The company has two options to pursue its project; either through the court system or by filing an appeal.
By Jonathan Friedman, Assistant Editor
It might not be the deathblow to the project, but last Thursday’s California Coastal Commission vote against BHP Billiton’s liquefied natural gas project, the second state panel rejection in four days, makes the possibility of Cabrillo Port becoming a reality even more challenging.
The Australian energy giant has two options to respond to the Coastal Commission decision. It has 30 days from last week’s hearing to file an appeal with U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, and the company could file a lawsuit. Last Monday’s State Lands Commission rejection can only be challenged in the court system. How BHP Billiton will respond to those decisions is unclear, with the company’s only comment being a vague press release.
“Right now we are reviewing comments and remarks following the public hearings conducted for our project this past week,” the statement read. “This will take some time.”
But it is unlikely the multibillion-dollar company is going to call it quits. An e-mail was sent this week to BHP Billiton’s Web site subscribers stating, “Frustrated? You bet. Giving up? No!”
Meanwhile, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has until midnight on May 21 to make his decision on the project. His vote would only become relevant if the state commissions’ rejections are somehow overturned through appeal or the court system, but Schwarzenegger has already stated he is reviewing the project nonetheless. He could approve the project (taking no action at all would also count as approval), endorse it with conditions, or veto it. If he vetoes the project that would be good enough to nix it even if the commissions’ decisions were overturned. Although Schwarzenegger has publicly stated his support for the use of LNG, he has not made a public statement on how he feels about Cabrillo Port.
Meanwhile, U.S. Maritime Administrator Sean Connaughton has until July 3 to weigh in on the project. He could issue a federal license with conditions, but that would require the state commissions’ decisions to be overturned and for the governor to support the terminal.
At this point in the process, BHP Billiton opponents are confident with what they consider to be a slim chance of Cabrillo Port ever coming to life.
“I’m confident that we will prevail,” Malibu City Councilmember Andy Stern said shortly after the Coastal Commission vote. “It’s been a long journey to get to this point; many meetings and years of work. And I’m confident we’ll prevail. And I think they think we’ll prevail. I think that’s why they didn’t participate today [at the Coastal Commission hearing].”
Boasting the same confidence following the meeting was Susan Jordan, head of the California Coastal Protection Network and the person who first spearheaded the anti-Cabrillo Port movement nearly four years ago.
“I think they [BHP Billiton] thought they could rely on lobbying and influence,” Jordan said. “I think they found out that only goes so far. There are rules. There are laws. There are regulations they have to meet. This project doesn’t meet them.”
Jordan said for BHP Billiton to start a legal battle would be a mistake because it would entangle the project in the courtroom system for a long time.
“BHP [Billiton] should really come out and make a statement that says, ‘We’ve heard loud and clear that our project does not meet California’s needs or specifications. We’re going to go back and design a new project that does.'”
But, for now, BHP Billiton’s boldest comments have been limited to its e-mail updates it sends to people who sign up through the Web site, cabrilloport.com. In an e-mail sent on April 16, the company ridiculed the commissions for making decisions based on “fear” rather than evidence.
“The testimony at both hearings was largely fear, not fact, based and ranged from grandmothers to high school students expressing mostly unfounded fears sourced from false and misleading information distributed by opponents,” the e-mail stated. “Opponents did a great job of turning out a sea of blue shirted [the color of the anti-Cabrillo Port shirts worn at the hearings] folks which, combined with a sprinkling of Malibu celebs [sic], made for great TV images. But since when do we set energy policy by high school students, not scientists? How many dozens of experts does it take to make Californians understand the lights don’t stay on by themselves, or that wind and solar, while part of the solution, are not going to be our main source of energy for years to come?”