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.
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