WASHINGTON, D.C. – As Californians found out a few years ago, how we answer questions about energy can have a profound impact on our daily lives. We face such questions today as we consider proposals to build offshore facilities for importing liquefied natural gas and then piping it onshore.
A number of these proposals are extremely controversial, and yet they are advancing rapidly. Like many of my constituents, I have strong concerns with these LNG projects, including one off the Ventura County coast. The first question we need to answer is whether we actually need all the natural gas the proponents of these facilities claim. Yes, natural gas will continue to play a vital role in our energy-supply picture. However, the projected increased demand should not be accepted as a foregone conclusion.
We must look hard at our current consumption patterns and determine our ability to reduce them. For example, according to the state Public Utilities Commission, two-thirds of the power provided by natural-gas generation in California comes from plants that have been in operation since before 1980. Clearly, newer natural-gas plants could be much more efficient.
Furthermore, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has found that an investment of $30 billion over five years in natural-gas- and electric-efficiency measures, and in new, renewable electric-power generation, would dramatically lower consumption of natural gas and reduce prices by 22 percent. Increasing energy efficiency would decrease our consumption of natural gas by 1.1 percent in just 12 months, according to an analysis by the ACEEE.
Taxpayers would need to make a huge investment to build LNG facilities; Cabrillo Port alone could cost $600 million. Yet, increasing efficiency and investing in renewable energy can happen more quickly and for less money. Before we put millions into LNG construction, we should do our utmost to reduce consumption.
Second, we need to ensure that LNG facilities are sited and operated in a manner that provides the highest protection for the public and has the least impact on local industries like tourism, fishing and shipping. In light of terrorist attacks on the USS Cole and 9/11, the potential impacts on public safety from LNG transportation and other operations should not be underestimated. The Bush administration still has not fully addressed the issue of security at our nation's ports. The Coast Guard's mission has been greatly expanded since 9/11, yet remains underfunded. And there has been no indication the local Coast Guard presence will be greatly amplified to meet the increased security needs of the proposed LNG facility.
It also is vitally important that we understand the region's seismic and geological hazards. At my request, the U.S. Geological Survey assembled a report on the active faults in the Santa Barbara Channel and their closeness to the proposed terminal and their pipelines. Not surprisingly, it showed that the pipelines would be exposed to hazards from earthquakes and recommended additional in-depth study on the issue. Unfortunately, those studies have not yet been done.
Third, we should make decisions about locating LNG facilities in a manner that protects our beautiful -- and economically valuable -- environment. LNG facilities will lead to noise, water and air pollution, impacting wildlife, fishermen and those who live, work or vacation along our coastline.
Finally, I cannot overemphasize the need for sound, patient decision-making on this issue. California has charged into major energy changes before with disastrous results. The state has still not fully recovered from a flawed electricity deregulation plan.
Instead of a more efficient energy system delivering cheaper power, Californians were held up by out-of-state companies gaming the system. We cannot afford a similar mistake.
Building these LNG facilities would represent substantial long-term commitments of capital and further our dependence on fossil-fuel imports. New facilities should not be approved unless there is a clearly demonstrated need for the facility, it is built in the right location, and the public's interest is protected through a process that ensures full input.
For the reasons outlined above, I will oppose this project if these issues are not completely resolved. Now is our chance to fully study this issue and make sound decisions that will protect our livelihood, resources and environment for generations to come.
