Editorial views from across the state

LNG terminal still a bad idea

The term "Not In My Back Yard" often is used in the pejorative sense, to denote provincialism or selfishness. Sometimes, though, the philosophy is rock solid. For nine months now, The Columbian has been unabashedly and unapologetically NIMBY in our opposition to the liquefied-natural-gas terminal that NorthernStar Natural Gas has proposed for Bradwood Landing, 60 miles northwest of Vancouver and 20 miles east of Astoria.

It's all quite simple: The beautiful but fragile Columbia River estuary is an absolutely awful place to build a natural-gas terminal. Equally awful is the accompanying proposal to gouge a new pipeline along and under the river near Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge (near Cathlamet).

What makes this debate more troubling is that Congress, in passing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, ripped away virtually all of the states' authority in licensing LNG terminals and focused that power in the five-member Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Fortunately, opposition from local and regional congressional representatives has been strong. U.S. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, has formally and strongly opposed the Bradford Landing project. And U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has introduced a bill that would restore state authority for licensing and siting LNG plants.

Impressively, Wyden has recruited several other influential members of Congress in this effort. He says the FERC's almost unilateral approval process is flawed because "it's not going to address the issue of supply; it doesn't address the environmental issues. ... We have a huge array of proposals pending, bringing in far more gas than we could ever use, yet the federal agency won't even address the threshold questions."

One example of excessive supply was presented in a March 24 editorial in the Eugene Register-Guard: "... a pipeline that would run 618 miles from the Wyoming Rockies to Stanfield in Umatilla County ... the high-pressure, 42-inch line could transport 1.2 billion cubic feet of gas per day — more than the average daily consumption of Oregon and Washington combined."

The Register-Guard correctly concluded: "Whether Oregon and the Northwest need more natural gas, and how it should be obtained, shouldn't be decided solely by the companies that are proposing the terminals and pipelines. Federal regulators, working closely with the states, should play a central role."

Northwesterners should take great delight in the fact that the Bradwood Landing and other energy proposals have become a hot issue in the presidential campaign. It appears Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are arguing over who hates these projects the most. On Tuesday [April 8] in Grants Pass, Ore., Clinton pointed out that she opposed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 while Obama (like Sen. John McCain) voted for it. But officials in Obama's camp adamantly point out that Obama joined Clinton in supporting an amendment to restore state control, and he voted for the final bill because of its "largest investment in renewable and clean energy in history."

There's a lot more to the two Democrats' back-and-forth on the issue of state control vs. FERC power. Let them continue to fight over how bad the 2005 act really is. More critical is that Wyden's bill passes, and states regain the NIMBY clout that they need and deserve.

— The Columbian, Vancouver, April 11