Full Forecaste

Story Photos

The proposed site of the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal. Bill Wagner / The Daily News

Past Month's Most Commented Stories

Home > Top Story

FERC says it may reconsider Bradwood Landing decision

Monday, November 17, 2008 11:39 PM PST

By Tony Lystra

Font Size:
 
 

Federal regulators confirmed Monday that they are rethinking their September decision to approve the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal on the Columbia River, but it’s unclear what that will mean for the project’s fate.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would officially reopen its decision for a rehearing, as many opponents of the project had requested. But it also said the move is meant merely to keep the issue out of the federal courts — at least for now, and to give the agency more time to review the case.

In an indication that the proposal to build the terminal has become a matter of bureaucratic maneuvering and spin, both the project’s opponents and backers praised FERC’s decision Monday while Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski’s office, which had been urging FERC to take up the case once again, condemned the move as “business as usual.”

FERC said little about the reason for Monday’s announcment. Spokeswoman Tamera Young-Allen said the agency’s move is “not unusual” and “doesn’t make any statements about its September decision — not yet anyway.”

The developments leading to Monday’s decision are as follows.

n FERC approved NorthernStar’s plan to build an LNG terminal across from Puget Island (as well as a pipeline crossing Cowlitz County) in September.

• State agencies in Oregon and Washington argued that the approval was illegal because states should have been allowed to consider Clean Air, Clean Water and Coastal Zone permits before the matter went before federal officials.

• Those state agencies, as well as environmental and tribal interests and the National Marine Fisheries Service, all formally asked FERC to reconsider its decision.

• FERC had until Monday to give them an answer. If FERC had dismissed the agencies’ concerns and not allowed a rehearing, the agencies would have been free to sue in federal court.

• NorthernStar filed a motion last week asking FERC to hold off on deciding whether to once again take up the case, saying litigation at this point would be “unnecessary.”

• On Monday FERC said it would indeed rehear the case, but said the announcement was intended only to stop the clock on potential lawsuits and that it will take as long as it wants to decide whether it will truly take the matter up again.

The agency’s ruling said: “In order to afford additional time for consideration in the matters raised or to be raised, rehearing of the commission’s order is hereby granted for the limited purpose of further consideration.”

So FERC is essentially saying it will consider reconsidering its decision.

That was enough for opponents of the project to claim a minor victory. Columbia Riverkeeper, an environmental group fighting the project, said Monday’s developments signalled that FERC is at least pausing an approval process that had been steaming ahead.

“Two years ago it looked like FERC would just rubber-stamp this project,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, an attorney with Columbia Riverkeeper. “FERC is stepping back and saying ... we need to reconsider our decision.”

Monday’s announcement, he said, “puts a stain on their original approval.... Why else would they look at this again unless the approval was flawed?”

However, NorthernStar Natural Gas, which wants to build the $650 million project across the river from Puget Island, noted in a statement that FERC’s decision does not reverse the federal agency’s September 18 approval of the terminal.

“The project continues to move forward,” NorthernStar said. “We’re pleased with today’s decision, which does not delay the project in any way.”

NorthernStar also said: “A similar approach has been taken by FERC in the past with other LNG applications to resolve issues related to the timing of state and federal permits.”

Oregon Gov. Kulongoski’s office, which had pushed for a rehearing in the case, said FERC is stalling. “We are disappointed that FERC has delayed a final decision on our request for a rehearing, but we are hopeful that there will be a decision in the near term to rescind the conditional license,” Kulongoski spokesman Rem Nivens said.

“If legal action is necessary to compel FERC to do this right, the governor is prepared to exercise that option.”

Related articles:

Feds may revisit LNG decision as battle between states, FERC heats up  (Nov. 15)

Groups join forces to fight LNG terminal  (Oct. 21)

Kulongoski requests rehearing on Columbia River LNG terminal  (Oct. 20)

gimpy wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:38 PM:

" What is FERC afraid of? Any lay-man could read those petitions for rehearing and know what they said! They said, "Hey, you guys really screwed up." The courts would have no problem deciding that. Oh well, with a new administration in Washington, DC in January, one that isn't beholden to the energy companies like Bush, perhaps we can put an end to all the BS once and for all. "

grams wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:22 PM:

" This is a good thing but just remember, " it ain't over til the fat lady sings." Now is not the time to let down our guard. Now is not the time to relax. Now is the time to check every fact and rule, every energy law and loop hole. Now is the time to amalgamate our strengths and support our governmental allies. FERC is looking at a new administration. FERC can not but recognize that the President Elect, the potential Secretary of State and the son of a slain presidential candidate all denounced an LNG terminal on the Columbia River. FERC can not but remember the powers that gave them the mandate that steamrolled over states rights and wonder just what their roles will be when their appointed positions expire. And NorthernStar can not but recognize that we NIMBYS, including the above mentioneed political celebraties, are a power to be reconed with. I don't think they have ever found that turnip truck that they thought we all fell off of. UP WITH GRASS ROOTS. "

UW Squirrels wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:09 PM:

" *Boo-hoo* "I don't want LNG..." *Boo-hoo* "Not where I live..." "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:47 AM:

" That loud sucking sound is local jobs going down the drain. A very good announcement for the local economy. The NIMBY pansies win, the community loses. "

spete98611 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:51 AM:

" I really don't understand why everyone gets so upset over industrial-growth. The same people who get upset over matters such as this are the same ones who whine about the lack of jobs in the area. The politics perceived to be involved by some in this story are skewed. The reason why this project is undergoing a hold is due to the CEO's deciding what kind of tile to put into the break room of the terminal and whether or not they are going to dish out the extra cash to put in an espresso machine or just get a couple of cheap coffee pots. I've seen all of the signs in yards protesting LNG and don't understand it one bit. Everyone wants cheap power, cheap fuel and cheap products but they don't want to deal with the limited consequences involved. Development of any kind should be welcomed in this area. Who knows what other kinds of industrial sources may come to the area by having an LNG terminal close by. "

gimpy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:26 AM:

" For you posters who think this would be a good thing for our area, do a little research. This could devastate our economy, shutting down the shipping channel, making the ports upriver lose contracts to ports who don't have to contend with LNG tankers and their "safety/security" zones. Yes, we want cheap energy and yes we want jobs, but we want the right energy, not another hydrocarbon that comes from countries who would like to see us dead. And if we took the money projected to go into this facility and applied it to the technology to make our own energy, we would be better off and create lots of green jobs for our American workforce. Have you read the story in today's paper about the pirates taking over the oil tanker in the Indian Ocean? Now imagine it is an LNG tanker and they take it to a populated area and breach the tanks. To quote Peter Hansen of Oregon LNG, "A pool fire is like a nuclear explosion." Doesn't sound like anything I want in my county. "

grams wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:18 AM:

" spete98611..limited consequences???
TDN Bad Boy...local jobs???
UW Squirrels? "Not where I live??"

why do I envision three heads with a brick where the brains should be? Maybe because there can not be room for a bigger picture in such a confined area?
"spete"..who is upset about industrial growth? What is your definition of "industrial growth: shackels or sheckels? "TDN Bad Boy" actually pansies are a pretty hardy breed and quite a popular flora. I'll opt for those over a hot house plant like you any time! And "U W" How about where you work? If you have any kind of a job that relies on trade, import, export, or international commerce you should be concerned about where these LNG terminals are built. All of you.. lets concentrate on something plausable like, thousands of new jobs in manufacturing of clean energy infrastructure, thousands of new jobs in attracting non timber business here. The industrial Revolution in Britian pooped out because no one wanted change or upgrade. Chaining ourselves to foreign fossil fuels is not change or up grade.
TND... its psudo conservatives like you who have screwed up the GOP. Get off it and lets look to the horizen not at our backside! The other side of Will Rogers famous quote is...It's Broke, Lets Fix It........ "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:32 AM:

" Thank you Gimpy for that doomsday scenario. Where exactly has that happened before? As the for the shutting of the shipping channel that is a complete overstatement. Safeguards would be in affect but the Coast Guard can handle it and make it so that shipping is basically unaffected. Lies, lies and lies. All you NIMBYs do is spread your fear. Totally unrealistic. Looking forward to your plan for new jobs and new growth for the area. I'm sure anything will be OK as long as it's not in your backyard. "

spete98611 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:49 AM:

" The LNG terminal is going to happen no matter what any of you do or say. If we all perish in an explosion triggered by a terrorist attack then oh well. Hey, at least all of your families will get money like that received from the victims of 9/11. That'll stimulate the economy. "

grams wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:25 PM:

" TDN Bad Boy: Lies, lies lies??? OK lets just think for a minute. You know what happens to the battle plan after the first bullet is fired? Well, even under a constant best case scenerio there will be slow downs on the Columbia. Worst case scenerio, according to NorthernStars own statements, there will be tidal change lay overs. And that of course does not take into consideration the winter weather habitual to this region. Now , from reading all of your postings I am aware that you are quite an intelligent, well informed person but even the Coast Guard can not control Mother Nature and that is just what these three football field long tankers will have to deal with over a trecherous bar, up a meandering 600 ft wide shipping channel. And at the first sign of an increased terrorist alert, all bets are off as to compromising the "safety and security" zones, or the "Exclusion Zones." If this were Camalot of course none of those things would be worrisom. Time is money in the shipping industry. It took our ports two years to recover from the 1996 flood because shippers went elsewhere, and twenty years as a result of Mt. St. Helens. Build a better arbument TDN Bad Boy or drop the subject. "

grams wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:29 PM:

" spete98611 sounds like you think you have insider information. Interesting. As for the rest of your argument.. I would suggest that you not join a debate club. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:00 PM:

" Grams, does the Coast Guard agree with your assessment of CR shipping disruptions or is that just part of your doomsday scenario? I must admit, it they do, I have not seen it. Doesn't mean it's not out there, I just haven't seen it. So please show that fact to me. "

spete98611 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:44 PM:

" Grams: I know how business works and all I hear you saying is "What if?". I can tell you that with all of the changes occuring on the east coast and the new regulations that are being drafted regarding Port Authority that soon many of the employees working at any port in the US will be out of a job. Which is great because that will provide other, more qualified, individuals with a menial job. Another thing that not many other people know about is there are plans being discussed of opening a new port on the Columbia River at a location I will not discuss. You seem like one of those eco-friendly people who don't understand how the world truly works. We use to play a game back in Chicago where we would shut down small "ma-and-pa" companies and bet how soon afterwards one of them would...well....get fed up with it....I got really good at that game. I'm sick and tired of idealism overshadowing realism. Gram, take your welfare check and go buy yourself a clue. "

CRfisherman wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:19 PM:

" A $650 million dollar project wants to come to our area and people are complaining and saying no when area businesses are laying people off left and right. Wake up people....don't you think that maybe they will have safeguards in place to prevent any accidents. Hmmmmmm....it's not rocket science. "

trapper wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:29 PM:

" TDN Bad Boy: To answer the question you posed Grams, yes, the Coast Guard did express concerns and stated them clearly in open correspondence that can be accessed on the FERC website. One concern was an "up to 7-hour" delay of ship traffic on the river and how that kind of delay would effect river economics. Knowing ships have a narrow window of opportunity to traverse the bar and get up or down river, a delay could mean a full tide cycle or 12-hours. In the same document there is reference to a study completed in May, 2006 (if memory serves me correctly) that included economic concerns due to delays caused by LNG traffic. In another document called the PAWSA, a stake-holder conference/report conducted by the Coast Guard of major ports around the US, including the Port of Portland, shipping delays caused by Mt. St. Helens and the flood of '96 (a two-day shutdown) and the damage those 2 events did to the shipping industry along the Columbia were discussed exstensively. The stake holders attending (long-shoremen, business leaders, tug operators/captain, etc. from port communities up and down the river) clearly stated their concerns that delays are an economic disaster for the Lower Columbia. You can google for the PAWSA report. "

TDN Bad Boy wrote on Nov 18, 2008 2:49 PM:

" I do believe the Coast Guard also said that the delays could/would be alleviated by changing the shipping rules on the river. Under the current rules, which really are too stringent, those delays are there. Change the rules and they won't be. I guess that's too hard to understand. "

Atrucker wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:48 PM:

" Just the size of the LNG ships bothers me . If things go wrong crossing the bar , it would get ugly fast.
LNG is known to be able to travel over a mile under the right conditions and still ignite . So your driving down hwy. 30, and get blown out of your car.
This is not a fairy tale . They also make promises of fixing the salmon they affect, I do not think this will happen.
If you must be escorted by the coast guard to go by the lng ship when in port , that would mean they would need a station near by as well.
Also the geology in Cowlitz county does not suggest the pipe line route is very stable .
I have no doubt that we can use the LNG . It is just the place that bugs me , as far as being a good site . "

spete98611 wrote on Nov 18, 2008 4:09 PM:

" If it wouldn't work, wouldn't make money or pose a threat to safety than why would a multi-billion dollar corporation want to build it? That's what I don't understand. Everyone has their fears of something going wrong whenever a new commodity is introduced. People use to freak out, and still do, in regards to nuclear energy. Now nuclear energy is considered the safest and "greenest" (for power production and waste emission) of energy sources on the planet. Look, if this venture couldn't be done then they wouldn't want to do it. Money is what their after and it's money that can be made for everyone when it arrives. Yeah, bad things happen and so what. We will all cry eventually over something "tragic". It's time to exploit what you have to in order to survive. If you don't have a job than quit your whining about no jobs being in the area and quit saying that you're sorry for all those out of work. Especially when in the back of your head you're thinking, "Yes! More and more people out of work means less consumer activity which will drive prices lower. Now I can get that 60 inch plasma tv for my bathroom." "

rest of the story wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:12 PM:

" interesting.....there are approximately 10 million citizens between Oregon and Washington, yet it is probably a handful, couple of hundred at best, NIMBY's (who stop to turn up their gas heat before they sit down to write the above blogs) that are making any static over this project! Just build the darn thing, and get on with life!. In a few years, nobody will even know there is a terminal at Braidwood. "

grams wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:08 PM:

" TDN Bad Boy.. Change the rules? That is what I meant about the "safety and security zones" The USCS may have some descretionary leeway under ideal political scenerios and natural condidtions. But , more importantly, you must be aware that the Coast Guard is working under a CEII mandate and can NOT disclose the shipping issues in this case. Congressman Brian Baird , however, does have access through his position on The Security Council, has read the entire Water Suitability Report and has stated unequivically that there is too much negativity in regard to speedy transport, potential congestion thus affecting import,export commerce ,thus our economy, and too great a damage to fish habitat to consider this location for an LNG terminal. Change the rules? You mean like what happened with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? You mean like Enron and the natural gas debacle?
There needs to be good reasons to change the rules. Like the one NOAA made when they slowed down international ship traffic to protect the Right Whale from extinction on the Eastern Seabord. You know what? That slow down might protect the whales but you know how much per year it is projected to impact the shipping industry? #116,000 mil per year and that is just to slow down to ten knots. Time is money in the shipping industry. Our ports can't afford tp gamble on the word of "take away the money speculators!" "

grams wrote on Nov 18, 2008 6:25 PM:

" spete98611, you know what mr. Castle Rock? I never took a welfare check in my life. I was a single mother who raised two fine sons and worked multiple jobs, lived on oatmeal, tuna cassaroles, mac and cheese and took my kids to parks, museums, on hikes, and to the library. I am a conservative who does indeed understand business. Of course this venture CAN be done, whether is should be done is the issue. The problem is people who don't understand that chaining ourselves to a foreign energy source that we don't need and can do without is not good business. I am too old (73)to lobby Congress for the money and power to back United States energy potential but I know there are others out there who can and will do that. Eco-friendly? Sorry old boy but when I think about LNG product coming to us from Russia it is not just the environment I am concerned about it what kind of a world I am giving to my grandchildren. And "REST OF THE STORY" you bet there are NIMBY"S out here but would you believe thousands, not hundreds? And we aren't making static, we are making legal, legitimate, and democratic progress! Flash,,,,, there is nothing wrong with natural gas. I don't use it but we need it , and will for some time to come. That is just good business! Domestic natural gas that is. "

trapper wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:30 PM:

" TDN Bad Boy, the Coast Guard did say the river could be navigable but also stated they did not have the resources to provide the necessary security - they are stretched too thin. They have not reversed their concerns on delays to other ships.
spete98611, NorthernStar is NOT a multi-billion dollar corporation. They have NO income. They are a group of 2 people who formed a Delaware corporation 4 years ago and only have personal and private investor monies to back them. They owe over $100 million on one loan alone and their IPO application file Dec. 15, 2006 still has not been approved - so no public sale of stock to finance the rest of the developmental stage of this project. Additionally, you need to look at who's financially backing them - Citigroup - looking at laying off 53,000 due to financial insecurity. So, how secure IS this company? It's time people stop thinking of them as an established company with a financial track record - far, far from the truth. "

Top Jobs
More Top Jobs
Top Garage Sales
More Top Garage Sales
Top Rentals
More Top Rentals