LNG CONTROL LIMITED IN BILL HOUSE OKS PLAN TO STRIP OXNARD OF AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ON LOCAL TERMINAL.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

Congress on Thursday stripped Oxnard and Long Beach of their authority to decide whether it can approve a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal at the port.

By a 194-237 vote, the House stamped out an effort to assert local control over where new liquefied natural gas, or LNG terminals should be placed as well as whether a potential facility meets a community's safety and environmental standards.

The decision directly affects Long Beach and Oxnard, where officials are considering proposals for new LNG terminals. Things may change when the legislation gets to the U.S. Senate, but for now the word from Congress is that the federal government has near complete say-so over approving sites for the controversial facilities.

``I'm totally disappointed in Congress,'' said state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach.

``To me, it's the modern-day version of taxation without representation,'' he said. ``We're supposed to handle all the risk, deal with all the concerns and not have any say in where we're going to site LNG facilities.''

City of Long Beach spokesman Tom Modica called the vote ``very unfortunate.''

The LNG fight represented just a sliver of the three days of heated debate on a sweeping energy bill aimed at boosting domestic production. The overall bill, which passed 249-183, also includes $8 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, nuclear, coal and electric utilities; authorizes oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge; and protects the makers of MTBE, a carcinogenic gasoline additive that has polluted groundwater throughout California and the nation, from lawsuits.

The dispute over liquefied natural gas stems from a provision in the bill making the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, the lead agency in the construction or expansion of terminals.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the House Energy Committee and a strong proponent of putting the federal government in charge of siting LNG terminals, said the issue is one of interstate commerce. Others said it's a matter of boosting the economy.

``If we want to save jobs in America, we have to have more LNG facilities,'' said Rep. Timothy Murphy, R-Pa.

FERC says it already had that authority, and that the energy bill merely clarifies the law. The California Public Utilities Commission, which has sued federal regulators, disagrees, as do Long Beach officials and environmental activists who fear a loss of local control and, ultimately, the creation of LNG terminals in communities that don't want them.

``The federal government is more amenable to citing these facilities,'' said Sierra Club activist Tom Politano. ``The state of California is more reluctant and has stricter and tougher regulations.''

Reps. Juanita Millender-McDonald, D-Long Beach and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/Long Beach voted in favor of the amendment.

In the Oxnard area, Rep. Lois Capps, D-San Luis Obisbo also voted for it while Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks, voted against it.

Lisa Friedman, [phone]

lisa.friedman(at)langnews.com