Senate says LNG siting should be federal decision

Senate says LNG siting should be federal decision 6/23/2005, 7:15 a.m. CT The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has voted to let the federal government override states' objections to the location of liquefied natural gas terminals.

Supporters argued that L-N-G imports will help meet a growing demand for natural gas and lower prices. But opponents of the provision, part of a wide-ranging energy bill the Senate hopes to complete this week, said states should get more of a say in locating terminals because of concerns about tanker spills and terrorists.

An amendment that would have given governors the right to veto a final federal decision on an L-N-G import terminal was defeated 52-to-45.

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, in a June 15th letter to federal officials, said he will not support the development of a L-N-G terminal off the Alabama coast unless he gets proof the terminal won't harm marine fisheries.

Energy experts predict a soaring growth of LNG imports over the next 20 years to make up for a shortfall of domestic natural gas, although currently there are only four import terminals. Some 40 new L-N-G facilities have been proposed with perhaps a third of them expected to be built.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00146

Note: The amendment in the article was defeated because it was tabled.

YEAs ---52 Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---45 Akaka (D-HI) Allen (R-VA) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Collins (R-ME) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Martinez (R-FL) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Vitter (R-LA) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3 Conrad (D-ND) Johnson (D-SD) Thune (R-SD)

Because in Mobile, when several LNG plants were proposed (one kind of close to my $600,000 house) community opposition basically helped ice several proposed area LNG plants. (This is why Sessions voted against the tabling). The Mobile Register (which is essentially a Bush administration mouthpiece) led the charge to keep the LNG plants far away from the Alabama Gulf Coast. One company, Cheniere, had proposed building an LNG plant on the Mobile River, with the fallout area including the Financial District., which would have made for a prime terrorist target.

Not to mention, early in 2004, an LNG plant (I think it was Algeria) had an accident that resulted in a fiery explosion, several deaths, and many injuries. It was this incident that basically heightened public opposition to the point that Exxon decided it didn't want to build the Hollingers Island plant (within the potential blast zone of this plant are several waterfront homes and an elementary school), and Cheniere basically dropped it's moronic idea of the Pinto Island plant.

I believe its either Exxon or Shell, which has decided they want to build a plant 12 miles off the shore of Dauphin Island to connect to a pipeline from Louisiana, and this has drawn the ire of people in places like Bayou La Batre and Coden who make their living in commercial fishing operations, and it has also drawn opposition from Dauphin Island itself, who fears an explosion would have negative consequences on their main economic activity, which is tourism.

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/111951815080560.xml&coll=3

Here is an article about the split between Sessions and Shelby on this issue. Sessions was the Republican co-sponsor for the Feinstein amendment.

http://www.al.com/specialreport/mobileregister/?lng.html

This is the database from the Mobile Register containing various stories about the whole LNG issue, remember it was primarily the efforts of this paper which led to the abandonment of the plant proposals in this area.

"Why put ourselves at the mercy of foreign sources for another energy source?"

I don't want to do that, but according to a law passed in the 1970s, there is no place in the whole of Mobile County that is suitable for construction of an LNG plant, that is, if the law is followed.

The same applies to the majority of LNG plant proposals, because most are proposed in coastal areas, and coastal areas tend to be more densely populated than inland areas.

My belief is Governors should have the power to reject these plants (The Riley administration, once it saw the firestorm this issue had created, aggressively came out in opposition to all the LNG proposals), because if people of a particular area do not one of these things constructed "in their backyard", then the Governor of a state should be able to respond to the wishes of his constituents.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.