Oregon bill to fast-track LNG pipelines is back
In 2008, Bradwood Landing LNG proposed a bill that would fast-track the permitting of their LNG pipelines. That bill was defeated, after opposition from groups ranging from the Yamhill County Farm Bureau to the Sierra Club, and tens of thousands of Oregonians. Why has a controversial bill resurfaced during the short legislative session? Contact your legislator to request that they oppose this harmful bill.
Click here to find your legislator.
Click here for talking points .
Reasons to Oppose SB 1020,
the LNG Fast-track Bill:
Background:
This session's LNG fast-track bill, SB 1020 (formerly LC 85), is a repeat of last session's controversial House Bill 3058. The proposed bill would remove the word "applicant" from key permitting rules, allowing out-of-state liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies to apply for permits on private property without the landowner's knowledge or permission. In its current form, SB 1020 is a give-away to the LNG industry, offering state permits to companies on lands they do not control. The bill is strongly opposed by those who respect private property rights and Oregonians who oppose condemning Oregon farms, forests, nurseries and vineyards to send un-needed LNG to California. Please oppose SB 1020 for the following reasons:
The bill is a controversial and unnecessary gift to the LNG industry.
SB 1020's predecessor, HB 3058, was introduced at the request of Bradwood LNG. The suggestion that SB 1020 is not about LNG conflicts with a 2007 memo from Bradwood stating that "we will ask the Oregon Legislature to change the definition of applicant" to allow LNG companies to obtain permits on private land.
The bill is designed primarily to fast-track LNG pipelines, not to build roads.
The bill could easily be narrowed to exclude LNG-related pipelines. A simple amendment could limit the SB 1020 to apply only to public entities (e.g. roads and, light-rail projects), but LNG companies are pushing for broad language to provide a short-cut for their projects. An amendment to fast-track public projects, but not LNG, would be widely supported.
Oregonians from all walks of life oppose SB 1020, the LNG Fast-Track Bill.
Local farm bureaus, forestry groups, and prominent property rights advocates opposed this bill during the last session (as HB 3058) because the proposed change makes it easier for LNG companies to obtain permits without landowner permission. Ultimately, by facilitating permits and moving LNG projects forward, the bill will cause economic harm to Oregon farms, forests, vineyards, and our natural resources.
A new story from Natural Oregon states:
“Brett VandenHeuvel of Columbia Riverkeeper says LNG companies are feeling pressure to show results. . . . “Why,” asks VandenHeuvel, “would we fast track the siting of LNG projects when they’re incredibly unpopular?”
LNG Battles Return To Salem
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 for 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.
Photo from www.lngoneworld.com.
See the full article: http://www.naturaloregon.org/2010/01/12/lng-battles-return-to-salem/
