 | |
For
Immediate Release
Contact: Rory Cox,
California Program Director,
Pacific Environment, 415.399.8850 x302
San
Francisco – In a
letter to PG&E’s CEO Peter Darbee, 30 California
and Oregon public interest organizations asked
that the company drop its commitment to a project that would bring imported
liquefied natural gas (LNG) into California by
way of Oregon.
The project involves an LNG import terminal located in Coos
Bay, Oregon, and a 230-mile
pipeline that will connect the terminal to the California border. If approved and built the
project could import 1 billion cubic feet of imported natural gas per day.
The project faces wide opposition from Oregon residents as well as from leading
political figures such as Senator Jeff Merkley and former Oregon Secretary of
State Bill Bradbury. Other political leaders, including Governor Ted Kulongoski
and Senator Ron Wyden, have protested the federal government’s handling of the
environmental review for the project.
“This project is a giant step in the wrong direction for
PG&E,” said Rory
Cox, California
Program Director at Pacific Environment. “It will make California even more dependent on fossil
fuels from foreign countries, while PG&E should be investing in local
renewable energy projects instead.”
"PG&E’s misguided venture into LNG comes with a
heavy price tag to Oregon’s rivers, streams, forest and farmlands,” said Jody
McCaffree, Executive Director of Citizens Against LNG, a Coos Bay community
organization working to stop the project.
The letter, which is endorsed by the leadership of Pacific
Environment, The Utility Reform Network, Public Citizen, the Pacific Coast Federation
of Fisherman’s Associations, and 26 other organizations, asks PG&E to
divest from the project for the following reasons:
- The
project is unnecessary, given the availability of domestic natural gas,
the declining use of natural gas in California,
and California’s
commitment to efficiency and renewables;
- The
project will increase PG&E’s overall greenhouse gas emissions by up to
1.5 million tons per year due to the full lifecycle emissions involved in
LNG production and transportation.
- The
project will endanger over 17,000 residents in the Coos Bay
area with storage tanks and ships that will hold millions of gallons of
LNG. LNG, when it vaporizes, is highly flammable, and a 3 mile radius
around the terminal is considered a “hazard zone.” The facility would be
sited near an airport and in an area prone to large earthquakes and
tsunamis.
- Pipeline
construction and the right-of-way around the pipeline will raze thousands
of acres of Oregon’s
forests, including habitat of the critically endangered northern spotted
owl and the marbled murrelet. The pipeline will cross over 100 streams
which are habitat for the coho salmon.
- LNG is
associated with global human rights and environmental problems. A recent
massacre of indigenous protesters in Peru was reportedly carried
out by government forces funded in part by Camisea, which supplies fuel to
the Peru LNG project. Environmental problems caused by Shell Oil on Russia’s Sakhalin Island
provided a pretext for a takeover of the project by the Russian Government
in 2006. Both of these projects are among those listed as tentative
providers of LNG to PG&E.
- PG&E
should invest in energy efficiency and renewables instead of a new
dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
A PDF copy of the letter is available by clicking below.
###
| 
