Congressman Henry Waxman requests the Environmental Protection Agency to provide its analysis that caused it to reverse its position on the
Cabrillo Port LNG project.
By Ward Lauren / Special to The Malibu Times
Congressman Henry A. Waxman, chair of the federal government’s Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter Tuesday to the Environmental Protection Agency, which detailed the agency’s repeated affirmations that the liquefied natural gas project proposed for Malibu’s coast needed to meet Ventura County’s air quality permitting requirements, and asked the agency to supply his office with the analysis that caused it to reverse its decision about the project’s permitting needs.
Waxman details in the letter several dates where the EPA confirmed that the BHP Billiton’s Cabrillo Port floating storage and regasification port needed to meet the Ventura District’s more stringent air quality permitting, which would also require it to obtain emission reduction credits within the district to offset the increased emissions from a new facility.
BHP sought to have its project treated as if were being built in the Channel Islands, therefore requiring a less stringent air quality permitting process. There is less air pollution in the Channel Islands area, as opposed to Ventura County’s District, which is why the requirements are less strict.
“At least three times, EPA explained clearly, as part of the public record, that this project would be permitted according to the air quality permitting requirements of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District,” Waxman wrote.
“One June 29, 2005, EPA reversed its position in a letter to the U.S. Coast Guard,” Waxman wrote, explaining that the EPA did not provide an explanation of the analysis that led to its decision that emission offsets were not needed in the area where BHP planned to build the port.
Waxman went on to say that press reports suggested that the decision was made for political rather than environmental reasons. Cited in Waxman’s letter was an excerpt from a Los Angeles Times story that suggests that BHP most likely resisted its project being under Ventura’s rules because to acquire offsets for Cabrillo Port would be costly and difficult to achieve, and lead to delays. The Times also wrote that after the company contacted the White House Task Force on Energy Project Streamlining, EPA reversed its decision, and that BHP spent $1.8 million in California lobbying for its project in 2006.
“As primary oversight body in the House, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has the authority and the responsibility to investigate allegations of unusual and potentially suspect agency actions,” Waxman wrote.
Waxman requested that the EPA provide the committee by Jan. 23 its analysis it referenced in a June 29, 2005 letter that “provides the factual and legal basis for EPA’s reversal on this project.”
Gov. insists he’s middle of the road on LNG
In the meantime, Gov. Schwarzenneger’s press office last week continued to insist that the governor has made no commitment or decision in regard to the Cabrillo Deepwater Port liquefied natural gas facility the Australian company BHP Billiton seeks to build 14 miles off the coast of Malibu and Oxnard.
In a year-end e-mail release the governor’s office stated, in part, that “his administration is working to ensure that BHP Billiton’s proposal…would follow California’s stringent environmental, health and safety guidelines.”
Some environmentalists have interpreted this to mean the governor had officially reiterated his support for the proposal.
The governor’s press office spokesman Bill Maile said a cabinet-level group is monitoring every step of the approval process and that “The governor has not taken a position on the BHP project at Oxnard, or any LNG project. He believes that it would be inappropriate to take a position on any specific project before the review process is complete.”
When this will be is unknown at present, as the lead agencies in the process, the U.S. Coast Guard and the State Lands Commission, are still preparing the final Environmental Impact Statement and Report for Cabrillo Port. The project also needs the approval of the California Coastal Commission.
“It’s our understanding that they expect to have it ready and issue it to the public sometime this year, possibly late February or maybe March,” Kathi Hann, environmental advisor for BHP Billiton, said. “There will be public hearings, a comment period; quite a few steps yet to come. If all things stay on track, maybe we’ll know by this summer.”
The BHP proposal is not the only LNG project on the horizon.
There are presently five LNG programs in various stages of activity in California, according to the official state government Web site. In addition to the Cabrillo Deepwater Port Facility, the Clearwater Port LNG Project (also proposed to be located offshore from Oxnard), the Long Beach LNG Facility, the OceanWay LNG Terminal (offshore from Los Angeles International Airport) and the Pacific Gateway LNG Facility, proposed for the Northern California coast, are in the approval process pipeline.
Editor Laura Tate contributed to this story.