One California regulatory agency advocates approval of an $800-million liquefied natural gas terminal off the Ventura County coast, and another says that the project would be harmful to the coastal environment.
The staffs of the California State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission have reached vastly different conclusions based on the environmental impact report of the BHP Billiton project.
It is a duality that has dogged the Australian energy company for four years as it has sought to build the first gas-processing plant on the West Coast. The outcome of the project could be decided in the next 10 days in a series of public hearings.
The U.S. Coast Guard will hold the first of those hearings Wednesday in Oxnard. That meeting is key because it starts a clock giving Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger 45 days and the U.S. Maritime Administration 90 days to render a final decision.
All the regulatory bodies must approve the project before it can be built at a site 14 miles offshore, roughly midway between Port Hueneme and Malibu. The hearings come one month after release of the project's final environmental impact report, which identified more than a dozen significant, irreparable harmful effects on marine life, air quality and the coastal environment.
Paul Thayer, executive officer for the California State Lands Commission, said that although his staff identified the project's deficiencies in a 60-page report, he said he would nonetheless urge commissioners to approve the project. He said California needs more and diverse energy sources and that natural gas, a clean-burning fossil fuel, would help to reduce air pollution in smoggy Southern California.
"Energy demand in California is increasing, and California needs the fuel," Thayer said. "We think the benefits outweigh the risks."
The commission has scheduled a public hearing next Monday at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center to consider approving permits for pipelines to move the gas onshore. Meanwhile, staff members of the California Coastal Commission object to the project, arguing that it is inconsistent with state and federal coastal protection laws. Specifically, the staff members write in a 184-page report released Monday that the project would produce too much air pollution, harm sea life and contribute to global warming.
