Terminal could increase smog levels in Palisades, westside
By HANS LAETZ Special to the Palisadian-Post It’s decision time for the proposed liquefied natural gas terminal proposed to be anchored 14 miles off Zuma Beach in Malibu. Five separate government bodies, plus Governor Schwarzenegger and probably President Bush, will have to act this spring if BHP Billiton is to gain permission to build its Cabrillo Port terminal and pump natural gas ashore to the California market. There have been more than three years of study, tens of millions of dollars of research, and thousands of letters, petitions, speeches and protests over the issue. And the whole matter may boil down to Monday night (April 16) in Oxnard, when a obscure three-member state agency takes testimony and then decides whether California should allow the Australian gas company to run its pipelines under an Oxnard beach in exchange for $155,000 per year in rent. The Cabrillo Port LNG project may be worth $50 billion over its 40-year lifetime to BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company, and the Australian government. If approved, an aircraft-carrier-sized ship would be permanently anchored off Malibu. The specially-built ship (officially described as a ‘floating unit’) would not be visible from Pacific Palisades, but the project’s environmental studies show that significant amounts of smog generated at the proposed LNG unloading facility would blow towards Los Angeles 80 percent of the time. The ship, and its fleet of LNG carriers unloading fuel, would be visible on clear days along the coast from Pepperdine University up to Oxnard, according to environmental studies. First proposed in 2003, the Cabrillo Port project has been mired in questions from federal and state agencies about gaps and errors in the application to anchor the energy terminal in 2,900 feet of water off Leo Carrillo State Beach. City councils from Malibu, Port Hueneme and Oxnard are on record against the proposal as it is currently envisioned, as is the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (41st District). Endorsing it are several taxpayer, business and industry groups, including most local chambers of commerce in the affected area. The prospect of having three storage domes floating on the sunset horizon has most Malibu residents up in arms. Celebrities, school children and surfers have rallied against Cabrillo Port. But business interests, taxpayer-rights advocates and conservative radio-show hosts counter that the natural gas brought through Cabrillo Port would be cleaner than coal, and is needed as a bridge fossil fuel as California moves away from coal-generated power from other western states. The proposal is one of 40 or so similar plans to locate regasification plants in U.S. waters. Tankers from Russia, the Middle East and Australia are expected to begin bringing liquefied natural gas to the West Coast beginning next year, when a huge plant opens near Ensenada, Baja California. Australia’s BHP Billiton hopes to beat several other companies into business directly supplying California with natural gas, which utilities can burn for electricity. BHPB hopes to chill its natural gas from Australian waters to minus 260 degrees, ship it in condensed form across the Pacific, then regasify the superchilled product off Malibu, for sale in the Golden State. But BHP Billiton’s proposed ship would reheat the LNG by burning natural gas and diesel in large amounts, releasing an estimated 480 tons (or more) of smog-causing chemicals per year into the air. Other LNG terminals proposed for the California coast promise to use different regasification technology, and avoid nearly all of those emissions. BHP Billiton has not yet explained why Cabrillo Port can’t use a technology that doesn’t burn gas or diesel. Last week, two state agencies came out with what first appears to be diametrically opposed conclusions about Cabrillo Port. The staff at the California State Lands Commission recommended that its three-member board approve the project, because California’s need for more fossil fuels outweigh the 20 negative impacts on the state’s coast. On the same day, the state Coastal Commission staff released its analysis, which says BHP Billiton’s proposed technology will violate the Clean Air Act with hundred of tons of soot and smog annually, released just upwind of the Los Angeles air basin. ‘This, or another, LNG terminal should be able to both supply California with natural gas and meet relevant Clean Air Act requirements,’ the commission staff concludes. ‘BHP has not done so.’ The Lands Commission executive director, Paul Thayer, cautioned that the two reports should not be viewed as contradicting each other. ‘We have no authority under the Coastal Act to enforce the coastal protection laws, or under the Clean Air Act to enforce the smog laws,’ Thayer said. ‘Our recommendation should in no way be taken to be at odds with the Coastal Commission staff–each of us is looking at this project through a different set of requirements.’ A byzantine set of federal and state laws apply to Cabrillo Port, and the final chapter began last night when the federal government took public testimony in Oxnard on whether the LNG ship can be anchored and operated in federal waters. Their decision will be announced in Washington within 90 days. The State Lands Commission has set aside an entire day for testimony and a vote Monday, and a no vote there would kill the project. State Lands and the federal government have signed a compact that gives both agencies the right to reject the project, and requires both to approve for a permit. The State Lands panel is made up of Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and State Controller John Chiang, both Democrats, and state Finance Director Michael C. Genest, who represents Gov. Schwarzenegger. If the LNG plant is approved by State Lands, the Coastal Commission has reserved another whole day for testimony and a vote Thursday (April 12) in Santa Barbara. A yes vote would send Cabrillo Port to Schwarzenegger, who has the power to veto the entire project. But a rejection by the Coastal Commission would send the matter to the White House, where the Commerce Secretary can overrule the state agency’s rejection in the national interest. But lawyers said no project has ever gone down that road, which is subject to several legal challenges. Looming over that convoluted decision process is a snafu at the Environmental Protection Agency, which is under congressional investigation by Rep. Henry Waxman for its handling of Cabrillo Port. The EPA tentatively ruled in 2004 that BHP Billiton would have to follow the strict smog rules in effect in coastal Ventura County, which could have killed the project because the company would have had to buy and retire smog offsets. Ventura officials say those offsets are not available at any price in the largely nonindustrial area. The EPA mysteriously reversed course in 2005, and said Cabrillo Port would be treated as if it were an island and would not have to meet the strictest level of smog rules. Waxman said last week it appears the White House improperly intervened on BHP Billiton’s behalf. The agency has withdrawn its earlier reversal, and is now studying the matter. The Monday State Lands Commission hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center, 800 Hobson Way. The Thursday Coastal Commission hearing will be held at Fess Parker’s Resort, 633 E. Cabrillo Ave., Santa Barbara. —————- Hans Laetz, a freelance writer, has been covering the Cabrillo Port project since 2003 for newspapers in Malibu.
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
