Senator Wyden challenges LNG permits

Finally. A statewide elected politician from the state of Oregon has publicly raised some of the questions that should end any consideration of siting an LNG facility in the Columbia River estuary. The senior senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, stepped up last month with a sharply pointed letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – the agency we have come to know as FERC.

Wyden’s coming out is very significant. It does not overshadow the overt opposition that the congressman from southwest Washington, Brian Baird has expressed toward the Northern Star LNG terminal proposal at Bradwood. Hopefully though it will precipitate a similar domino effect, inspiring Oregon politicians to fall in line on behalf of our communities, as has happened in Washington.

Wyden’s letter is intelligently crafted and the questions calculated to get to the heart of certain key issues. The Senator’s awareness of the fundamental problems with LNG import and the smart and experienced staff he has working on energy issues provide us with major advantages. It didn’t hurt that several North Coast citizens (yes, including me) met with the Senator’s DC staff in March to encourage appropriate action.

We’ve all been impatient for political leadership, and the courage to take positions on LNG, either way. That’s often the way of politics, however, and it’s not always bad. I actually prefer that the Clatsop County Commissioners remain neutral about LNG development, thereby preserving an untainted position as they rule on local land use matters regarding Northern Star’s ill-founded proposal. However, there are many city and state politicians that will never be in a quasi-judicial position regarding these fossil fuel speculators, so a big nudge like Wyden has provided could inspire some righteous indignation from our elected ones.

Check out (mostly in my paraphrase) what Senator Wyden asks about how FERC is handling Northern Star’s application and other proposed projects:

How are the comments on the project from Oregon being incorporated into the planning process?

Will state energy facility siting standards be incorporated, such as limits on CO2 emissions and financial assurance that the place will be torn down and restored when the facility is retired?

How will FERC ensure that salmon habitat and fisheries are protected from the site construction, dredging, and pipeline trenching? If FERC relies on mitigation, how will the agency ensure effectiveness?

What steps is FERC taking to involve local governments in pipeline routing, construction, and safety impacts to our citizens?

“Please explain the basis on which FERC is determining the safety of the projects as proposed.” Wyden discusses accidents, floods, tsunamis, and earthquakes.

And he clearly caught the Coast Guard language that tankers larger than 148,000 cubic meter capacity can not be used absent risk analysis for these larger vessels (the very sort under construction now). “How will FERC address project design and economics consistent with this finding?”

“How will FERC assure that … resource gaps are filled as a condition of approval and what is FERC’s statutory authority to do so?” This is about shoreside and waterway firefighting ability, natural gas detection, interagency communication, vessel traffic control, law enforcement and more – essential infrastructure that diverts resources and could cost taxpayer money, to serve a private enterprise.

Wyden also caught the absurdity of the 500-yard security zone to the side of tankers ending at the waterfront. Many structures in Hammond, Warrenton, Astoria, Puget Island and more are within this 500 yards. The Senator asks, “If it is as much a safety as a security zone, how will FERC account for the safety of residents onshore who are within 500 yards of the ship or terminal? What is FERC’s authority to ensure that safety and security requirements continue to be met after a facility is approved and constructed.” (Full disclosure: My office is within that 500-yard zone.)

I haven’t seen the response that FERC sent to the Senator. I do have a good idea about the truthful answers to these questions, and in aggregate they don’t support going forward with any of the Columbia River sites.

Wyden also continues to complain about the erosion of state authority for LNG facility siting included in last year’s energy bill. He rightly states citizen concerns over safety, security, and the environment. The states rights stance should help this Democratic senator connect with Republicans (Greens, Socialists, Libertarians as well!).

I completely understand that this was a short letter, and at that adequate to kill the Columbia River projects if the points are well-taken. Nonetheless, I need to highlight a partial oversight – the adverse economic impacts of an LNG terminal on this river. Wyden does mentions the salmon fishing industry, but many other businesses could suffer if one of these things gets sited.

The Columbia River Business Alliance is building membership. These businesspeople understand that an LNG terminal would be bad for the growing economy of this area. The mission of the Alliance: “The mission of the Columbia River Business Alliance is to achieve sustainable economic development and growth compatible with the heritage, culture and resources of the region. We will meet the needs of the current community while ensuring the quality of life for future generations along the Columbia River.”

Learn more about the Columbia River Business Alliance, and please consider joing, at http://www.columbiariverbusinessalliance.org/

It’s hard to change the course of a big ship of foolishness, but Senator Wyden’s letter is definitely a strong directional correction.

I suppose this blog might set off a wee LNG discussion. It’s been awhile since we were down and dirty with this, so comment away!