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!
Showing posts with label LNG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LNG. Show all posts
Monday, April 16, 2007
Senator Wyden challenges LNG permits
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Port of Astoria Commission endorsements
May Day is coming fast upon us. Odd child that I was, I looked forward to this holiday for the chance to work with my Aunt Irma to make up folded paper baskets which I hung on doors around our Astor Court neighborhood. I was of course oblivious to the pagan roots of the traditional rising of the sap celebration, let alone the commemoration of the Haymarket Riot celebrated (still?) in the Communist world. Among my socialist friends May 1st is International Workers Day. Oh, that reminds me; I started out to write about the Port of Astoria elections.
As related to the elections, May 1st is the day the ballots are to be mailed. I’m thinking that it’s getting to be time to decide which candidates to support. During my failed attempt to secure a Commission seat two years ago, the campaign was in full swing by now. The issues are similar this time around, but they’ve matured. The inadequate oversight and fiscal recklessness of the veteran commissioners, as documented in The Daily Astorian, has been added to the disrespect for the public demonstrated by the railroading of the Calpine lease. LNG is more of a side issue this election, but not insignificant.
I’ll take the plunge and let everyone know who I support, and then brace myself for your comments. First off let me say that I’m pleased that viable candidates are willing to serve, and replace the incumbents – because those currently sitting must go.
All registered voters in Clatsop County have the opportunity to vote for candidates in each of the three contested races for port commissioner. Let’s see who we have.
Okay, for Position 2, to serve out the remaining two years of Glenn Taggart’s term (Glenn resigned in the midst of controversy over possible abuse of his position for personal financial gain. There was certainly the specter of conflict-of-interest with the Western Oregon Waste transaction, some of the handling of Taggart Building project on Port property, and Floyd Holcom’s complaints. We may never know whether improprieties actually occurred, and ethics can have fuzzy lines…): Bernard Bjork, who was appointed last fall, by the other commissioners, to fill the vacancy. He fits in with that crowd, which pretty much disqualifies him. He has not distinguished himself in the time he’s served, and has even distanced himself from his old pal Commissioner Larry Pfund. I lost during the last election to Pfund, who later became so concerned about the mismanagement, secrecy and cover-ups at the Port, that he complained to the press and courageously spoke out at Commission meetings. Bjork told Pfund to stop his whining. Bjork is also a long-time LNG supporter and, incidentally spearheaded the campaign against me. No hard feelings, but please let’s give Bjork the boot.
Also up for Position 2 is John Dunzer. Well, he’s an unusual character. He’s berated the lack of intelligence of every elected official in Clatsop County, as I recall. He considers my loss in 2005 as a mandate for LNG development. He did endear himself to me when, at a candidate’s forum sponsored by the American Association of University Women, he turned to the then-current commissioners in a comment regarding the Calpine lease and said, “You fellers really screwed the pooch.” In spite of that high mark, Dunzer’s a dud.
That leaves us with Patrick McGee for Position 2. McGee is the clear choice by default, because he is not the others. But McGee is also an excellent choice. He immediately smelled the foul air around the backroom dealing of the Calpine lease. He is a powerful advocate for transparency in government, and he speaks out for government officials to be held accountable to their constituents. He has a passion for the beauty and livability of our community, and supports economic development compatible with our heritage. Some call him gruff; I call him to-the-point. I trust McGee to act conservatively with the Port finances. Sure, we disagree on some political matters, but listen folks this is a non-partisan race, and we need someone who will do right by this county. I’m pleased that Patrick McGee is willing to serve.
Now let’s look at Position 3, currently held by Jim Bergeron. Bergeron was one of the more promising commissioners years ago, but went south fast with a pre-lease endorsement of Calpine’s LNG deal. His misguided and irrational antics during the last election are only exceeded by the stubborn streak that must inspire running again. It may be a malignant form of pride. I appreciate the contributions Bergeron has made to preserving the history of fishing in this area, through his former work with Sea Grant. He’s really a pretty nice guy. But he made bad decisions around the lease, around the dredging fiasco, around management oversight, and regarding Port finances. Time to bail on Bergeron.
Fortunately, Bill Hunsinger is willing to take on Position 3. Hunsinger is a retired longshoreman with hands-on (literally) experience in a number of ports. He has not been shy in criticizing if not exposing malfeasance at the Port of Astoria. As outspoken as Hunsinger appears, he also has a level head. I have confidence that he will make informed and measured decisions as port commissioner. He wants to see jobs for our community, but he is also realistic and cautious about the type of jobs. He will be an excellent addition to the Commission.
Finally, there’s Position 4, with thick-skinned Commission President Don McDaniel facing three opponents. McDaniel has been back-peddling a bit of late, finally sort of embracing my two-year call for organizational and fiscal audits of Port structure and activities. I say “sort of” because what is underway is short of a charge to investigate the dark corners of the internal dealings (lease, dredging, insider profiteering, collusion to avoid public process) that appear to have tainted Port activities these past few years. McDaniel is a nice guy who should have stepped down. I think he’s running again fueled by that weird pride, or maybe just to prove that old guys can be tough. Dump Don.
Meet Jim Stroup, retired bar pilot, who has filed for Position 4. Actually I’m not sure where to meet him. Stroup has some experience on the Oregon Board of Maritime Pilots and as master of the State Steamship Company. I got this information from The Daily Astorian. Stroup might be okay, but where is he? I expect, perhaps unfairly, some sort of Internet presence to help me learn about the record and vision of candidates. It’s less than a month until the ballots are mailed. Time to get out of the house, if not onto the Web!
Another contender for Position 4 is Ted Thomas, who points to his political experience in the Boilermakers Union. Thomas has been a vocal critic of the Port, especially regarding procedural matters. He is a founder of Clean Slate, a PAC formed to find and support candidates to replace the incumbent port commission. Clean Slate foisted an admirable platform that emphasized open and responsive government. However, no candidates stepped forward to be embraced by (beholden to?) the PAC, so Thomas himself filed. Thomas expresses good intentions, but I don’t see him winning. He has limited ties to this area, and lacks a long-standing record regarding local issues. He also worked to defeat me in 2005. I don’t think that I hold a grudge, but Fins have long, if selective, memories.
That brings us to Position 4 candidate Kathy Sanders, probably the most capable of any in the Port race. Sanders is a former captain in the U.S. Air Force, now turned writer. I’ve spoke with her at length a couple of times, including at one of her Thursday morning coffees at the Blue Scorcher. Sanders is highly intelligent, inquisitive and not at all shy about digging in to uncover facts. She has done her research (which continues) to understand the challenges and potential of the Port. She has a strong commitment to wielding what power the Port has to drive sustainable economic growth. She’s clearly angry at the fiscal mismanagement that has left the Port struggling instead of leading. I find her to be a very realistic person who has the creativity to make the most out of what is available. This is an accessible forthright person who values transparency in government and who clearly believes in the Port’s mission to foster environmentally responsible economic development. This is the right person at the right time.
There you have it, for the Port of Astoria, Huhtala endorses:
Patrick McGee, Position 2
Bill Hunsinger, Position 3
Kathy Sanders, Position 4
Comments?
As related to the elections, May 1st is the day the ballots are to be mailed. I’m thinking that it’s getting to be time to decide which candidates to support. During my failed attempt to secure a Commission seat two years ago, the campaign was in full swing by now. The issues are similar this time around, but they’ve matured. The inadequate oversight and fiscal recklessness of the veteran commissioners, as documented in The Daily Astorian, has been added to the disrespect for the public demonstrated by the railroading of the Calpine lease. LNG is more of a side issue this election, but not insignificant.
I’ll take the plunge and let everyone know who I support, and then brace myself for your comments. First off let me say that I’m pleased that viable candidates are willing to serve, and replace the incumbents – because those currently sitting must go.
All registered voters in Clatsop County have the opportunity to vote for candidates in each of the three contested races for port commissioner. Let’s see who we have.
Okay, for Position 2, to serve out the remaining two years of Glenn Taggart’s term (Glenn resigned in the midst of controversy over possible abuse of his position for personal financial gain. There was certainly the specter of conflict-of-interest with the Western Oregon Waste transaction, some of the handling of Taggart Building project on Port property, and Floyd Holcom’s complaints. We may never know whether improprieties actually occurred, and ethics can have fuzzy lines…): Bernard Bjork, who was appointed last fall, by the other commissioners, to fill the vacancy. He fits in with that crowd, which pretty much disqualifies him. He has not distinguished himself in the time he’s served, and has even distanced himself from his old pal Commissioner Larry Pfund. I lost during the last election to Pfund, who later became so concerned about the mismanagement, secrecy and cover-ups at the Port, that he complained to the press and courageously spoke out at Commission meetings. Bjork told Pfund to stop his whining. Bjork is also a long-time LNG supporter and, incidentally spearheaded the campaign against me. No hard feelings, but please let’s give Bjork the boot.
Also up for Position 2 is John Dunzer. Well, he’s an unusual character. He’s berated the lack of intelligence of every elected official in Clatsop County, as I recall. He considers my loss in 2005 as a mandate for LNG development. He did endear himself to me when, at a candidate’s forum sponsored by the American Association of University Women, he turned to the then-current commissioners in a comment regarding the Calpine lease and said, “You fellers really screwed the pooch.” In spite of that high mark, Dunzer’s a dud.
That leaves us with Patrick McGee for Position 2. McGee is the clear choice by default, because he is not the others. But McGee is also an excellent choice. He immediately smelled the foul air around the backroom dealing of the Calpine lease. He is a powerful advocate for transparency in government, and he speaks out for government officials to be held accountable to their constituents. He has a passion for the beauty and livability of our community, and supports economic development compatible with our heritage. Some call him gruff; I call him to-the-point. I trust McGee to act conservatively with the Port finances. Sure, we disagree on some political matters, but listen folks this is a non-partisan race, and we need someone who will do right by this county. I’m pleased that Patrick McGee is willing to serve.
Now let’s look at Position 3, currently held by Jim Bergeron. Bergeron was one of the more promising commissioners years ago, but went south fast with a pre-lease endorsement of Calpine’s LNG deal. His misguided and irrational antics during the last election are only exceeded by the stubborn streak that must inspire running again. It may be a malignant form of pride. I appreciate the contributions Bergeron has made to preserving the history of fishing in this area, through his former work with Sea Grant. He’s really a pretty nice guy. But he made bad decisions around the lease, around the dredging fiasco, around management oversight, and regarding Port finances. Time to bail on Bergeron.
Fortunately, Bill Hunsinger is willing to take on Position 3. Hunsinger is a retired longshoreman with hands-on (literally) experience in a number of ports. He has not been shy in criticizing if not exposing malfeasance at the Port of Astoria. As outspoken as Hunsinger appears, he also has a level head. I have confidence that he will make informed and measured decisions as port commissioner. He wants to see jobs for our community, but he is also realistic and cautious about the type of jobs. He will be an excellent addition to the Commission.
Finally, there’s Position 4, with thick-skinned Commission President Don McDaniel facing three opponents. McDaniel has been back-peddling a bit of late, finally sort of embracing my two-year call for organizational and fiscal audits of Port structure and activities. I say “sort of” because what is underway is short of a charge to investigate the dark corners of the internal dealings (lease, dredging, insider profiteering, collusion to avoid public process) that appear to have tainted Port activities these past few years. McDaniel is a nice guy who should have stepped down. I think he’s running again fueled by that weird pride, or maybe just to prove that old guys can be tough. Dump Don.
Meet Jim Stroup, retired bar pilot, who has filed for Position 4. Actually I’m not sure where to meet him. Stroup has some experience on the Oregon Board of Maritime Pilots and as master of the State Steamship Company. I got this information from The Daily Astorian. Stroup might be okay, but where is he? I expect, perhaps unfairly, some sort of Internet presence to help me learn about the record and vision of candidates. It’s less than a month until the ballots are mailed. Time to get out of the house, if not onto the Web!
Another contender for Position 4 is Ted Thomas, who points to his political experience in the Boilermakers Union. Thomas has been a vocal critic of the Port, especially regarding procedural matters. He is a founder of Clean Slate, a PAC formed to find and support candidates to replace the incumbent port commission. Clean Slate foisted an admirable platform that emphasized open and responsive government. However, no candidates stepped forward to be embraced by (beholden to?) the PAC, so Thomas himself filed. Thomas expresses good intentions, but I don’t see him winning. He has limited ties to this area, and lacks a long-standing record regarding local issues. He also worked to defeat me in 2005. I don’t think that I hold a grudge, but Fins have long, if selective, memories.
That brings us to Position 4 candidate Kathy Sanders, probably the most capable of any in the Port race. Sanders is a former captain in the U.S. Air Force, now turned writer. I’ve spoke with her at length a couple of times, including at one of her Thursday morning coffees at the Blue Scorcher. Sanders is highly intelligent, inquisitive and not at all shy about digging in to uncover facts. She has done her research (which continues) to understand the challenges and potential of the Port. She has a strong commitment to wielding what power the Port has to drive sustainable economic growth. She’s clearly angry at the fiscal mismanagement that has left the Port struggling instead of leading. I find her to be a very realistic person who has the creativity to make the most out of what is available. This is an accessible forthright person who values transparency in government and who clearly believes in the Port’s mission to foster environmentally responsible economic development. This is the right person at the right time.
There you have it, for the Port of Astoria, Huhtala endorses:
Patrick McGee, Position 2
Bill Hunsinger, Position 3
Kathy Sanders, Position 4
Comments?
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Another blogger emerges from the estuary
Well, it's true that I live in the region of the Columbia River estuary, and I'm so glad that I do. I'm just settling in after about three weeks on the road, mostly on the East Coast. The best parts of that journey were seeing my son, Ivan, and his girlfriend Cindi on St. Patrick's Day, and staying with my daughter, Nirvana, and her husband, Scott. What delightful people my children have grown into!
I also had the opportunity to participate in a short story discussion group in Washington, DC. These people have been meeting once a month for ten years! We read "Clay" from the Dubliners by James Joyce, and spent a solid hour dissecting the story and offering competing theories regarding Joyce's intent. Delighthful.
Most of the rest of the trip was politics and activist shenanigans. I joined Columbia Riverkeeper and a gang of citizens in filing a fraud complaint in DC regarding documentation for an initial public offering of Northern Star Natural Gas, one of the LNG speculators casting their unwelcome shadows on this precious estuary. A batch of us took a Chinatown bus to New York City to further protest the IPO at NASDAQ, Matlin Patterson (controlling interest) and Citigroup (the underwriter). We had to pick the day of a sleet and snow storm - although it was auspiciously St. Urho's Day.
I eventually found my way back to DC for many meetings - including numerous discussions with Congressional staff and sometimes their bosses - on LNG, on fish, on the future of this country.
A major highlight of the trip was the Board of Advisors meeting for the Marine Fish Conservation Network. What an incredible, bright, strategic and fun group of people. Of course the DC time would not have been complete without dining and socializing at The Reef - one of my favorite Adams Morgan haunts.
I also had the opportunity to participate in a short story discussion group in Washington, DC. These people have been meeting once a month for ten years! We read "Clay" from the Dubliners by James Joyce, and spent a solid hour dissecting the story and offering competing theories regarding Joyce's intent. Delighthful.
Most of the rest of the trip was politics and activist shenanigans. I joined Columbia Riverkeeper and a gang of citizens in filing a fraud complaint in DC regarding documentation for an initial public offering of Northern Star Natural Gas, one of the LNG speculators casting their unwelcome shadows on this precious estuary. A batch of us took a Chinatown bus to New York City to further protest the IPO at NASDAQ, Matlin Patterson (controlling interest) and Citigroup (the underwriter). We had to pick the day of a sleet and snow storm - although it was auspiciously St. Urho's Day.
I eventually found my way back to DC for many meetings - including numerous discussions with Congressional staff and sometimes their bosses - on LNG, on fish, on the future of this country.
A major highlight of the trip was the Board of Advisors meeting for the Marine Fish Conservation Network. What an incredible, bright, strategic and fun group of people. Of course the DC time would not have been complete without dining and socializing at The Reef - one of my favorite Adams Morgan haunts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
