Keep LNG siting local.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Depending on who you're talking to, liquefied natural gas terminals are: A) prime economic development opportunities that create jobs while satisfying the nation's rapidly growing natural gas needs or B) tempting targets for terrorists and highly vulnerable to cataclysmic accidents.

A Colorado company's recent proposal to build a terminal on Coos Bay's North Spit already is generating both responses in the Coos Bay area. The local debate over whether to allow Energy Projects Development to build what would be only the nation's fifth LNG terminal has just begun. The $150 million Jordan Cove Energy Project remains years away from reality, if indeed it ever wins official approval.

It's still too early to say whether the project is a good fit for Coos Bay. But it's not too early to say - loudly and clearly - that the final decision on this and other pending LNG projects around the country should remain in the capable hands of local and state officials.

Legislation pending in Congress would remove much of the authority that state and local governments currently exercise over the siting of LNG terminals and transfer it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Under the proposal, the commission would have final say over projects if local governments fail to act within federally established deadlines.

Federal lawmakers should reject this proposal, which is part of energy legislation crafted four years ago by Vice President Dick Cheney and a coterie of industry lobbyists. Conservatives, who historically have championed the principle of state and local control, should be particularly offended by this proposal, which would give Big Government the final say on LNG sites.

The natural gas industry has pushed for increased federal authority over the siting or expansion of LNG terminals because intense local debates have delayed or endangered plans for new facilities in communities such as Long Beach, Calif.

The nation's natural gas transmission system is overtaxed and should be expanded, and pipelines alone are not the answer. Even construction of new lines from Canadian and new U.S. natural gas sources cannot keep pace with the country's rapidly growing demand.

LNG terminals may well play a critical role. They enable distributors from distant countries, from Libya to the Philippines, to ship liquefied gas to water-accessible terminals. From there, it can be distributed regionally through pipelines, such as the new 60-mile line connecting Roseburg and Coos Bay.

But serious safety issues must first be addressed. Even though U.S. terminals have operated without a serious accident for decades, a Department of Energy study last December warned that a terrorist attack on a tanker carrying liquefied natural gas could cause immense destruction. A 2003 report to Congress also identified several potential accident scenarios that could cause widespread damage. Last year, an explosion at an LNG terminal in Algeria killed 24 people and injured 74.

State and local governments, which would have to deal with an LNG disaster, should continue to have the final say on siting. Industry officials may be in a snit about recent public opposition to offshore terminals in Southern California, but nearly a dozen terminals or terminal expansions have been approved in recent years - the bulk of them either in offshore or remote locations distant from population centers.

Congress should preserve the authority of local and state governments in Oregon and elsewhere across the country to make the final determinations on where liquefied natural gas terminals are located.