Category: Current issues

The fight over building the Canadian-owned and operated LNG pipeline across lands from Klamath County to Coos Bay has spanned several years now. LWV Klamath County has been involved as one of the 4 local leagues that has worked to support environmental and land rights across the projected pipeline route.

Here are several updates and recent media reports on this project, which has remained stalled over legal permits for a long time.

From ProPublica:

This past spring, while much of the country focused on COVID-19, three men who work in an obscure corner of the federal government weighed a question with profound effects across the American West. On the docket was a proposal to build a natural gas pipeline that would slice through hundreds of miles of Oregon wilderness, private lands and areas sacred to American Indians. The plan, which had been repeatedly rejected by state and federal regulators for more than a decade, would give a Canadian company the right to seize the land it needed from any American property owner who stood in the way. The government panel that would make the decision can meet in person. But on this March afternoon, it was conducting the people’s business in writing — government by what amounts to dueling memos.

(read more)

From Capital Press: Empowering Producers of Food and Fiber:

COOS BAY, Ore. — Wind howls across the channel — the kind of wind that turns umbrellas inside-out. On the water, the ghost-like outline of a ship, scarcely visible through white fog and driving rain, seems to stand still.

It is here the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay has proposed the largest project in its history: expanding the channel to 45 feet deep and 450 feet wide and allowing the port to take its place among the international shipping giants along the West Coast.

People have been talking about the idea for decades. Advocates say it could open new avenues for international trade of agricultural goods and transform the region’s economy.

(read more)

dated October 12, 2020: Western Environmental Law Center:

WELC (Western Environmental Law Center) is a critical ally in the fight against the Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline project (JC/PC). They recently made a formal request for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), due to factors associated with the South Obenchain Fire. The fire burned 32,000 acres, including 7 miles of the proposed pipeline route. (Map and request attached.)
Here’s how WELC’s request starts:
We write to bring to your attention significant new information requiring supplementation of existing environmental analysis for the Jordan Cove Energy Project since the FEIS was released in November 2019, and FERC’s issuance of the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in March 2020. Western Oregon is experiencing an unprecedented wildfire season. Oregon Governor Brown has declared a state of emergency, calling the wildfires a “once-in-a-generation event.” These fires constitute significant new information that warrants preparation of a supplemental EIS.The rest of the letter is well worth a read as it outlines a range of related issues as Oregon grapples with the new normal undeniably enhanced by climate change.

Read the complete document HERE.

NATURAL GAS: LNG export projects face ‘uncertain’ future — report, dated October 6, 2020

Miranda Willson, E&E News reporter

A glut of natural gas supplies and the economic slowdown from the pandemic have created a “highly uncertain” outlook for planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, according to a new report from an environmental nonprofit.

Ten proposed U.S. natural gas export terminals and expansion projects are delayed, and the status of another seven projects approved within the last 18 months is “unclear,” the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) said in a report released yesterday.

U.S. LNG exports decreased by more than 50% this year, and about twice as many U.S. oil and gas producers have declared bankruptcy so far in 2020 than last year, EIP said. Given these trends, it is increasingly likely that some proposed projects won’t be built, the report said.

“Recent project delays indicate that the industry expects market conditions to remain unsupportive of future LNG exports,” EIP said.

LNG export terminals were already on shaky ground before COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March, said Alexandra Shaykevich, research analyst at EIP.

“All of those preexisting problems in terms of low energy prices, the chronic oversupply of natural gas and the size of the LNG glut … have been significantly compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic,” Shaykevich said on a call with reporters.

Since some of the 17 planned LNG projects lack financing, regulators and companies could still reassess their need and consider their environmental costs, according to EIP.

The 17 delayed projects would emit up to 67 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, EIP said. That’s equivalent to the emissions released from 16 coal-fired power plants “operating around the clock for a year,” and it doesn’t include emissions from end-use consumption of the natural gas, Shaykevich said.

“The total emissions footprint of the natural gas industry is substantial and threatens to lock-in demand for fossil fuels while slowing the transition to renewables and other sustainable sources of energy,” the report said.

Many of the projects pose environmental justice concerns as well, as they have the potential to release local air pollutants that elevate the risk of asthma and other illnesses among nearby residents, EIP said. Thirty-eight percent of residents within 3 miles of proposed LNG facilities are people of color, and 39% are low-income residents, according to the report.

Residents in Port Arthur, Texas, a refining hub on the Gulf Coast that is the site of one proposed LNG terminal, are already subject to oil and gas industry pollution, said John Beard, president and CEO of the Port Arthur Community Action Network. It is not clear that residents have much to gain from additional projects, including LNG terminals, he said.

“One has to wonder, what’s the need and what’s the benefit?” Beard told reporters.

LNG facilities under development should be required to get new Clean Air Act permits considering the time that has passed since companies won approval, EIP said. Six of the projects received permits more than three years ago, even though projects must begin construction “within a reasonable time” under the Clean Air Act, said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of EIP.

“Clearly at this point, there’s no reason not to pull these permits given how saturated the market is already, given the long delays we’ve already experienced with these projects and the fact that they don’t seem to have secured the financing,” Schaeffer said.

Two energy policy professors not affiliated with EIP, however, criticized some of the report’s claims.

For example, the report does not account for emissions from coal-fired generation that could be avoided by LNG exports. Burning natural gas is less carbon-intensive than using coal.

Exporting LNG could reduce the need for a country such as China to build additional coal-fired power plants, said Ed Hirs, an energy economics professor at the University of Houston.

“They should be looking at what the LNG is a substitution for, and it’s pretty clear it’s a substitution away from coal and away from oil,” Hirs said.

The report also appears to disregard recent trends in LNG demand, said Erin Blanton, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. While demand for U.S. LNG exports has declined since the beginning of the year, it has shown signs of recovery, as existing LNG terminals have seen increased use since July, Blanton said.

Some analysts predict terminals will be fully utilized by winter, Blanton said.

“I wouldn’t extrapolate from this year that there’s no future for U.S. LNG because of the pandemic in 2020,” she said.

Although energy markets have been in retreat because of the pandemic, U.S. LNG exporters processed nearly 8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day as of yesterday, said Charlie Riedl, executive director for the Center for LNG. That’s up from deliveries of 4 billion cubic feet per day in June, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“As nations look to reduce emissions, improve air quality and spur economic growth, many will use natural gas and LNG to create a cleaner energy future,” Riedl said in an email.

This time a local permit set-back for JCEP

July 21, 2020

Good news! Here’s a press release from Crag Law Center that explains what happened and some of what this means. I want to add a little more context by way of giving kudos to the legal team that accomplished this.

The Crag Law Center and the LWV go way back. The LWVUS and LWVOR have filed two amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs in Juliana v. USA, the landmark climate lawsuit initiated in 2015 and is still ongoing. Crag’s Executive Director Courtney Johnson drafted both of those briefs for the Leagues. That in addition to work against JCEP. 

Tonia Moro, who represented the Coos Bay Citizens for Renewables in the LUBA reversal, has been in the JCEP fight over the long haul, too. She was supported in this current work in part by a grant from the LWVOR, precisely because of her track record for getting things done and the understanding that receipt of local land use permits, including this one, are an essential part of the bigger effort to stop this project.

There’s way more to this very complex story, but we want to underscore Tonia’s and Courtney and her colleagues at Crag’s excellent work on behalf of the local, state, national, and global community, including to stop this massive project. If built, it would deal an enormous blow to Oregon’s goals and efforts to reduce GHG emissions and ensure environmental justice and cause irreparable damage to the natural and human environment across southern Oregon and in the Coos Bay Estuary and community.

UPDATE JULY 7, 2020. RECENT ARTICLE FROM KDRV NEWS 12.

dateline: June 2, 2020

As the State of Oregon is battling JCEP’s attempt to get FERC to declare that Oregon waived its Section 401 authority, making moot DEQ’s May 2019 denial of that essential permit, the EPA released its new rules on that section of the Clean Water Act yesterday. In other words, the Administration is lending a hand to get JCEP done in case FERC doesn’t do this additional job. 

A congratulatory article in the Financial Times this morning said this: “The Trump administration has curbed US states’ power to veto energy infrastructure projects, drawing praise from fossil fuel industries for a move that could make it easier to build pipelines and export terminals across the country. The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday reinterpreted provisions in the federal Clean Water Act that state governors had used to stymie projects targeted by climate campaigners. . . . The state of Oregon blocked the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas export terminal citing the provision. . . . Energy companies argued the states were abusing a clause in the water law to obstruct projects they opposed for other reasons. Andrew Wheeler, EPA administrator, said the agency was returning the certification process to its ‘original purpose, which is to review potential impacts that discharges from federally permitted projects may have on water resources, not to indefinitely delay or block critically important infrastructure.’” 

It’s not clear yet whether Pembina will attempt to use the new regs to try to get JCEP to happen. It seems that JCEP might submit a new application for their 401 permit now under the new rules as a Plan B, but they also might wait and let their waiver claim to FERC play out first. If FERC grants their petition, Oregon (and community opponents of JCEP) may sue. If they reapply, the regular state permitting process will need to proceed. It’s unlikely DEQ will grant the permit because of the egregious adverse impacts, even under the new rules. And Governor Brown (and the LWVOR) commented in opposition to the proposed regs last fall (both attached), charging that they were unlawful misinterpretations of the Clean Water Act, as did any other states and  environmental organizations. That route likely leads to court, as well.

dateline: May 27, 2020

NATURAL GAS: Ore. landowners sue over ‘indefensible’ export project

Arianna Skibell, E&E News reporter

A group of about 30 property owners has sued to block a proposed Oregon liquefied natural gas export terminal and corresponding pipeline that would cut across their land.

The landowners asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval of the Jordan Cove LNG export project and the Pacific Connector Gas pipeline.

“We will do all we can to try and stop this incredible overreach and the blatant misuse of eminent domain to benefit special interests over public interest,” said Deb Evans, a challenger in the case.

The $10 billion project, backed by the Canada-based Pembina Pipeline Corp., would include a 230-mile, 36-inch-diameter feeder pipeline that would run from a town along the Oregon-California border to a 200-acre natural gas liquefaction and export terminal at Coos Bay. The export hub would be the first on the West Coast, closer to energy-hungry Asian markets.

The oil and gas industry has been pushing for the development of LNG terminals to facilitate greater exports of gas as the fuel glut continues. The terminals liquefy gas by refrigerating it to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, which reduces its volume and allows it to be transported on ships. The Jordan Cove hub could liquefy up to 1.04 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for export to Asia.

FERC approved the project in March and last week upheld its decision despite requests to reconsider from affected landowners, the state of Oregon, tribes, environmentalists and fishing interests (Greenwire, May 21).

David Bookbinder, chief counsel of the Niskanen Center, who is representing the landowners, said he’s confident the D.C. Circuit will rule in their favor.

The Jordan Cove project, he argues, does not pass the eminent domain test. While FERC can issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which grants eminent domain authority to developers, the project must demonstrably serve public interests.

Bookbinder said the D.C. Circuit made clear last year in City of Oberlin, Ohio, v. FERC that an export-only project doesn’t automatically meet this threshold. In that case, the court instructed FERC to take a second look at its rationale for approving the Nexus pipeline, which runs through Ohio and Michigan on its way to Canada (Energywire, Sept. 9, 2019).

“The law is you can’t count this,” he said.

Bookbinder will argue on behalf of landowners affected by the Jordan Cove project that a Canadian company selling Canadian gas likewise does not benefit the American public.

He also noted an absence of gas contracts for the project. In 2016, under the Obama administration, FERC rejected Jordan Cove because of concerns about consumer demand. Bookbinder said the project’s developers have not assuaged those fears.

“The idea that a company that has no customers will take U.S. property in order to ship Canadian gas to Japan is outrageous,” Bookbinder said. “That is indefensible in so many different ways.”

‘Landowners get thrown under the bus’

For the property owners involved, the court filing offers a glimmer of hope in what has been a 15-year saga.

The Jordan Cove project was proposed as a natural gas import facility in the early 2000s, when Evans and her husband, Ron Schaaf, bought their property. The project was changed to an export site when U.S. hydraulic fracturing operations significantly boosted domestic supplies.

“We were busy; our kids were in school. We followed it, but not super-close,” Evans said. “Then fracking came in, and the project disintegrated.”

In 2013, Jordan Cove’s developers filed a new application with FERC. Their bid was denied in 2016 following concerns about a lack of customers; falling property values; and harm to environmental resources that support timber, fishing and other local industries (Energywire, March 14, 2016).

“It’s the same landowners who have been affected by this for 15 years,” Schaaf said. “Landowners get thrown under the bus, and many landowners don’t have a lot of money. Not everyone has the opportunity to advocate for themselves.”

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, a Republican, stressed that while Pembina has eminent domain authority to condemn private property for its pipeline, no construction on the pipeline or LNG terminal, including land clearing, can take place until the company has obtained the necessary permits — which is proving to be an uphill battle.

Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality denied the project’s water quality certification. The state Department of Land Conservation and Development rejected a permit because of the adverse effects the facility would have on coastal and critical habitats, as well as on endangered species. In February, it ruled that the project was not in line with the state’s coastal zone land use laws.

Pembina recently withdrew its application for a dredging permit when the Department of State Lands indicated that it was about to reject that application, as well.

Evans said she doesn’t understand why FERC would allow the pipeline developer to condemn her land while at the same time agreeing that no construction can begin without the requisite permits.

“Why would eminent domain be allowed before the conditions are met?” she asked.

‘FERC is delivering on its promise’

On a call with reporters after rejecting requests for rehearing on the project, Chatterjee said eminent domain is outside FERC’s jurisdiction.

“When it comes to eminent domain, we have no authority,” he said. “We’ve got expertise in how essential it is to siting pipelines.”

For landowners, Friday’s D.C. Circuit petition carries extra meaning. FERC’s swift rejection of the request for rehearing allowed landowners to seek recourse instead of hanging in legal limbo while pipeline construction moved forward.

“It’s a good example of Neil Chatterjee following up and delivering on his promises,” Bookbinder said. “FERC is delivering on its promise that it would not stop landowners from going to court.”

The commission has recently come under fire for issuing so-called tolling orders, which indefinitely extend the deadline for FERC to respond to landowner challenges while allowing pipeline construction to proceed.

FERC has issued a tolling order for every rehearing request filed over the past 12 years. Every case was then eventually denied. On average, 212 days — about seven months — passed between the time a landowner made a request for rehearing and when FERC ultimately denied it.

While Chatterjee has said his agency has addressed the issue, a case against FERC’s use of tolling orders is pending before the D.C. Circuit (Energywire, April 28).

Schaaf said he’s grateful that the landowners’ complaint over Jordan Cove can move forward.

“We understand owning property is a privilege and fighting for it is a privilege,” he said. “We’ll be in this until the end. We don’t know how it’s going to turn out.”

dateline: May 24, 2020

https://www.westernnaturalgas.org/post/openlettertogovernorbrown

dateline: May 22, 2020

1) Recall from last update that the State of Oregon (specifically four agencies) had filed a petition for Rehearing on FERC’s Order granting the two major federal authorizations JCEP needs to go forward. The article also mentioned that a coalition of around 30 organizations also filed a petition for Rehearing, but was not very specific. That petition included Niskanen Center, the law firm representing around 20 affected landowners, Sierra Club, and also for the interest of this group, the four local LWV that have been jointly opposing JCEP since their application. Yesterday, the FERC met and denied those petitions. I haven’t read the Order yet, but it includes some confusing language that we’ll probably need legal eyes to interpret. Hopefully, it doesn’t throw any problems in the direction of key petitioners. The Niskanen Center has already filed an appeal to the DC Circuit and the coalition’s attorney members are moving in that direction, as well.

2) JCEP has filed a Declaratory Order (roughly a petition), charging that the State of Oregon failed to action on the company’s Section 401 Water Quality Certification application within the one-year time limit specified in the Clean Water Act and thereby waived its authority to determine whether the Project would violate Oregon’s Water Quality Standards. The Department of Environmental Quality denied JCEP’s application in May 2019. A Section 401 permit is necessary for the Project to go forward, but the waiver would make the denial null. The State is working on a response. The deadline is June 4.

3) JCEP has appealed the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Objection to the company’s Coastal Zone Management Act certification to the Secretary of Commerce, asking him to override the State’s decision. This is an allowable option in the event of an objection, but we have looked carefully at the rules governing under what circumstances the Secretary can legally perform an override and agree with the State and many others that the required circumstances don’t exist. The Oregon AG’s Office submitted the required Brief last Tuesday and we are now awaiting the next step. If an override occurs, this issue could wind up in court as well.

4) An outside, apparently well-funded national group (Consumer Energy Alliance) has created an “astroturf” (faux-grassroots) entity called the Western States and Tribal Natural Gas Initiative (WSTM) involving natural gas and LNG export proponents (e.g., western states’ local government officials, Chambers of Commerce, and some tribal groups) in the push for the JCEP. Expect to see a full-page ad in the Oregonian this Sunday, purporting to be a local and grassroots effort linking the construction of JCEP with means for economic recovery from COVID-19. News (start at 2:02:48 on the video) of this and other activities by CEA came via connections in Utah with concerns about fossil fuel development in the fracking fields there. More as this develops. As if Goliath wasn’t muscular enough already. 

5) Finally, on the human side of this, here is a link to coverage of how this (the JCEP) pipeline project is affecting property owners whose land happens to lie on the proposed pipeline route. There’s a lot here. The blogs are excellent.