Riverkeeper's FERC Challenge Filed
Columbia Riverkeeper and conservation partners filed the opening legal brief in the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 25th, 2010 challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) approval of Bradwood Landing LNG terminal and pipeline.
Read the legal briefs here: Columbia Riverkeeper and partners, Oregon , Washington , and Nez Perce Tribe , all came together to challenge Bradwood Landing.
"FERC failed to consider the harm to salmon and the very real costs of this project to Oregon's farms, forests, and energy prices." stated Brett VandenHeuvel, CRK's Executive Director. "In addition, we agree with FERC Chairman Wellinghoff's conclusion that there is no proven need for LNG in the Pacific Northwest."
CRK, along with partners Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Landowners and Citizen for a Safe Community, Willapa Hills Audubon Society, and Wahkiakum Friends of the River, filed a 69-page brief describing a long list of FERC's errors.
"I've never seen a project gather this much opposition from across the spectrum. In addition to conservation and property rights' groups, we're thrilled that the Oregon, Washington, and the Nez Perce Tribe are aggressively challenging FERC's decision. Bradwood Landing is once again being exposed as a bad idea," stated Brett VandenHeuvel.
Columbia Riverkeeper and partners argued that FERC's legal errors include:
- Failing to conduct a needs assessment to see if LNG is necessary and in the public interest; failing to respond to the State of Oregon's needs assessment showing LNG is not needed and more expensive than domestic natural gas;
- Failing to assess and disclose important project designs, such as fish screens to keep endangered salmon from being sucked in with up to 50 million gallons of ballast water per LNG tanker;
- Failing to assess the Palomar Pipeline as a "connected action" even though the Palomar Pipeline would be physically connected to Bradwood and has a binding precedent agreement to carry 94% of Bradwood's gas capacity;
- Failing to take the required "hard look" at economic impacts to commercial and recreational fishing, as well as safety impacts to Estuary communities;
- Failing to obtain the required state approvals under the Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone Management Act (Oregon and Washington have not approved any part of the project);
- Failing to evaluate the impact on threatened and endangered salmon by completing consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Service sued FERC for this failure as well).
FERC's response brief is due on March 29, 2010.
CRK and partners are represented in this action by the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (PEAC) and Field Jerger LLP. We wish to especially thank Tom Buchele and PEAC crew and Scott Jerger for their excellent work.
CRK's Conservation Director is encouraged by the law suit, but believes state leaders should act now. "Look, we have strong legal arguments, but the fact is LNG is no longer a viable plan. In light of the recent Oregonian article showing LNG is a purely speculative venture, it's time for state leaders to step up and use their authority to deny these lingering projects."
Appeals Court Filings Express Concerns About Proposed Natural Gas Terminal's Effects on Salmon
Friday, January 29th, 2010
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was overly hasty and acted without proper environmental impacts analysis in licensing the proposed construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas ship terminal and plant in the Columbia River estuary, according to legal briefs filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Nez Perce Tribe, the states of Oregon and Washington and Columbia Riverkeeper all asked the court to order FERC to reconsider its Sept. 18, 2008, decision to license the proposed Bradwood Landing LNG project, as well as its Jan. 15, 2009, denial of requests for a rehearing on the earlier decision.
The project site is located upstream of Astoria, Ore., 36 miles upstream from the river's mouth to the Pacific Ocean.
"FERC failed to consider the harm to salmon and the very real costs of this project to Oregon's farms, forests, and energy prices." said Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper. "In addition, we agree with FERC Chairman Wellinghoff's conclusion that there is no proven need for LNG in the Pacific Northwest."
Opponents take LNG to court
Coalition fighting proposed natural gas terminal says feds didn’t do their homework or prove need
In 2008, the federal government gave a nod to the developers of Bradwood Landing, a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed to be built along the Columbia River.
The decision drew the ire of state officials in Oregon and Washington and a group of environmental activists.
Now they’re going to court.
In legal briefs filed this week in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a coalition of environmental groups argues that when the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, or FERC, approved the Bradwood Landing application, it didn’t do its homework – or prove that Oregon needs an LNG terminal.
“FERC failed to consider the harm to salmon and the very real costs of this project to Oregon’s farms, forests and energy prices.” said Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, the nonprofit spearheading the coalition.
VandenHeuvel said he hoped the court would side with FERC commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, a Nevada Democrat who voted against the Bradwood Landing proposal, saying that domestic gas reserves and other alternatives to building Bradwood Landing made more sense.
Wellinghoff has since been named the chairman of FERC, and has been meeting with concerned citizens and state officials in Oregon about the proposed LNG terminals and the pipelines that would follow.
This week the agency said it planned to schedule a series of town hall meetings about another proposed LNG terminal, called Oregon LNG.
But convincing the court of Wellinghoff’s position will take time.
State officials say court cases like the suit against FERC take 18 months to three years to resolve.
The foot-dragging could affect the race to build an LNG terminal in the state. So far, FERC has approved two developments: Bradwood Landing and Jordan Cove, near Coos Bay. Oregon LNG is still planning to go before FERC.
But another project, the Ruby Pipeline, is catching up to the LNG projects. The project would build a 674-mile-long pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon that would pump domestic natural gas from the center of the country to the coast.
But according to an analysis by the Oregon Department of Energy, the Ruby Pipeline wouldn’t feed the Portland market. Instead, it would divert the gas to California. But by doing so, it would free up Canadian natural gas for use in the Portland-metro area.
If the Ruby Pipeline moves forward, it could be increasingly difficult for LNG proponents to convince state officials that the projects are necessary.
“It is unlikely that LNG terminals in Oregon would result in lower prices because of LNG market dynamics,” the Department of Energy analysis says. “Pacific Basin LNG is not currently competitive from a price standpoint with U.S. and Canadian-produced natural gas.”
