House Bills 2589 and 2206 and Senate Bills 265 and 261, the so called “fast track” bills would allow gas utility companies or other applicants to conduct work on private property without the owner’s consent. Recently, several land owners protested the proposed legislation in Medford.

“All these bills do pretty much the same thing: they allow an applicant to apply for a permit to work on your property without your knowledge or consent,” explained Bob Barker of Shady Cove, whose property along the upper Rogue River would be crossed by the pipeline.

“This is something that should be of concern to all Oregonians,” he added. “This is not just about this pipeline. I hope our legislators will protect the rights of property owners in Oregon, regardless how they feel about these particular projects.”

The protest was held on the sidewalk near the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline office.

Williams Pacific Connector Gas Operator, a Salt Lake City firm, is proposing the project along with Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. and Fort Chicago Energy Partners…

…proposed in 2005, the 234-mile pipeline would transport imported gas from the proposed Jordan Cove terminal near Coos Bay through Coos, Douglas, Jackson and Klamath counties to Malin. At three feet in diameter, the underground pipeline would deliver as much as one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, proponents say.

Dave Lohman, a Medford land use attorney, says the fast track bill is not necessary and the existing legislation protecting property owners’ rights has had no effect on delaying the project.

All Oregonians will be affected by the fast track bills but the Williams Pipeline and the Jordan Cove LNG terminal may be settled by a Pacific coast bivalve. Jody McCaffree, executive director of Citizens Against LNG sends this report –

On Tuesday January 25th 2011, several coalition groups and citizens filed their Petition for Review brief with the Land Use Board of Appeals ( LUBA No. 2010-086 ) on the Pacific Connector Conditional Land Use Permit for the proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline through the Coastal Zone in Coos County.

The Petition for Review brief listed four Assignments of Error in the Counties approval of the Conditional Use Permit:

1) In making the challenged decision, the Coos County Board of Commissioners applied an incorrect substantial evidence standard of review, rather than conducting a de novo review of the evidence in the record, thereby adversely affecting petitioners’ rights to a fair opportunity to have their case heard. [In law, the expression trial de novo means a “new trial” by a different tribunal ] There were a multitude of relevant issues on which conflicting evidence was submitted (e.g., impacts of pipeline on forest practices, farm practices, rural residential uses, productivity of aquatic ecosystems, risk of fire, costs of fire suppression). Citizens were entitled to have decision makers that were free to use their judgment in making their decisions, even in favor of concerned citizen petitioner positions, if those positions were supported by reasonable evidence. The Board of Commissioners erroneously believed they were obligated to support the applicant’s position on compliance with an applicable approval criterion if there was substantial evidence in the record to support the applicant’s position.

2) The conditions adopted by the Board of Commissioners are not adequate to ensure compliance with the property owner signature requirement of the Coos County Zoning Land Development Ordinances (CCZLDO).

3) The County improperly construed applicable provisions of law in determining that the proposed temporary 95-foot pipeline construction easement, or right-of-way, complies with Coos County Zoning Land Development Ordinances (CCZLDO). The application proposes a 95-foot wide “construction right-of-way” or “construction easement” for the gas pipeline even though there is no authorization in the CCZLDO for an easement more than 50-feet in width for a natural gas pipeline, whether permanent or temporary. The county’s interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of its F zone, which is “to conserve and protect forest land for forest uses.”

4) The County’s decision fails to demonstrate that construction of the proposed natural gas pipeline is consistent with the Management Objectives for Natural Aquatic estuarine districts 11-NA and 13A-NA, in that it fails to respond to issues raised with regard to impacts on populations of the native Olympia oyster and does not demonstrate that the resource productivity of these natural aquatic areas will be “protected.”

Before lawmakers legislate away Oregon citizens’ property rights they might also consider the opinion of Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Wellinghoff says, “We’re finding more shale gas in this country so I see even less of a need for importing gas” and the “Northwest needs to regionalize its electrical markets in order to realize the benefits and minimize the costs of building more renewables and upgrading the transmission system”.

Wellinghoff’s reasoning gains more support when import terminals located in the US start applying for export licenses

If Cheniere can obtain the necessary regulatory approval and financing, Mr. Souki says he can start exporting gas as early as 2015. He predicts he will eventually be able to export two billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas a day from his facility, or about 3 percent of current domestic gas production. As other companies like Freeport LNG join Cheniere in exporting liquefied natural gas, Mr. Souki says the United States has the potential to become a premier global provider, capable of exporting 10 billion cubic feet a day, roughly the amount that Britain consumes…

…American gas prices are destined to be cheaper than European and Asian prices for years to come. At today’s prices, companies would be able to buy American gas at $4.35 per million British thermal units, and then sell the same gas in Europe or Asia for roughly double that price, since long-term contracts globally are still largely tied to high benchmark oil prices

This passage from the LUBA petition highlights one of the challenges to the Coos County decision being reviewed by LUBA

The challenged decision states:
“Scope of Review
“When addressing the criteria and considering evidence in the record, the Board used the standard of review required for land use decisions. The applicant must provide substantial evidence in the whole record to demonstrate that all approval standards are met. When evidence conflicted, the Board reviewed the entire record to see if the undermining evidence outweighed the applicant’s evidence. * * *” App-10; Record 21.
The above text indicates that the Board of Commissioners believed its scope of review was limited to determining whether the applicant had submitted “substantial evidence” to support a determination of compliance with an approval standard. If the applicant had, the Board believed it was obligated to accept the applicant’s evidence unless conflicting evidence in the record undermined the applicants evidence.