”We find that there is no material issue of fact regarding the impact, safety or environmental issues of the Bradwood Landing project that we cannot resolve on the basis of the written record in this proceeding,” FERC said.

Today, affordable energy achieved a victory:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) today approved the first new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and related sendout pipeline that will serve the Pacific Northwest region. The LNG terminal, the first on the U.S. West Coast, would be constructed and operated on the Columbia River in Clatsop County, Oregon.

“In our review of proposed LNG import projects, FERC focuses principally on safety considerations,” FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said. “This order includes 109 conditions designed to assure safety and mitigate environmental impact.

“Our order is also based on a substantial record that encompasses more than 50,000 pages of material. We carefully considered more than 1,827 public comments, many of which came from six scoping meetings held in Oregon, and numerous studies and analyses from federal, state and local agencies. Bradwood Landing can help meet the projected energy needs of the Pacific Northwest in a safe, secure manner with limited adverse environmental impacts. It also provides the United States with direct access to the LNG markets in the Pacific region.”

FERC’s approval of the project requires the applicant to fully implement 109 mitigation measures designed to enhanced the safety and security of the facilities to ensure the project has limited effects on the environment. These measures include a requirement that NorthernStar install a system capable of delivering filtered water from the Columbia River to the LNG carriers while the carriers are at berth during offloading for ballast and engine cooling.

The water intakes will be screened to prevent the potential entrapment of juvenile fish.

[The] FERC has denied requests by Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski and others opposed to the project to issue a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project, ruling that it was unnecessary. FERC also denied requests by Columbia Riverkeeper and others

“We find that there is no material issue of fact regarding the impact, safety or environmental issues of the Bradwood Landing project that we cannot resolve on the basis of the written record in this proceeding,” FERC said.

The project, along with two other proposed LNG projects, has faced opposition from local and state officials, residents, and environmental groups, with concerns ranging from the project’s impact on the local environment to whether the region really needed an LNG terminal to meet energy demand. Kulongoski has also criticized FERC’s review of the project.

 As evidenced above, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission strongly refuted the claims of the radical environmental movement (think Columbia Riverkeepers). The proposed LNG terminal is not only safe but needed. The FERC attests to this. Oregonians attest to this.

Based on this conclusive report by a non-biased entity, you tell me, why do radical environmental groups oppose affordable energy?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Above: The radical opposition 

And the fight against affordable energy continues (from the Daily Astorian)….

On Tuesday, county residents will decide whether to affirm the County Commission’s decision to allow pipelines to be built on OPR-zoned land with a conditional use permit or to overturn the board’s decision and return to the rules banning pass-through pipes on protected properties. A “yes” vote supports the Commission’s new rule, and a “no” vote would restore the previous law

It’s a small piece of a much bigger puzzle: Less than a mile of a natural gas pipeline proposed to run through private property zoned for “open space” near Westport in Clatsop County

Referendum opponent and Columbia Riverkeeper attorney Brett VandenHeuvel said if voters say no on Tuesday, it will punch a hole in the county’s Land Use Compatibility Statement for the Bradwood project and force the company to reroute its pipeline. The LUCS is a key local document approved by the County Commission in March that includes about two dozen land-use changes needed to clear the way for Bradwood’s $650 million LNG terminal and pipeline. The LUCS document is required before the state can grant other permits needed to build an LNG facility in Oregon.

To those in the area, Lights on Oregon encourages a “Yes” vote (Yes on 4-131). At this stage of Oregon’s energy situation, we need this new LNG terminal. Perhaps it will not always be this way; but for now, it is. This vote is not an up or down vote on the LNG terminal, rather it’s a referendum to support or reverse the local governments decision. A yes vote affirms the governments decision, a no vote would force the LNG pipeline to be rerouted. While perhaps this is not intrinsically “bad,” it is another way radical environmental groups are forcing their agenda on Oregonians. It could cause delays and other problems for the LNG line. Overall, it’s simply not what is best for Clatsop County.

Vote yes. Vote for affordable energy. Vote for the local economy.

Columbia Riverkeeper’s radical campaign to oppose affordable energy for Oregon moves on.

Does this campaign really benefit Oregonians? Absolutely not! Electricity rates have gone up 600% since their low in 2002.

The Oregonian illustrates why the new LNG terminal is critical to hard working Oregonians:

The pressure is almost certain to rise. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, regional demand for electricity will grow 40 percent during the next 15 years because of higher per capita consumption and population growth.

The Bradwood Landing project will drastically increase the supply of safe and clean natural gas, which will help hold down rising energy cost.

The Columbia Riverkeeper’s are not interested in what’s best for all Oregonians; their only interest is pushing a fringe agenda.

A local Oregon blog recently picked up on Lights on Oregon. This particular blogger leans to the right, however, regardless of political affiliation, he/she is right on:

As energy prices skyrocket, so does inflation. Our personal budgets, as well as our national economy, are shriveling up. While all Americans feel the pain of higher fuel prices, and most understand the correlation between energy prices and the inflation that’s eroding their buying power and chipping away at their standard of living, not nearly as many recognize the potential impact of energy dependence on national security. Much of the world’s oil is controlled by forces that are hostile to us. Our precarious energy position makes us very vulnerable.

We need to produce more energy at home. There are two reasons we aren’t doing that today. The first reason is the cost of R&D. The U.S. has a lot of shale oil, but it’s expensive to extract. However, with the prices of oil on the global market today, it’s getting to the point where the return will justify the investment. The other reason we aren’t producing more energy is counterproductive regulations and endless litigation brought about by environmental groups.

There may be enormous reserves of oil in ANWR, but we need to do exploratory drilling to find out where they are and assess how much oil there is. Environmentalists have stymied any attempt to do that, because it might disturb the polar bears. Other countries are taking full advantage of off-shore drilling but our government won’t permit that, because it might disturb the rich and powerful environmental lobbies that help our legislators get reelected.

The environmentalists claim they oppose drilling for oil because they favor alternative energy sources that are cleaner and safer for the environment. But it turns out that the greatest opposition to alternative energy production comes from environmental groups!

Wind power is about as clean as you can get. Environmentalists used to promote it but, once massive wind farms became a reality, environmentalist groups all over the country sprang up with injunctions and litigation to shut them down because of their impact on birds, bats, and even ground squirrels.

Hydroelectric power is another source of clean energy that environmentalists used to tout. But now they want to blow up dams, and have successfully lobbied and litigated to have dams removed, at tremendous taxpayer expense, because of their impact on fish habitats.

Natural gas burns cleaner, with lower emissions than petroleum products, and even the Sierra Club initially came out in favor of it. Yet, all over the country, wherever drilling for natural gas is undertaken, or a natural gas pipeline is proposed to be built, environmentalists rear up in litigation because of speculation about the potential harmful consequences of potential leaks.

Geothermal power is an interesting concept, because it’s clean and safe and permanent. It doesn’t vary with the weather, and it can never be depleted. Yet, the Sierra Club’s Juniper Group is litigating to prevent an exploratory project for development of a geothermal plant on a 5-acre parcel outside Oregon’s Newberry Crater, which is one of the most promising geothermal resources in the world. There is no specific threat to the environment or habitat of any particular species. They’re just concerned that having the project so close to a national monument might have a potential impact on forests or wildlife.

There are many more examples of environmentalists opposing alternative energy. But what does it all mean? They tout alternative energy until it starts to become a reality, and then they start backpedaling and litigating to thwart it. Is it just because they can’t accept the idea that any kind of energy production will necessarily entail environmental tradeoffs? Or is there some other agenda that motivates them to try to block every avenue of energy independence? I believe many of them are simply naive, and haven’t thought it through. But the consequences of their good intentions affect us all.

There’s a group in Oregon, called Lights On Oregon, that has launched a Campaign for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) in our state. If you’re a resident of Oregon, you might want to consider signing the petition. If you’re not a resident of Oregon, you can contact the national headquarters of FreedomWorks to see if they have a project like Lights On Oregon in your state.

What do you think? I encourage you to drop by the blog and leave a comment with your thoughts.

Jeff Merkley, a Democrat running against Gordan Smith for Senate has come out in opposition to the LNG (liquefied natural gas) terminals. According to the Daily Astorian:

Unlike Smith, Merkley has openly opposed the proposed liquefied natural gas terminals on the Oregon Coast.

“My position is that Oregonians deserve to have their concerns heard,” said Merkley. “I think that folks on both sides of the argument agree that their voices should be heard.”

At the meeting of about 50, plenty did support the local LNG Bradwood Landing terminal. Don McDaniel said the LNG terminal would provide jobs and a tax base.

For more information regarding the Bradwood Landing Project (LNG) see Oregon’s Energy Future: In Your Hands, or Lights On Oregon’s official position.

According to the Oregonian, Oregon’s energy future is,

a tangle of questions: How much energy does Oregon have, how much does it need, and how will it make up the difference with efficiency programs, renewables and more conventional generation options — all the while acting aggressively to reduce carbon emissions?

Moreover,

Oregon’s 1.6 million households spent $2.1 billion on natural gas and electricity in 2006, and the overwhelming consensus among energy experts is that costs will go up no matter what policies state leaders adopt.

Ratepayers will get a taste of what’s to come this winter, as both natural gas and electricity rates are expected to spike because of rising commodity costs. One in four households in the state qualify for a limited pool of low-income bill paying and weatherization assistance. Meanwhile, manufacturers are struggling to keep up with increased production and transportation costs.

Guess what? We have a solution to this problem. The Bradwood Landing project. According to information regarding the project:

Everyday more than 1.5 million homes and businesses in Oregon and Washington rely on safe, clean natural gas for everything from heating and cooking to hot water. What’s more, more than 20% of the region’s electricity is generated using clean-burning natural gas. But in recent years, due to decreasing supply, gas prices in the Northwest have almost doubled, squeezing household budgets and hurting our economy.

Bradwood Landing will increase the supply of safe, clean natural gas, helping to hold down rising energy costs for both residents and businesses alike. What’s more, Bradwood Landing will strengthen the community by creating hundreds of family wage jobs, pumping millions of dollars into the local economy and strengthening funding for local schools.

And finally, the Oregonian illustrates precisely why we need the new natural gas terminal:

The pressure is almost certain to rise. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, regional demand for electricity will grow 40 percent during the next 15 years because of higher per capita consumption and population growth.

Consider this graphic,

The price for natural gas has been going nothing but up. Since its low in 2002, natural gas has gone up 600%!

BUT, guess what else?

Brent Foster of the Columbia Riverkeeper is doing everything he can to oppose the sensible idea supported by The Oregonian and wrote in that paper that this expansion of energy options should be opposed because, as a result, Oregonians would see “one of the most important salmon nurseries in North America seriously degraded.”  Foster is holding a fundraiser at Montinore Vineyards to oppose the project, which may be attractive for those who can afford high energy prices.

The truth of the matter is, we can fix this problem. Will we?