Posted on 09/01/2006 9:22:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
An Assembly committee killed legislation Thursday that would have required the California Energy Commission to analyze and rank four existing proposals to import liquefied natural gas into the state.
In the absence of such a comparative statewide review, environmentalists argued, Californians will be stuck with whichever proposal wins the race to first gain a federal permit.
The bill, SB426, was first proposed last year but was resurrected as lawmakers neared the end of their session because all the LNG proposals — including two off the Oxnard coast — remain stalled in the federal regulatory process. After a brief and hastily called meeting, the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee rejected the bill on a 2-6 vote.
Among those testifying against it were representatives of BHP Billiton, proponent of a floating terminal, and Clearwater Port, which seeks to convert an existing offshore oil platform to an LNG terminal.
"Clearwater Port is already undergoing the most rigorous environmental and safety review processes in the world," project manager Billy Owens said. "The bill's subjective ranking system would have added an unnecessary and confusing additional layer of process."
Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, took the unusual step of testifying before the committee, saying he felt he needed to advocate for his constituents in Oxnard.
"The people of California deserve a fair and objective process," he said. "The people in my district are confronted by the largest mining company in the world. ¿ Its proposal is dangerous to the environment and compromises military operations along the coast."
Nava criticized the decision by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, who determined that the act of changing the dates in the original bill from "2006" to "2007" constituted substantive changes that necessitated a new committee hearing. A spokesman for the speaker said last week a hearing was necessary so there could be public input on the changes.
The hearing was called without advance notice of the time, was held in a small room just off the Assembly chambers and lasted no more than 12 minutes, with about half the time devoted to the LNG bill.
"It was ludicrous," Nava said. "There was no time to notify anybody other than insiders. In effect, it excluded public participation."
Kathi Hann, spokeswoman for BHP Billiton's Cabrillo Port project, said existing government reviews will ensure the project's safety and its compliance with environmental regulations.
"An offshore LNG-receiving terminal such as Cabrillo Port will be built only if world-leading environmental requirements are satisfied and its inherent safety is confirmed by the State Lands Commission, the governor, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security," Hann said in a written statement.
Environmentalists noted with regret that the action came on the same day the Assembly approved landmark global warming legislation designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in California by 25 percent by 2020.
Rory Cox of Pacific Environment said the proposed BHP Billiton project would generate 25 million tons of greenhouse gases each year. "The global warming initiatives are on a collision course with LNG," he said. "It's a complete contradiction."
Cox said importation of LNG would crowd out demand for energy generated by renewable sources, such as wind and solar.
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.