The Daily Astorian: Editorial

7/15/2008 11:53:00 AM

Whoa! Let's take another look FERC must slow the pace on LNG approval race There's only one word to say to the Federal Energy Commission: Whoa. The commission meets Thursday. And on its agenda is the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal. Even executives at Northern Star Natural Gas Co., the prime movers in the project, were surprised it made its way onto the FERC approval agenda so quickly. Why the haste? There are many reasons to say whoa. Approval and construction of any LNG receiving terminal on the Columbia River will materially alter the lives of every person in the Columbia-Pacific region. It will disrupt today's already complex shipping patterns and has the potential to have a serious detrimental effect on salmon populations. So shouldn't the decision be taken only once the appropriate studies are done? Gov. Ted Kulongoski believes FERC should not issue any license before the state of Oregon completes the permitting process for the Clean Water Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. Federal statute and case law require FERC to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement when there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. The public must have a chance to comment on the new information. The governor's office asked for such an action when the project's scope changed after a draft environmental impact statement was issued in August 2007. The governor calls this a "fatally flawed and legally deficient" environmental analysis. To resolve outstanding issues, Kulongoski said FERC should withdraw its final environmental impact statement on the project, released June 6, and write a new draft report for the public to review. The new report needs to include more detailed information on the project's design, safety and mitigation plans, as well as the state energy department's report questioning the need for LNG in Oregon, he said. Kulongoski isn't the only one with concerns. U.S. Rep. David Wu, whose district includes the proposed site, says any decision needs to take into account local concerns. The National Park Service - ironically another agency of the federal government - is urging more study of the effect of the proposed terminals on the Lewis and Clark Trail. Local fire agencies and others have complained that there is still not an adequate plan in place for who will pay for additional security and safety coverage if a terminal is built. Right now three competing private companies want government approval to locate an LNG receiving terminal in Oregon. (The other two are in Warrenton and Coos Bay.) FERC still hasn't adequately addressed the question of how many, if any, of these terminals are needed to fit in with our national energy policy. Its response: "Let the market decide" has got to be one of the dumbest statements ever to come out of Washington D.C. If our national energy policy is to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels, why are we considering building multimillion dollar terminals to bring LNG in from overseas? California communities have succeeded in keeping new LNG terminals out. Yet pipelines are planned to hook into the LNG plants and criss-cross our region to ship the new supplies of imported gas to California markets. All this fails to pass the sniff test. If rejecting the Bradwood application as "not needed" or "too dangerous" or even "not welcome" is too much for FERC Thursday, then delaying any action for more study must be the federal commission's only alternate response. Kulongoski states it well: "The disregard for Oregon's concerns is unacceptable, particularly on a project with such profound potential impacts on the lives of Oregonians."