Posted on 04/07/2005 8:59:36 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON – As California officials assert their authority in court over liquefied natural gas terminals, Congress is moving to make it clear that federal regulators have the final word on where the sometimes-controversial facilities are located.
An energy bill being crafted by a House committee would solidify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role in approving the growing number of proposed LNG facilities nationwide, proponents say. Some of the terminals, including several proposed for California, have encountered strong opposition from residents worried about accidents or terrorist attacks involving the highly explosive fuel.
Senate energy subcommittee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., introduced similar legislation yesterday.
State and local officials say the congressional maneuvering is a federal power grab. Industry executives, who support a stronger role for FERC, are still studying the legislation to see how far it would actually go in clarifying the siting process.
The issue is at the center of a legal battle between the federal commission, also known as FERC, and the California Public Utilities Commission. Both are claiming jurisdiction over a proposed LNG terminal at the Port of Long Beach, and the case is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Joseph Kelliher, a member of the federal commission, recently called the California case the "biggest threat" to expansion of the LNG industry.
But Michael R. Peevey, president of the state commission, or PUC, urged the Senate subcommittee in February to recognize "concurrent jurisdiction" by state officials, arguing that they better understand local concerns and conditions around proposed facilities.
Harvey Morris, the lawyer handling the case for the PUC, declined to speculate how the court case could be affected by the legislation if it passes.
The terminals convert LNG shipped from abroad back into a gaseous state. With domestic supplies of natural gas flat and demand for the fuel growing, imports of LNG are expected to grow dramatically in coming years, prompting a need for more terminals.
Four LNG import terminals are operating now, with another 53 in various stages of planning and development. Numerous energy companies, including San Diego's Sempra Energy, are involved in LNG projects.
Sempra is building an LNG terminal along the Baja California coast, as is ChevronTexaco. Several other terminals have been proposed in California, both on land and off the coast.
"Regardless of the outcome of the jurisdictional issue, it's important that there be clarity about siting authority so that developers can develop the necessary LNG infrastructure to meet market demands," said Sempra spokesman Art Larson.
The proposed legislation is part of a broader energy bill that has failed to pass Congress for several years. Republicans who crafted that bill are more optimistic about its chances this year, given their larger majorities in Congress and public concern about high gasoline prices.
Proponents of the LNG provision, including House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, argue that it recognizes a strong state role in the siting process while giving federal regulators the ultimate say.
The legislation names FERC "the lead agency . . . for coordinating all applicable federal authorizations" for LNG terminals and overseeing compliance with environmental laws. It gives FERC the authority to set schedules for federal and state administrative proceedings and sets a deadline for acting on the projects – either one year after an application is filed or 60 days after a court order.
FERC would have to consult state officials on safety issues. Those officials could conduct safety inspections once a terminal is operating, after first notifying FERC. But federal agencies would be responsible for enforcing any safety violations that are discovered.
FERC Chairman Patrick Wood said he was "not real pleased" with the language in the bill because it gives states a broader role than they now have.
Attorneys at FERC are still studying the language, spokesman Bryan Lee said.
While industry officials generally welcomed the legislation, "there are some companies that are evaluating whether or not it achieves the intended goal," said Mark Stultz, spokesman for the Natural Gas Supply Association.
"It clarifies FERC's authority, the jurisdiction that it already has," he said.
But Bry Myown, an opponent of the Long Beach facility, said the legislation "really is making a change and not just reasserting" authority FERC already has.
She said she would not trust FERC to make a reasonable decision on the Long Beach proposal.
"Just the fact that they're even considering it says a lot," she said. "We're already one of the most vulnerable terrorist targets in the nation."
??
Thought they were in Court over whether they had any power to decide things!
Heck, everybody is in court these days..
Why do you think we have such a mess? lol
The 'GReening of AmeriKa' is under way.. :-o
Disgusting....
Weather is getting beautiful down here...still a bit cool.
Think I'll spend more time at the beach.... and forget about all of this court stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.