Unite to demand FERC comply with NEPA

The proposal for a Jordan Cove LNG import/export terminal on Coos Bay has been an extremely divisive issue for many years. Of greatest concern is how best to balance the economic and environmental needs of our area.

I would like to point out that a planning process does exist that could greatly facilitate finding that proper balance.

If the spirit, intent, and letter of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations were fully complied with and implemented, it would be possible to explicitly determine which project proposals satisfactorily balanced economic and environmental considerations, and which did not. Furthermore, this same process could balance broad considerations of nation-wide energy policy and markets with concerns for developing our local Coos County economy.

All of us in Coos County, both those for and against the Jordan Cove LNG project, got seriously short-changed by FERC’s attempt to circumvent the NEPA regulations when they prepared their now-withdrawn EIS for the LNG import terminal. It was so obviously deficient on NEPA legal grounds that it was immediately challenged by the Oregon Attorney General as well as by a large consortium of environmental law groups and organizations.

FERC will shortly be formally starting a new NEPA process for the Jordan Cove LNG export proposal. If we are to satisfactorily balance the long-term social, economic, and environmental needs of our area, it is absolutely critical that the final decision, either for or against the project, be based on an analysis that fully complies with the spirit and intent on NEPA.

Now is the time for all of our local factions to put aside their differences and unite with a common voice to demand that FERC fully comply with NEPA regulations this time around so that the final decision, whatever it may be, is based on an objective and legally-defensible analysis.

Anything less could seriously damage the long-term economic and environmental health of our area, not to mention the lengthy litigation that would follow any attempt to skew the analytical process in order to justify a pre-conceived decision.