Different day, same shenanigans. A little over a year ago, I wrote a series of diaries about actions being taken against a not-so-little something called the Palomar Pipeline:
The proposed 36-inch-diameter underground pipeline will be approximately 220 miles long. In addition to improving service reliability for NW Natural’s customers, the pipeline potentially opens up the entire region to new sources of natural gas via a connection to the proposed Bradwood Landing Pipeline in north-central Oregon.
The driving force behind that project was a partnership between our own NW Natural and an outfit called TransCanada. Guess who's behind the Keystone XL? TransCanada! In all likelihood, their dream entailed hooking Palomar/Brentwood up to Keystone 1, which is also to be connected with Keystone XL:
“Effective immediately, this order prevents TransCanada from restarting operations on their Keystone crude oil pipeline until P.H.M.S.A. is satisfied with the ongoing repairs and is confident that all immediate safety concerns have been addressed,” the agency said. It issued the order in response to two incidents in May involving oil leaks from small-diameter pump-station pipe fittings.
TransCanada’s Keystone 1 is under particular scrutiny because the company has applied to build and operate a much larger pipeline, the Keystone XL, which would run from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. That pipeline would pass under some of the Midwest’s most productive farmland and through its major aquifer.
Is it any wonder people have been willing to go to jail to stop the XL project from proceeding as planned? The good news is that we won here in Oregon and there are a lot of people on our side in the Keystone XL fight now.
The even better news is there's still more we can do about it and by "it," I mean this ridiculous game of Whack-a-Mole. TransCanada couldn't have Palomar, so they've set their sights on Keystone XL. What will be the next proposal, brought forth by whom? Because last year it was Palomar, today it is Keystone, and we all know next year it will be yet some other project.
The main reason this is such a problem is FERC:
Congress and the President in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the FERC important new regulatory authority over the reliability of the nation's bulk-power system . Mandatory and enforceable reliability standards and a strong reliability program are critical elements of that new authority.
It basically boils down to this: under the guise of national security in the form of ensuring a stable power grid/energy supply, FERC gets to decide what gets built where and these decisions trump state and local authorities and communities. Which is why my wonderful Senator Ron Wyden introduced S 3056 last year:
3/2/2010--Introduced. Amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal provisions amending the Natural Gas Act to extend its jurisdiction to:
(1) the exportation or importation of natural gas in foreign commerce and to persons engaged in it; and
(2) liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. States that the Natural Gas Act shall be applied and administered as if such provisions and attendant amendments had not been enacted.
There was also companion legislation in the House, HR 4922, also from a year ago:
U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) today announced that he has introduced legislation to restore the ability of states to play a necessary and vital role in the process of siting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities.
The bill (HR 4922) repeals a provision in the 2005 Energy bill that gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the exclusive authority to site LNG facilities.
U.S. Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and James Langevin (D-RI) are original co-sponsors of the bill. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has introduced the legislation in the Senate.
FERC does not currently seek adequate input from states in LNG siting reviews, and governors lack veto authority for onshore LNG terminals, despite having that authority for offshore terminals under the Deepwater Port Act. Although states and localities face all the potential risks and impacts of a LNG facility, they lack an equal voice in the siting and approval process. Prior to the 2005 Energy Bill, such decisions had historically been made by siting agencies in each state.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
And I'm sure it has collected a fine layer of dust there; I know the Senate version died in committee, but it's time to revisit the issue if ever there was one. These bills in the House and Senate are how we fight back, not just against Keystone XL, but the next megapipe as well.
Please call Senator Wyden and ask him to renew his efforts at updating the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to return decision-making power to local communities. Please call Reps McGovern, Frank, Kennedy and Langevin and implore them to do the same. Keep reintroducing these bills until they get somewhere.
Otherwise, we're going to keep having this fight all across the country. In the meantime, you can sign the petition and participate at the White House sit-in.