A long-awaited environmental impact report concerning a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at the Port of Long Beach is due out next week as both sides of the controversial plan prepare their next moves.
The project cannot move forward without the report, published jointly by the California Energy Commission and the Port of Long Beach.
Sensitivities are so high that port spokesman Art Wong stressed that the Port of Long Beach has not taken sides in the debate, although opponents insist that the port wouldn’t have entered into a letter of intent unless it thought the terminal was a good idea.
Under the plan, the port would lease 25 acres of land on Terminal Island to Sound Energy Solutions, the joint venture of Mitsubishi Corp. and ConocoPhilips Co. that would build and operate the $400 million terminal.
Natural gas is cooled and shipped in its liquid form and then loaded into giant tankers for delivery to terminals where it is stored, warmed up to its gaseous state and distributed through pipelines and trucks. The Long Beach terminal would provide an estimated 10 percent of the state’s natural gas needs.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants to build more LNG terminals in California, but won’t specifically endorse the Long Beach plan until after the EIR and an accompanying environmental impact statement is approved. That won’t happen until after a 60-day public comment period and possible adjustments to the plan.
FERC is also obligated to consult the state Public Utilities Commission, but the PUC’s role was diminished by the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was signed by President Bush in August. The law placed responsibility for locating LNG sites with FERC, ending a debate over jurisdiction that had led the PUC to file a lawsuit seeking to assert control over the Long Beach project.
Today, the U.S. has five LNG import terminals three in the hurricane-prone Southeast, none on the West Coast.
“We only fulfill 13 percent of our gas consumption needs here in California,” said Elizabeth Crothers, spokeswoman for Californians for Clean Affordable and Safe Energy, an advocacy group supported by manufacturing, business and the California Chamber of Commerce.
While she said her organization is “fully supportive” of the approval process, seeing Gulf Coast terminals under stress illustrates the need to build a terminal in California.
