By a vote of 2-1 “the State Lands Commission rejected a proposed liquefied natural gas facility off the southern California coast.”
For the record, the two in opposition were Democrats Lt. Gov John Garamendi and State Controller John Chiang. This plan rejection confirms that activism is still alive and well in this state as the Sierra Club celebrates this (temporary) victory.
Background: The Australian firm BHP Billiton LNG was hoping to build a floating “terminal” off the southern CA coast from which the gas would be piped onto the mainland and was prepared to invest $800 million into the project. The US Coast Guard had approved the terminal.
Among other applications, liquid natural gas is used as a fuel source for generating electricity in our power plants.
Let me share some data prepared by the California Electricity Oversight Board from Aug 2004 before asking some questions of you, the Juice readers.
Bear in mind our commitment to avoid power outages and broaden our source of supply to keep everyone competitive.
“LNG is shipped from abroad through double-hulled ships (“tankers”) which sometimes reach lengths of 900 feet or more. These tankers hold the equivalent of 2.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas. These tankers dock at ports where facilities have been constructed to unload, process, store and redeliver the LNG. These unloading facilities are called terminals. Unloading one shipload of LNG generally takes 12 hours. In most instances, the unloaded LNG is stored just long enough for it to be either trucked to customers or regasified and delivered into pipelines owned by the other entities.” Note. That is the current plan for the southern CA locations.
“At present North American natural gas prices are being maintained by the market at the level where new foreign LNG shipments can compete with current gas supplies. As North American production increases in price, introduction of foreign LNG into California’s energy markets can hold the line or lower the cost of the state’s energy. Apart from pricing considerations, LNG offers the opportunity to make up for depleted domestic natural gas supplies and lower export levels from Canada. U.S. Government officials and agencies characterize future foreign LNG shipments into the U.S. as an important part of the nation’s overall strategy to meet our energy needs in the years ahead.”
“To date, no LNG import terminals have been constructed within the state of California or in it’s adjacent coastal waters. However, LNG is still used within the state as an alternative fuel for transit buses (the largest being the City of Santa Monica and the Orange County Transit Authority), trash haulers (Cities of San Diego and Sacramento, Riverside County, GTI Rubbish, Norcal Waste Management, and Waste Management, Inc.), and heavy duty trucks, including semi-trucks used in the fleets of several major grocery chains (Vons, Raleys/Bel Air, and Sysco Food Services).”
There is no question that we would welcome every opportunity to wean ourselves from our dependency on fossil fuels and shift to “cleaner renewable alternatives.”
Do you remember the energy crisis where our electric bills went up like a rocket ship? Included in that increase spike, unless I am mistaken, was the cost of natural gas imported from Texas where costs in Arizona were considerably lower than the same natural gas supply the minute it crossed the CA border.
We need to support every possible private sector offer to meet our long term energy goal as long as it does not introduce a safety issue.
In Feb Dem. State Senator Joe Simitian introduced SB 412 as part of our obligation to “certify sufficient sites and related facilities that are required to provide a supply of electricity to accommodate projected demand for power statewide. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation regarding the siting and construction of liquefied natural gas facilities on or off the coast of California.”
I have read that the governor “does not have a position on this specific project at this point.”
Juice readers. What are your thoughts on this vote?
As our state population is projected to hit 50 million residents isn’t it appropriate to be proactive and plan ahead? Do we need to endure more blackout’s before calling “Red” Adair?
PS: I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy and commend Assemblyman Chuck DeVore for his efforts in promoting this clean alternative energy source!
Well, thank goodness!
Separate and aside from the celebrity spokesperson, there was a day’s woth of testimony, the majority against this project.
It wasn’t just about spoiling the expensive views, there are some real problems with the amount of pollution this project would have caused. The idea that minimal mediation would be required since it is offshore with no immediate neighbors, or that pollution “credits” are an appropriate solution was ridiculous.
We need energy solutions like new LNG sources and creative but safe and non-polluting ideas for processing, but the downsides of this particular project were just too much.
As I understand it, this vote didn’t actually kill it. BHP is still expected to try and get the necessary approvals from the coastal commission.
An e-mail response:
Another instance where political expedience, green bullhorns, and Hollywood beach owners trump good sense and science. We’ll all pay for this in the upcoming years…
This project was an environmental disaster. CO2 emissions, smog, light and sound scatter that would damage marine wildlife; this project had it all.
The Coastal Commission has now unanimously also voted against it, with a vote of 12 to 0.
As of now, the Land Commission has denied this project based on concerns that the pipeline on the land portion is potentially unsafe, and the Coastal commission has denied it on the threat to marine life and the gross pollution it would generate.
Did that kill it? Of course not! BHP will likely still appeal to Carlos Gutierrez, the US Commerce Secretary.
They just don’t get that the end doesn’t always justify the means.
Here are some quotes from the LA Times article on yesterday’s hearings:
“…underwater noise from the project would exceed 120 decibels for 390 square miles. She said the company failed to identify ways to prevent whales from being struck by ships and said there was “no mitigation, period” to protect endangered birds from bright lights.”
“Commissioner Mary Shallenberger said the company had failed to demonstrate “maximum feasible” controls to reduce greenhouse gases from its project.”
“Coastal Commission staff had requested that the company use natural gas to power its 11 Cabrillo Port ships across the Pacific Ocean, but the company had refused.”
“The commission staff estimated that the project would produce the equivalent of 23 million tons of carbon dioxide per year — 40% of the amount emitted by New York City. It is the first time the Coastal Commission has examined global-warming gases when considering a project.”
“Many commissioners worried that the project would emit too much air pollution. Cabrillo Port and its vessels would release about 219 tons of smog-forming emissions annually upwind of Los Angeles and Ventura counties — two of the smoggiest places in the nation. The commission’s staff contended that the company failed to adequately control emissions and instead won an exemption from the Clean Air Act that allowed it to skirt stringent measures that businesses ashore must meet.”
Anonymous.
You make a strong argument for nuclear energy. Thank you for the depth of your comments.
I guess we have choices. Be green with the lights out as happened to my mother in law yesterday in LA or continue to import natural gas from Texas and be ripped off again when demand on the power grid escalates.
I’ll take door number three. Safe and clean nuclear energy.
Nuclear, wind, solar, etc.
There are options out there for other renewable sources like hydroelectric as well.
Most of the good options don’t come cheap, or take up lots of real estate like the windmill farms, but these are the options we really need to focus on.
Any fuel based generators, whether coal, LPG, or other petroleum base should begin being phased out now, and replaced with greener and more renewable resources.
Thanks for your attention to this issue, Larry.