Environmentalists, Landowners Criticize Federal Decision To Approve Fossil Fuel Project in Oregon

Community Groups Pledge to Challenge Decision

(Coos Bay, OR) – Environmentalists and community advocates today criticized a decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that granted approval to the Jordan Cove LNG import terminal and the accompanying Pacific Connector pipeline in southern Oregon. The groups plan to appeal the decision.  If built, the project would import foreign fossil fuel in the form of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for offloading to be used primarily in California. The project includes an import facility located in Coos Bay, Oregon, as well as a 234-mile pipeline that will deliver up to 1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas derived from LNG to the California border. Project partners include PG&E, Fort Chicago, and Williams Pipeline.

The project faces widespread opposition from residents of southern Oregon and from energy and climate activists all over the West Coast. A coalition of grassroots organizations is planning to file an appeal with FERC in January. These groups include Citizens Against LNG, Pacific Environment, Friends of Living Oregon Waters, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Rogue Riverkeeper and others. The groups are represented by Western Environmental Law Center. According to community advocates, this project will significantly increase PG&E’s greenhouse gas emissions, as the lifecycle emissions of LNG are 25 percent higher than those of the domestic natural gas the project will displace. PG&E buys very little electricity from coal.

State and federal energy agencies forecast no need for imported LNG on the West Coast for the foreseeable future, thanks to clean energy laws and abundant domestic natural gas supplies. PG&E’s own forecasts indicate flat demand for the foreseeable future, while forecasts from the US Department of Energy indicate a declining role for LNG imports nationwide.

According to Frances Eatherington of Umpqua Watersheds, who is also a landowner on the pipeline route, “It's not fair that FERC is allowing hundreds of families to have their lands condemned for private corporate profits. FERC's decision will only increase our dependence on Russia and the Middle East for our energy needs, the opposite of what our national energy goals are.”

Lesley Adams of Rogue Riverkeeper agreed, saying, "It is inexcusable and dangerous that our federal government gives a green light to another project to import fossil fuels without a demonstrated need. As a result, FERC is unnecessarily placing rivers, salmon, public forests, communities and private properties at risk."

Joe Serres, Board president of FLOW, added, "FERC's approval comes despite many agencies criticizing their review as inadequate and flawed.  This decision will be appealed by our coalition. It is legally indefensible.  Oregon neither needs nor wants LNG.

Opponents also noted that PG&E is failing to meet California’s deadline to purchase at least 20 percent of its power in 2010 from renewable sources. The Jordan Cove LNG project will make this target even more difficult to achieve.  “It is mind-boggling that at the close of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, as countries around the world are trying to find ways to stop the climate crisis, that federal regulators would approve an unnecessary project like this that will increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Rory Cox, California Program Director at Pacific Environment.  “PG&E should put its money into renewable projects rather than projects that further our dependence on foreign fossil fuels and harm communities.”

Community and environmental activists pointed to a number of other problems with the project:

• The LNG terminal threatens 17,000 residents of the Coos Bay Area with a catastrophic accident, should there be an LNG leak or terrorist attack on the facility or on tankers;
• The pipeline construction would destroy habitat for coho salmon, spotted owls and other species;
• The project threatens water quality in the Coos, Umpqua, Rogue and Klamath watersheds;
• The pipeline would clearcut hundreds of acres of remaining old-growth forests on public lands;
• The project would handcuff the West Coast energy grid to fossil fuels coming from politically unstable countries including Russia, the Middle East and elsewhere;
• The project would displace investment that could support cleaner alternatives such as renewable energy;
• Project developers are likely to use eminent domain to seize people’s private property for the Pacific Connector pipeline.