Editorial: LNG study is vital to future

SB412 running out of time

To ask Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez to send the LNG Market Assessment Act — Senate Bill 412 — to the Assembly floor for a vote, call 916-319-2046.

You would think that if people are investing millions of dollars and thousands of hours in environmental impact reports, hearings and public campaigns to put liquefied natural gas facilities in California that someone would want to find out, first, if they are needed and, second, how to make sure they are as safe as possible.

The topic is hardly academic. It is whether California has enough energy to continue to fuel our economy, whether we literally will have enough juice to turn on the lights.

Assembly Bill 412, by state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, would require a state study to see if LNG is even needed. If so, how much. The bill also clarifies that the California Environmental Quality Act requires an analysis of alternative technologies so if an LNG terminal is allowed in California, it will be designed safely and with as few impacts as possible.

What's not to like?

The cost, according to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, who says the state cannot afford the study's estimated cost of $500,000. He held the proposed bill in the Assembly Appropriation Committee on Aug. 29, before it could come to a vote. If he doesn't release it in the next few days before legislators adjourn for the year, it could be dead.

The speaker needs to have a bigger vision of California's future and realize that California can't afford going another year without this assessment. Similar bills have failed the last three years.

As long as there is no assessment, there will be no grounds to properly evaluate LNG proposals in California. As Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, chairman of the state Lands Commission, said when explaining his key vote against the BHP Billiton LNG proposal off the Ventura County coast earlier this year: "We desperately need a reliable process to settle the need question."

Today, there are three offshore LNG applications in California in the works. It says a lot that two of those LNG companies — NorthernStar and Woodside — support SB412, as do 25 environmental organizations and all the environmental lobbyists in Sacramento. Sempra and PG&amp;E are neutral on the bill.

Without a comprehensive, objective analysis of whether LNG is needed, decision makers will be viewing each application without any gauge by which to measure it, in terms of need, cost or safety.

It would be irresponsible of the state of California to skip doing a thorough assessment of an issue that affects our economy, our security and our coastline.

For that, California can afford $500,000. It cannot afford shortsighted politicians who do their jobs on the fly.


  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 7

luvsDC writes:

To Me, leftist-liberals have put the kabosh on our energy infrastructure with their envrionmental whacko activism, for decades. When Oxnard City Council voted down a smaller secondary electrical plant next to the already built one along Harbor Blvd. recently, all you folks who sweltered in the recent heat wave can thanks the same the politicians who pandered to the wackos on the left.

Why should you or I have to conserve energy? We should have all the energy at our fingertips to keep us comfortable in both summer and winter. But the Liberals won't stop at nothing with their fraudulent Global Warming hype.

kosmoz13#433768 writes:

fraudulent global warming hype that is verified by teams of hugh ranking scientists
"New evidence supports the theory that global warming has contributed to stronger hurricanes."

"Press Release
Global Warming Can Trigger Extreme Ocean, Climate Changes"

"Northern forests less effective than tropical ones in reducing global warming"

"United States will indeed warm, affecting everything from the western snowpacks that supply California with water to New England's fall foliage"

Among scientists, this is not a liberal issue, this is a human issue. Weather you choose to believe the climate is changing due to human activity or not doesn't really matter. It is, and we have to do what we can to prevent the Co2 emissions in the atmosphere or our planet's climate will be irreversibly altered.

There is renewable energy available, especially here in CA. We should utilize the sun's power with solar panels, before we go and tap into another fossil fuel. A fossil fuel that uses much energy just to convert into something usable.

Name calling is not appropriate in this coversation.

kosmoz13#433768 writes:

"113 Nations Agree: Climate Change 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans"
"Bush and his budget proposals have devoted $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance and incentive programs _ ''more money than any other country.''

Bush has called for slowing the growth rate of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which averages 1 percent a year, but has rejected government-ordered reductions"

The above link is the report on how human's have affected the climate.

Tom_Johnston writes:

This proposed study won't matter, won't settle any LNG debates and that's why it would be a waste of money. This isn't about logic anymore.

At the end of the day, nobody, NOBODY is going to let an LNG terminal in their backyard, frontyard or 20+ miles offshore. At least not in this state or country.

It won't matter whether we need it, it won't matter that we don't. There will always be some coalition of people who will find some reason..an earthquake fault, a scenic view, whales, migrating birds, someplace where a Native American dropped dead 4000 years ago, a nearby school, that air quality is less than pristine...you name, they'll find it.

It's not that any of those things aren't important, but it does matter that we are important. This is a technological society and there is no changing that. It would be great if we could all charge our iPods with solar power or by burning walnut shells, but I just don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.

This has nothing to do with "global warming" (which I think it real btw), it has more to do with people who want to live the lifestyle we enjoy but always at somebody else's expense.

A big LNG facility is being built just south of the US/Mexican border. Hear any complaints about that? Didn't think so...not unless it was at Cabo San Lucas or anywhere else well-off and short sighted Americans care to visit.

Its just NIMBY...again and again. We're becoming a Nation of people more focused on why we can't do things than how we can do things, and responsibly.

The study IS a waste of money because it will never silence the selfish nay-sayers in our all too comfortable society.

kosmoz13#433768 writes:

we power calculators with solar power, why couldn't we power our I-pod's the same way?

cmnelson7890#229362 writes:

I wonder if People ever thought about the GAS LINES RUNNING DOWN THEIR STREET ALL THE WAY UP TO THEIR HOUSE. (I know most of us have them.) That is unless their home is all Electric or on Propane Gas. Has your house Blew Up yet? Mine hasn't. But, I do remeber when the Propane Tanks did Blow Up and we got rid of them. I Concever all the time.
Just a View from a 72 year old.

kosmoz13#433768 writes:

who was talking about LNG danger?


Featured Promotions