CB council to demand voice in LNG siting

By Alexander Rich, Staff Writer
Thursday, May 22, 2008 | 5 comment(s)

Font Size: Shrink Font Enlarge Font | Submit your news
COOS BAY — They may have differences of opinion about a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal, but all Coos Bay’s city councilors want to have a voice in the siting process.

The city’s leaders discussed what kind of resolution they might consider adopting on the controversial issue. But they haven’t set a deadline for a decision.

Staff had prepared a draft resolution for the council to consider at its meeting Tuesday. In the document, the city demands inclusion in the process.

The draft resolution suggested the current federal approval process might be un-American and that the city agreed with Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s position on the matter. The governor has asked the federal government to consider whether Oregon needs LNG in making its decision.

Councilor Michele Burnette wasn’t comfortable with the first statement.

“I think the name calling is politically inappropriate,” she said. “I’m not the authority on what is and isn’t un-American.”

While Burnette had no problem agreeing with the governor, others said they were reluctant to do so without having a better understanding about the issue.

“We need all the information before we sign the letter,” Gene Melton said.

In previous meetings, John Muenchrath and Mark Daily had all but come out in opposition to the project. On Tuesday, their comments were tempered. City attorney Nate McClintock told them the council has to remain neutral because it might judge a land appeal regarding the pipeline route, which could go through land within the city’s jurisdiction underneath the bay.

Muenchrath still said he didn’t like the idea of project proponents potentially using eminent domain to build a pipeline.

Daily said local input should have a greater role in the process.

“The council has no authority here,” he said. “We are kind of left out of the process. It’s pretty discouraging, I think.”

After 30 minutes of discussion, without taking public comments, the council asked staff to write a letter based on the first paragraph of the proposed resolution.

It simply reads:

A resolution of the City Council of the city of Coos Bay Oregon to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission demanding inclusion of state and local jurisdictions in the LNG siting process.

Stephanie Kramer suggested the city might want to write something longer.

“That would be a pretty short letter,” she said.

Burnette argued otherwise.

“Sometimes, less is more.”



Previous
Next

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

The Genius wrote on May 22, 2008 7:37 PM:

Hey were missing the boat.Why not throw a tax on every cubic foot of gas that flows through coos county.Put the money towards,Schools,The Elderly,Roads,Social Services.Or importing more Illegal Aliens here to kill us.

huh wrote on May 22, 2008 3:51 PM:

What a goofy resolution. FERC staff will get a good laugh out of that one. The City already has a part in the siting process of the LNG project and the gas pipeline, or at least of the parts that pass through or contact the city. FERC is not going to give up their power to potentially ignore the city's comments, but FERC has shown in other cases a great willingness to listen to the concerns of municipalities affected by a pipeline or LNG facility. The City Council's request or demand or whatever it's supposed to be is one that doesn't even need to be made.

Fred Kirby wrote on May 22, 2008 3:05 PM:

All of a sudden, after four years knowledge of the planned LNG factory, the entire city council - hopefully including the Mayor whose wife is pushing for the North Spit LNG factory - wants to be vocal and represent the people? Coincidence that this follows by one day the bye bye of Mr. Griffith?

Thomas wrote on May 22, 2008 12:02 PM:

"City attorney Nate McClintock told them the council has to remain neutral because it might judge a land appeal ..."

Mr McClintock's legal opinion is in error. The city council certainly may exercise its legislative and administrative roles w/o affecting its judical role.

If that were not the case, then such bodies would be unable to act on anything, which is clearly ridiculous. Nice to see our elected officuals belatedly taking stands on the LNG scheme ........ even though it really might be mostly due to their political analysis of Griffith's ouster?


Jane wrote on May 22, 2008 11:58 AM:

Finally the Coos Bay council members coming to their senses, that this area needs to have the final say on this California LNG!

Lastest Update:

May 9 when the Oregon Department of Energy issued an independent analysis finding that there was no need for LNG
in Oregon.

Importantly, the report also called LNG "prohibitively expensive" and
found LNG would generate much greater greenhouse gas emissions than
relying on available domestic gas sources.

LNG currently costs roughly twice as much as domestic or Canadian gas.
This makes clear LNG could actually increase the price of our gas.

California LNG is obviously NOT good for Oregon! Say NO to California LNG!


*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