delegation wrote letters to FERC requesting the agency consider the state’s energy needs before approving projects here.

In a letter last week, FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher rejected this line of thinking.

“The Commission’s policy is to ensure that all proposed projects are environmentally sound and consistent with public safety, and then leave it to the market to determine which projects are constructed,” he wrote in a letter dated April 2.

Wyden rejected this thinking in introducing his legislation. He noted the three proposed LNG terminals in Oregon, including one in Coos County, would have a combined capacity of 3.3 billion cubic feet of gas per day. Oregon and Washington alone only use 1.33 BCF per day, he said.

“Yet FERC categorically refuses to address the basic question of whether the three proposed facilities are even needed to serve our market,” he said.

“It’s time to restore the local and state role in these critical decisions about in whose backyard a pipeline or LNG plant will be built.”

The demand for natural gas in Oregon has been a topic of discussion between state officials and Jordan Cove Energy Project, said its project manager, Bob Braddock. He said the company has been running an analysis of need, and is willing to submit it as a 14th resource report with the state.

If legislation were passed giving siting authority to the state of Oregon, Braddock said he wouldn’t know how it would affect the project’s schedule, though he expects some delay.

A change in authority wouldn’t mean much additional work for Jordan Cove. Most of the work required for the state process has already been completed in filing with FERC, Braddock said. And Jordan Cove has already filed with the state, in November of 2004.

“If it comes back, we just continue where we left off,” he said.

Coos County Commissioner John Griffith has been critical of removing local oversight of land use issues.

“(The Energy Act) made the local process pretty tiny, if it exists at all,” he said.

He would prefer to have the final decision made at the local level, though Wyden’s legislation would be a step in the right direction.

“I think the citizens of Coos County would be best served if they had local land-use oversight,” he said, suggesting each additional layer of government reduces their influence.

Camby Collier, a resident of Barview who has frequently spoken in opposition to the Jordan Cove project, was glad to hear Wyden had proposed his legislation.

“It’s an insult to Oregon that we don’t have oversight of a new industry like LNG,” she said.

Griffith cautioned opponents not to misunderstand the implications of the legislation. Although the bill would take authority away from the federal government, it would not allow local governments to reject a project based on public opinion.

“Nowhere in the land-use rules could we consider the outcome,” of a ballot initiative asking about the project, he said.

Tom Towslee, Wyden’s state communications director, was optimistic about the bill’s chances.

“The prospects look pretty good, though it might take time,” he said.



Previous

Have you checked out The World Link Forums?

Comments

The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines

Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Comment Policy

The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.

Please follow these basic rules:

  • No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
  • No deliberately false information.
  • No obscenity or racially offensive language.
  • No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
  • No information that invades another person's privacy.
  • No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.

Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.

The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.

Close Guidelines

Dave wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:50 AM:

Exactly Jane, it's STUPID & INSANE to place anything that is potentially unsafe such as LNG in a tsuami zone! Again congrats to our state leaders stepping up to get rid of this LNG garbage!

Jane wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:44 AM:

Observer, there are better ways to get energy/gas (IF needed!) then to place a LNG storage unit in a tsuami zone (Where a major fault lays ONLY 50 miles out from Oregon's coast, that has & will again produce 9.0 or greater earthquakes, that will produce NON-STOPPING shaking for over 10 minutes & produce up to 100 foot tidal waves)! One proposal has it coming from inland of the USA, thus unless you are Bob Braddock, project manager of Jordan Cove Energy Project, this makes ZERO sense to do! Say NO to California LNG!

Common Sense wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:20 AM:

Finally Oregon leaders listening to the MAJORITY of Oregon people that don't want this California LNG SCAM (Every newspaper/radio poll shows the majority don't want it)! Finally Oregon is trying to get it's individual state right's back! Finally Oregon's citizens will get their voting rights back! Then FINALLY, this California LNG SCAM will be GONE...

Janice wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:56 AM:

Observer says, "Better to have an energy surplus than a deficit."

Well, it would be better to use less and need less energy than to put the citizens of Oregon at risk for another state's excess use. Better to find and develop cleaner renewable sources of energy than to devastate the farm and forest land of Oregon and take property by use of eminent domain!


Janice wrote on Apr 8, 2008 7:37 PM:

Griffith cautioned opponents not to misunderstand the implications of the legislation. Although the bill would take authority away from the federal government, it would not allow local governments to reject a project based on public opinion.

“Nowhere in the land-use rules could we consider the outcome,” of a ballot initiative asking about the project, he said.

GRIFFITH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION? THAT'S BECAUSE HE REPRESENTS "SPECIAL INTERESTS" NOT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF COOS COUNTY. HE MUST BE VOTED OUT IN MAY!

Just An Observer wrote on Apr 8, 2008 6:58 PM:

If California gets the LNG, that goes down in the category of a Bad Thing for some reason. California needs energy and lots of it. California already draws upon our hydro capacity. If they get some LNG, I'm all for it as they can use that source of energy instead of the hydro. That will be valuable to have that energy usage option when snowpack/rainfall levels are not good and lessen our hydro output. Better to have an energy surplus than a deficit.


As for local oversight, that lets the NIMBY crowd get too much of a whip hand if there isn't something around to rein them in just as much as the corps need to be reined in so they don't cause environmental damage that could have been prevented. I'd rather our Senators and Reps made sure federal oversight and inspection procedures were strong and not slack. By the time the whole shebang was built, California will need that energy and so will we.


We get a LOT from California, the biggest state ecomony in the nation. As California goes, so goes the West.

Wee Willy wrote on Apr 8, 2008 2:40 PM:

The proposed LNG facility in Coos County has ALWAYS been about California's energy demand. Coos County would benefit marginally through the Jordan Cove turning basin. a potential real benefit until CORP took a hike. I favored the LNG facility for its inclusion of the turning basin. I can now see no reason to continue that support.


*Member ID:
*Password:
 

Not already registered?

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!



*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Would you like to be added to our mailing lists?
Daily Headlines
Breaking News
Special Offers
 
Advanced Search
Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH

Blogroll

Most Popular

Polls

» View Past Poll Results
» Suggest a Poll

Marketplace

Special Sections

More Special Sections