Four bills in the 2011 Oregon legislative session, two in the House and two in the Senate, are aimed at easing the process for wetlands fill permits on private land associated with long distance transmission lines, namely natural gas pipelines. House Bill 2589 and Senate Bill 265 would redefine the “applicant” for wetland removal and fill permits, allowing transmission pipeline companies like Williams, for example, to apply for permits without landowners knowledge or permission. If that sounds too ominous to pass, there is a second version, House Bill 2206/Senate Bill 261, that would expand the definition of “applicant” to the same end.

Broadly backed by LNG proponents and energy companies the bills have been dubbed the “LNG fast track bills” and would allow applicants to proceed without even an assessment that establishes a need for a pipeline. In Oregon, the Ruby pipeline “includes approximately 680 miles of 42-inch natural gas transmission pipeline, beginning at the Opal Hub in Wyoming and terminating at interconnects near Malin, Oregon”. Now under construction, Ruby was permitted under the present rules.

These bills, if passed, would circumvent “local and regional processes” and socialize the transmission costs associated with an energy choice made by Californians. The Coalition for Fair Transmission Policy argues…

… that the costs of new transmission investments are borne by those who create the need for the investments. More specifically, the Coalition opposes the allocation of transmission expansion costs to electric consumers unless there are measurable economic or reliability benefits for those consumers.

Long distance transmission often requires crossing pristine streams, clearing wide swaths of vegetation, cuts through farm and agricultural lands and ultimately costs long term jobs in exchange for short term construction jobs. In December, the Wall Street Journal reported on a decision by FERC that will socialize transmission costs to enable power plants to deliver electricity hundreds of miles away.

You’d think poor Michigan has enough economic troubles without the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission placing a $300 million to $500 million annual surtax on the state’s electric utility bills. But on December 16 FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff announced new rules that would essentially socialize the cost of transmission lines across 13 states in the Midwest.

That region-wide pricing scheme, according to a study commissioned by utility companies, will force Michigan to pay about 20% of as much as $20 billion in new high-voltage transmission lines—though Michigan businesses and homeowners will get little benefit.

Jody McCaffree, of Citizens Against LNG, a group formed to stop the proposed Jordan Cove LNG import terminal in Coos Bay, Oregon wrote the Business and Labor Committee urging them to protect landowner rights.

If this was for a public benefit project that might be different, but this bill along with four other legislative fast track bills (SB 265; SB 261; HB 2589; & HB 2206) are being pushed by “private” and “foreign” speculative LNG pipeline companies who are chasing removal/fill permits for pipelines(i.e. – linear facilities) that are not even needed in the State of Oregon. I’ve attached presentation pages 23 and 24 from the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Reference Case of the “U.S. Energy Information Administration ( Independent Statistics and Analysis ).” These slides clearly show that the importation of natural gas will go from 11% currently to 1% by 2035. CLEARLY there is no need for more LNG import terminals and pipelines!!

In addition, the Coos County natural gas pipeline built in 2003/2004 that runs from Coos Bay to the Williams Grants Pass Lateral currently only operates at 5 to 7 % of its capacity. Another PG & E built line that runs from Phoenix, OR to Malin, OR is also barely used. Why should landowners and the county lose their rights to their land so private and foreign corporations can build yet another pipeline covering this SAME territory, particularly when these pipelines that already exist are not being fully utilized to anywhere near their operating capacity?

Enacting bills to expedite public process effectively weakens the process for proponents and opponents alike. Oregonians have a right and a responsibility  to question the judgment of private companies pushing foreign fuel imports and massive interstate projects when the Energy Information Administration reports that  “30% domestic gas production growth outpaces 16% consumption growth, leading to declining imports”.  Just because an energy developer believes it can negotiate a few power purchase agreements with California utilities doesn’t mean a project is in Oregon’s, best interests.