Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

Emily,

Change to the law would have an effect on pipelines.  Since it is acknowledged that at most 1 facility is needed on the west coast, if the determination of the number is part of the upfront analysis, then multiple proposals wouldn't be allowed to go forward.

The FERC super-siting authority has failed.  If it were working, these facilities would be in California where the gas is ultimately used instead of chewing up hundreds of miles of Oregon landscape to get the gas in the back door.

Marc Auerbach

Birkenfeld, OR

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

The current FERC process is unfair, unjust and an unnecessary hardship on affected landowners.

1. The Bush-era free-market zealotry extended to FERC as well. FERC's approach of approving everything in sight and then letting the "market" decide is unjust, unnecessary, and wrongheaded.

Wrongheaded because the so called "market" is one composed of conscripted and enslaved properties.

 Unnecessary because it needlessly puts government agencies and landowners through expensive and time consuming evaluation of many more projects than will ever be built.

 Unjust because the process favors the interests of corporations (even foreign ones) over those of private, US landowners.

2. Landowners are subjected to years of uncertainty about when, where and even if a pipeline will be on their property.

 Even FERC does not know exactly where the pipeline will go until the pipe is in the ground.

This "limbo" period is an emotional and financial drain for which there is no compensation whatsoever.

Landowners report they cannot make important capital investment decisions about their land because they don't know where the pipeline will go.

3. FERC, "our" regulatory agency is not on "our" side.

FERC does not even follow its own meager policies on aiding landowners.

The Columbia Riverkeeper suit against FERC seems to indicate FERC actively withheld a list of affected landowners from the public. A list of fellow landowners is an important tool to achieve a just outcome.

FERC is too quick to grant eminent domain authority.

FERC has abdicated its responsibility to establish "need" and properly consider alternatives.

Marc Auerbach

Chair, NWPRC.org

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context