LNG pipeline protesters at a December 2009 rally in Portland.

Although this is listed on my events story of the day, it’s worth a new mention. Oregon DEQ is holding a public meeting tonight in Astoria about the Bradwood Landing LNG project.

Also, I’ve learned a little bit more about the Wyden-Merkley LNG bill.

But first, the big meeting tonight. Oregon DEQ plays an important role in determining if the Bradwood Landing LNG project can be built. It has to review permits for Clean Air, Clean Water, among other things. It has to work with NOAA Fisheries to see if the project will do too much damage to endangered salmon in the Columbia River.

As Dan Serres with Columbia Riverkeeper puts it, “DEQ can stop this project and protect Oregon.” Serres expects the meeting to draw quite a crowd, perhaps 100 people or more.

Reps from DEQ will be explaining to people how the permitting process works, how long it will take, and when it expects to hold more formal hearings. But expect some enthusiastic advice from the crowd on how DEQ should decide this issue.

Wyden-Merkley LNG Bill

In yesterday’s post I raised the question that if the Wyden-Merkley LNG bill passes, will it force Bradwood Landing and the Jordan Cove LNG projects to start all over?

Tom Towslee, with Wyden’s staff in Portland says the answer to that is – no. Bradwood and Jordan Cove have already been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Towslee says, “You can’t unring that bell.”

Wyden and Merkley are trying to take away FERC’s authority to approve LNG projects, and return that power to state authorities.

Even if the bill doesn’t pass, Oregon still has considerable power over LNG.  As noted earlier in this story, any LNG project has to get several permits from the state.

Columbia Riverkeeper is one of the main groups opposing two proposed LNG projects near Astoria – Bradwood Landing and Oregon LNG. It’s also involved in efforts to block two pipelines that would connect the terminals to the interstate gas pipeline system.

But in our conversation today, some very interesting questions came up about just how easy it might become to stop all LNG projects in Oregon, if the bill becomes law.

Wyden and Merkley’s bill would take away control over the siting of LNG projects from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC’s been a big supporter of LNG projects, making it the agency that “can’t say no”, at least not where LNG is concerned.  Under the bill, That power would go back to state governments. Here in Oregon, the current state leadership is anti-LNG.

“The state deserves the right to map out its energy future,” says VandenHeuvel. “We shouldn’t be tied to foreign fossil fuel, we shouldn’t be tied to dirty energy projects like LNG.”

Clearly, the Wyden-Merkley bill makes it much harder for any new LNG projects to move ahead. Under that category – the Oregon LNG project and pipeline. FERC staff is still working on an Environmental Impact Statement, so it’s still early in the approval process.

But what about Bradwood Landing and Jordan Cove? These two projects are already FERC approved. If the bill passes, does control over their future automatically go back to Oregon? Or do they fall under some kind of grandfather clause?

FERC got the power to control LNG siting in the 2005 Energy Act. The Wyden-Merkley update wipes that out and acts as if the change never happened. A plain english reading of the bill says that means Bradwood Landing and Jordan Cove would have to start over from scratch. This time before Oregon regulators instead of the feds.

VandenHeuvel, a lawyer, says it isn’t clear if this is what Wyden and Merkley have in mind. Meanwhile I’ve got calls into both offices and waiting for replies. Hoping to learn more tomorrow.

An LNG protest sign from December, 2009.

Oregon’s two Senators are joining forces on a bill that could bring LNG projects in our state to a grinding halt.

Wyden and Merkley want to take away control over LNG projects from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). They’ve introduced a bill that would return that power to the states.

Whether or not Wyden and Merkley are outright trying to stop LNG in Oregon is unclear. But given the current political landscape in this state, that’s a real possibility, should the bill become law.

FERC was given control over the siting of LNG projects in the 2005 Energy Act. Since then, the commission has approved two projects in Oregon. Bradwood Landing LNG is a proposed site on the Columbia River about 20 miles east of Astoria. The Jordan Cove LNG terminal would be built on the north side of Coos Bay.

Then there’s a third project, Oregon LNG, which would also be placed along the Columbia River near Warrenton. Oregon LNG is still early in the approval process. All three LNG terminals also require the construction of major pipelines to carry the natural gas to interstate markets.

Wyden and Merkley say it’s time let state governments decide when and where to put LNG facilities. Here’s a couple of quotes from their statements.

“As citizens and their public officials in my state and those of my colleagues can attest, putting FERC in the driver’s seat for LNG siting has been a colossal mistake. Rather than address the critical environmental and economic questions of whether these large, potentially dangerous natural gas storage facilities are even needed or whether energy supplies could be provided with less environmental impact and risk, FERC has taken the attitude that it’s not its job to make such decisions.”

Senator Ron Wyden

“It just doesn’t make sense to take states out of decisions that will affect their residents for years or decades to come. We need to give states a say and restore accountability. Momentous decisions about LNG terminals should only be done in partnership with local residents – not over their objections.”

Senator Jeff Merkley

It’s not that these projects don’t have supporters, but Oregon’s current state leadership is dead set against LNG. Governor Kulongoski and Attorney General John Kroger are strong critics. The state has sued to block FERC’s license for Bradwood Landing and will probably also sue to stop Jordan Cove.

Oregon complaints mirror those of Merkley and Wyden, that FERC hasn’t done a good enough job in assessing the environmental impacts of these projects, and has given them approval even before other federal agencies and the state have completed their studies.

Other sponsors of the legislation include Senators Cantwell of Washington, Dodd of Connecticut, plus Mikulski and Cardin of Maryland.

Oregon’s decision is no surprise. Governor Kulongoski said he’d file a rehearing request a month ago when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the licenses for the two projects.

But NOAA’s involvement? No so expected. And it raises questions about whether something fundamentally wrong with how LNG issues in Oregon are decided.

Let’s look at what everyone is saying, starting with NOAA.

Under federal law, NOAA Fisheries has the responsibility for protecting endangered marine species and their habitat. Projects such as Jordan Cove, can’t be developed unless NOAA gives its blessing.

But when FERC approved Jordan Cove, it did so before NOAA was done studying the project. That, says NOAA, violates the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws. NOAA says the law was written to prevent agencies from “steamrolling” projects along, regardless of how they impact endangered species.

NOAA wants FERC to withdraw approval, or put it on hold, until the two agencies are done consulting on the projects.

As far as NOAA is concerned, FERC is batting 0-2 on LNG projects in Oregon. They filed a similar request for a new hearing after FERC approved the Bradwood Landing LNG project 15 months ago.

Oregon, meanwhile, is using tougher language. A joint statement by the Governor and Attorney General says that if FERC doesn’t agree to rehear the case, then the state will appeal to the 9th Circuit Court.

Some quotes from the press release:

“FERC continues to ignore Oregon’s very real concerns about the unknown environmental impact of the pipeline associated with the proposed LNG facility. FERC’s decision to issue a conditional license for a project with such profound potential impacts on the lives of Oregonians was based on woefully inadequate information that demands reconsideration.”
-Governor Ted Kulongoski

“FERC has failed to do its job and conduct the kind of environmental analysis that is required under multiple federal statutes. The United States should be striving for energy independence instead of relying on fossil fuels imported from countries like Russia and Iran. This takes us in the wrong direction.”
-Attorney General John Kroger

Oregon is an important player in the process because it decides whether LNG projects get permits under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It says FERC was wrong to approve Jordan Cove and the Pacific Connector pipeline before those permits were issued.

Along with today’s news that several environmental groups also want a rehearing, we’re seeing a repeat of how things have played out for the Bradwood Landing LNG project. So far, it’s Déjà vu, all over again.

FERC approved the licenses about a month ago. But the coalition says FERC needs to reconsider the decision and rewrite the Environmental Impact Statement.

Here are the main points of their request.

• The LNG terminal and pipeline are not in the “public interest” because their environmental impacts outweigh any need for imported liquified natural gas.
• FERC violated federal law by approving the license before the two projects received the permits they need under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act. These permits are issued by the state of Oregon.
• The requests also details several other “problems” with the EIS which, it says, violates federal laws.

The coalition includes, Citizens Against LNG, Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Oregon Wild, Oregon Citizens Against the Pipeline, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Umpqua Watersheds.

What’s Next?

FERC is expected to reject the request, just like it did when environmental groups, the State of Oregon, and federal agencies asked for a new hearing on the Bradwood LNG project. The denial then opens the door for an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. With the appeals court already considering Bradwood, it’s quite likely we’ll have two LNG cases from Oregon before the court some time this year.

An LNG tanker at sea. Photo from www.lngoneworld.com.

UPDATE: LC 85 made it out of committee and has been introduced as SB 1020.

If you want to see how LNG issues divide and energize Oregonians, then take a look at two bills the legislature will consider next month.

One makes it easier to LNG companies to get some of the permits they need to build plants and pipelines.  The other says, “Wait a minute! Shouldn’t we decide if these projects are really needed?”

If past fights are any indication of how strongly people feel about these issues, then things could get ugly.

Up first is LC-85, which opponents are dubbing the “LNG Fast Track” bill.

(NOTE: LC stands for Legislative Concept, a bill that has been written but not officially introduced.)

Before any LNG project can be built, it needs dozens of permits from state agencies. What LC-85 does is speed up the process. It would allow LNG companies to apply for, and receive, permits to fill in wetlands on private property. What upsets opponents is that they could do this without the permission of the property owner. Actual construction wouldn’t begin until everything was approved.

Brett VandenHeuvel of Columbia Riverkeeper says LNG companies are feeling pressure to show results. Opposition from conservation groups and the State of Oregon, plus ongoing questions about the environmental impact of these projects has slowed progress on LNG projects in the state. But by obtaining wetland fill permits, VandenHeuvel says, companies will be able to “show investors these projects still have life in them.”

We’ve been here before. LC-85 is basically a rerun of a bill that was introduced to the legislature last year. Known then as HB 3058, the bill created an uproar. Some people got so upset they took the unusual step of protesting outside the Beaverton home of Rep. Tobias Read. After that, folks on both sides of the issue agreed things had gotten out of hand.

For landowners, finding out a pipeline may be crossing their property puts them in a kind of legal limbo. It limits how they can develop the land and hurts property values. But once a permit is granted, it’s a kind of “kiss of death” that can degrade property values even further.

“Why,” asks VandenHeuvel, “would we fast track the siting of LNG projects when they’re incredibly unpopular?”

LNG companies may be in a rush for other reasons. Federal permission to build an LNG project doesn’t last forever. In the case of Bradwood Landing LNG, the certificate says construction has to be finished and the plant put in service within five years. The clock on Bradwood started ticking more than a year ago. Assuming it takes about three years to build an LNG facility, then Bradwood has about eight months to get the dozens of permits it still needs.

LC-85 has a work session scheduled Wednesday afternoon before the Senate Business and Transportation Committee.

Does Oregon Need LNG?

Considering how disruptive and expensive the LNG process can be, who decides if these things are needed? The answer is… no one really.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission looks at the market for natural gas when approving LNG projects. But when it comes to determining “need”, FERC washes its hands of the matter and claims that’s not its responsibility.

HB 3616 would put that responsibility on the state.

The bill says state officials would have to answer some questions before approving permits for LNG projects. Is there a “significant need” for the natural gas a facility will provide? Is there enough natural gas in North America to meet Oregon’s needs? Will the imported LNG be more expensive than domestic supplies? And how does this fit into Oregon’s plans for addressing climate change?

VandenHeuvel considers this one a no-brainer. “It’s common sense to determine whether LNG is needed prior to sacrificing our state land, sacrificing farm land and forest land, and approving incredibly unpopular projects.”

HB 3616 also requires LNG companies to reimburse the state for the costs associated with reviewing and approving permits. It was introduced by Hillsboro Representative Chuck Riley who says this will save taxpayers about $90,000.

Turning Up The Heat On Lawmakers

The Hey! NW Natural campaign is trying to draw attention to the role of campaign money and the future of LNG in Oregon. It’s posted a list of lawmakers who’ve received campaign contributions from Northwest Natural Gas since the beginning of 2008, and how much they’ve received. NW Natural is one of the major partners behind the Palomar pipeline, which would connect the Bradwood LNG plant to the interstate pipeline system.

You can find the list here, as well as a form letter expressing opposition to LC-85 that you can send to your legislator.

Worth mentioning that, according to this information, LC-85 sponsor State Senator Rick Metsger has received no money from Northwest Natural during the past two years. And neither has Rep. Riley, the sponsor of HB 3616.

The Hey! Northwest Natural campaign is raising the alarm about a bill that would make it easier for LNG pipelines to be built in Oregon.

According to the group, LC-85 allows pipeline companies and utilities to get permits to fill wetlands on private land, even if the landowners object. They’re calling this a shortcut in the permitting process, putting LNG pipelines on a faster track towards approval.

Other than that, I have little information to add.

Bills for next month’s special session won’t be posted until January 20th. But LC-85 is scheduled for a hearing next Wednesday at 1pm before the Senate Business and Transportation Committee in Hearing Room F. I’m trying to find another way to get a full text version of the bill so I can read it for myself. Why the legislature isn’t posting text versions before hearings are held is rather baffling.

Monica Vaughn of the Hey! NW Natural campaign says LC-85 is similar to another bill introduced during the 2009 session.

There are three major proposals for LNG related pipelines in Oregon. Hey! NW Natural is targeting the Palomar Pipeline, which would carry natural gas from the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG plant on the Columbia River about 25 miles east of Astoria. This route runs through the heart of Oregon’s wine and farm country, plus the Mt. Hood National Forest.

A second proposed pipeline, called the Oregon Pipeline, follows a similar path but stops short before crossing the Cascades.

The most serious proposal so far, is the Pacific Connector Pipeline in Southern Oregon. Running more than 220 miles from Coos Bay to Klamath County, this pipeline would carry natural gas from the Jordan Cove LNG plant on Coos Bay. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently approved a license for this project, but it still needs several state permits before construction can begin.

Yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission voted 3 -1 to approve the Jordan Cove LNG terminal at Coos Bay, and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. The vote drew immediate opposition from Governor Kulongoski and several environmental groups. They will ask FERC for a rehearing and without one will appeal the case.

But none of that appears to have shaken Braddock’s confidence. Here are some highlights from our conversation this morning.

The “no” vote by FERC Chairman Wellinghoff: Braddock says he expected Wellinghoff to dissent, saying the chairman has never voted for an LNG project. He has a “different world view” from others on the commission, explains Braddock.

Kulongoski’s Reaction: Braddock’s view is that the Governor’s office is more concerned about the pipeline part of the project than the LNG terminal his company is building. He also thinks the state is not “fundamentally” opposed to LNG, but instead is more focused on specific environmental concerns. Braddock says the developers will be able to address those concerns so the project can go forward.

And here’s the wild card in all this. If this goes to court, Braddock says it will probably be after Kulongoski leaves office and it’s impossible to say if the next Governor will feel the same way about LNG.

Looking Ahead To 2010:

Braddock says starting next year, they’ll submit about a dozen applications for state permits under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other laws. They also hope to start signing agreements with natural gas suppliers from around the Pacific Rim. Braddock says they’ve been speaking with a handful of well known oil and gas companies, and that a lot of the gas they’d be importing would likely come from Australia.

He’s hopeful construction can begin in about 18-months and that the terminal will go online by the end of 2014.

See Our Other Stories On The FERC Ruling:

FERC Chair: Why I Voted Against Jordan Cove LNG

Gov. K Asks For New Hearing On Jordan Cove LNG

LNG Battles Move To Southern Oregon

FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff.

FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff cast the only vote against the Jordan Cove LNG project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline. Appointed to the Commission in 2006, he was named Chairman by President Obama earlier this year.

Wellinghoff also voted against the Bradwood Landing LNG project on the Columbia River near Astoria. He says the two projects suffer from similar problems.

Relying On Imported LNG: In his dissent, Wellinghoff says he is concerned about the environmental and economic impacts of increasing our reliance on foreign sources of LNG. He says Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for both projects need to do a better of job of studying renewable energy as an alternative to LNG imports.

Outdated Information: Wellinghoff says FERC should be paying more attention to the recent news about natural gas supplies in the United States. He cites a new study produced by FERC staff showing a 100-year supply of domestic natural gas at current levels of demand. This is one-third more than previous estimates and is the result of better technology.

Some of this is so new, that it came after the EIS was finalized in May. But the other FERC members who voted in favor of Jordan Cove say they’re not required to look at the new information. What else has changed since May? The price of domestic natural gas has fallen significantly.

Safety Hazards: Wellinghoff is also concerned that the Jordan Cove Plant would be located less than a mile away from the Southwest Regional Airport. He says that’s too close according to standards set by the Transportation Department. Next year, the airport expects to handle more than 50,000 take off and landings. The Chairman is concerned about the possibility of a airplane crash into the LNG terminal.

See Our Other Stories On Today’s FERC Ruling:

Gov. K Asks For New Hearing On Jordan Cove LNG

LNG Battles Move To Southern Oregon

Kulongoski writes, “Today’s decision by FERC does not address Oregon’s very real concerns about the environmental impact of the pipeline associated with the proposed LNG facility. The information guiding this decision is woefully inadequate to license a project with such profound potential impacts on the lives of Oregonians and we will appeal to FERC to ensure the people of Oregon’s concerns are fully addressed.”

In addition, he says it was wrong for FERC to approve the license before the project had obtained state permits under the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, as well as the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The statement adds that if Oregon will appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if FERC continues to support Jordan Cove LNG.