Local port officials are calling on federal regulators to decide — and soon — whether to allow a liquefied natural gas terminal on Coos Bay’s North Spit.

Lawyers for the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay submitted a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday in support of the LNG terminal and pipeline

The LNG developer, Jordan Cove Energy Project, also filed a letter, calling on FERC to put the application on its November agenda.

FERC officials remain mum about why Jordan Cove and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline haven’t had their day before the commission.

Agency Chairman Jon Wellinghoff sets the FERC meeting agenda. A receptionist in Wellinghoff’s office referred questions to the FERC press office, which declined to comment why the local project hasn’t received a hearing.

“The commission acts and speaks through the orders that it issues,” said spokeswoman Mary O’Driscoll.

Jordan Cove has requested a FERC hearing three times. The first came a couple of weeks before the commission’s July hearing. The developers also tried to get on the September agenda, but both requests came to naught.

In its latest submission, Jordan Cove argues FERC is contradicting one of its strategic goals of handling each case in “an expeditious manner.” FERC issued a final environmental impact statement for the project in May. If the commission decides to hear the case in November, six months would have passed since the EIS was prepared. In comparison, the Bradwood Landing LNG project got approval to build on the Columbia River after a little more than three months by a 4-1 vote, with Wellinghoff in dissent.

The delay has impeded Jordan Cove’s efforts to attract LNG suppliers and has created the perception that the Bradwood Landing project is FERC’s preferred location, Jordan Cove’s letter said. The developers also say they’re not the only ones hurt by the delay.

“The regulatory uncertainty created by the Commission’s delay in deciding this case hurts not only the applicants ... it also hurts the communities this project is designed to serve,” its letter read.

The port counts itself among those adversely affected, said Martin Callery, port director of communications and freight mobility. The port has been planning future projects assuming the Jordan Cove project will proceed. If that is not the case, the port needs to know soon, so it can rethink how to develop maritime facilities.

“We want the project on the docket at the FERC and we want a decision rendered,” Callery said. “Yes, no, whatever. The community needs a decision.”

Opponents to the Jordan Cove project have argued the project has failed to fully respond to FERC’s requests for additional information regarding issues such as the facility’s design. Jody McCaffree, a local opposition leader, responded to Jordan Cove’s request for a hearing in September by suggesting FERC should withdraw its EIS and prepare a new one.

Callery said that if commission officials don’t think there is enough information in the EIS, then FERC should turn down the application — not delay it.

Jordan Cove Project Manager Bob Braddock has said he suspects FERC is waiting to have a full five-member commission before hearing the application.

A candidate for the fifth seat, John Norris, is awaiting a Senate confirmation vote, though it has been delayed until Monday. Assuming he is confirmed, there would be a brief window for FERC to rule on Jordan Cove with a five-person panel.

President Barack Obama nominated Commissioner Suedeen Kelly for a second-full term in July, but she declined. She has said she will step down at the end of Congress’ session in December or January, a FERC spokeswoman said.