I t's a wonderful thing to see both sides of the Measure 49 debate showing up at hearings to testify against the proposed liquefied natural gas plants and their related pipelines in Oregon. Meanwhile, proponents of the plans have raised as many questions as they've answered.
If LNG is safe, why were similar proposals turned down by Tijuana, Mexico, and Oxnard and Eureka, Calif.? Why would there be wide exclusion zones around incoming ships that would require shutting down other commerce on the lower Columbia River? Why bring one of the most dangerous ocean-going cargoes across the West Coast's most dangerous bar? Why tempt terrorists with such a vulnerable target entering the West Coast's port with the least amount of security?
If LNG represents good economic development, how can natural gas destined for California be an economic benefit to Oregon when thousands of acres of the world's best forest and farm land would be taken out of production by pipeline construction? Where is the cost-benefit analysis that compares the billions of dollars of timber subjected to greatly increased fire danger vs. a few hundred temporary jobs?
The people of Oregon are not the rubes or ideologues that the proponents of these proposals must imagine. Splitting up the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hearings for the different elements of this new foreign fossil fuel-dependent infrastructure isn't fooling anyone. The plant and pipeline projects are related and their cumulative impacts need to be considered.
In his Nov. 11 column ("LNG, NIMBYS AND BANANAS"), The Oregonian's David Reinhard promoted LNG as a cleaner alternative to coal-fired power plants. That's a false choice. Other proponents claim that the gas would be for existing utility customers and their future needs in the region. But the quantity of liquefied gas to be imported by these projects is far in excess of what the projections of future natural gas needs are for Oregon and California. There's no doubt that these imports will bring more gas-fired power plants to the electrical grid.
Oregon has the potential to be the Kuwait of renewable energy, supplying not only our own needs but doing our share to help power the country. The equivalent of 10 Trojan nuclear power plants of readily developable wave energy exists off the Oregon coast. Add geothermal resources, biomass from our forest and farm waste, additional wind and solar projects, and a renewable energy-based interactive electrical grid is tantalizingly close.
The governor and Legislature have determined that 25 percent of Oregon energy requirements should come from renewable energy sources by 2025. LNG plants and their related pipelines are infrastructure projects taking us in the opposite direction.
The choice is not between more natural gas-fired or more coal-fired power plants. The choice is between more dependence on fossil fuels and imported energy or energy independence and environmental remediation through development of renewable energy resources.
Paul Sansone was co-founder of Onsite Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of PacifiCorp that developed and operated private alternative power projects. Susan Vosburg is a Forest Grove tax consultant. They own a tree farm in Washington County.
