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

Thanks for your show.  I was one of the callers who spoke but I did not have time to make one of my points.  The issue is that after the 2005 Energy Bill, the states still had regulatory authority regarding clean air, clean water, & the coastal zone management.  Unfortunately FERC is ignoring these issues by issuing permits with conditions even ignoring the required Biologic Opinion that is necessary from National Marine Fiseries.  All issues should be settled prior to the issuing of the federal permit.  This is the main reason that FERC is being sued in the 9th Federal Circuit Court.  Concerned citizen groups, the states of Washington & Oregon,  & the Nez Perce initiated the suit.  We have been joined by 15 other states via an amicus brief.  George

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

We are in the sixth year of evaluating lng terminals on the Columbia River and Coos Bay.  It seems that OPB has missed the ball on this historical perspective and it is not like they have not covered it.  Why are there no stakeholders that have expessed opposition to these projects as a member of your discuission group.    Maybe you should think about a panel with tribal representatives, fishery representatives, affected landowners and environmental representatives. 

When this process began, all states had siting authority.  An even more important aspect is that an entirely different energy world existed, we were in a supply/demand squeeze. Peak oil, peak natural gas, diminishing supplies, developing world demand were all the buzz.  Six years has changed this scenario.  Economic meltdown, consequently less demand, and innovations in resource discovery have led to a surplus of especially natural gas in the United States.  The proposed project at Bradwood would import more natural gas than Oregon & Washington consume.  The proposed Palomar (Nortwest Natural Gas) pipeline that connects to Bradwood would transport all of the regassified LNG to California markets.  Bradwood has contracted with Palomar to ship all of the product from its facility to the Palomar pipeline and on to California.    When this project began all the stakeholders were working with Oregon Dept. of Energy (ODOE) and FERC on the siting of the Bradwood facility.  In 2005, ODOE was working on a needs assessment regarding the import of LNG when the 2005 Energy Bill was passed and authority to regulate siting was taken from the states with a few exceptions.  This brings us to the newly proposed legislation by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell, and others have submitted.  It legislates that the states get their rights regarding siting back from FERC.  This would not be such an issue if FERC adhered even to current law. It has necessitated the states of Oregon & Washington, the Nez Perce Tribe, Columbia RiverKeeper, Sierra Club, and an umbrella of other environmental groups to challenge FERC in federal court.  These groups have been joined by 15  other states that have filed amicus briefs in support.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context