FERC on Thursday approved a second proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Oregon, the Jordan Cove LNG project and related Pacific Connector pipeline, and reaffirmed its decision favoring Sparrows Point LNG in Baltimore, MD. Chairman Jon Wellinghoff dissented from the 3-1 majority on both orders, saying he had environmental and economic issues with favoring imports over domestic natural gas.

The Jordan Cove project, a limited partnership of an affiliate of Alberta-based Fort Chicago Energy Partners LP and Energy Projects Development LLC, would provide up to 1 Bcf/d of regasified LNG to customers in the Pacific Northwest and California. Plans call for it to be constructed at the international port of Coos Bay on the Pacific Coast.

The terminal would be linked with the Pacific Connector, a 234-mile, 36-inch diameter 1 Bcf/d pipeline. The line would make connections with a number of pipelines near Malin, OR, including Williams’ Northwest Pipeline near Myrtle Creek, Avista Corp.’s distribution system near Shady Cove, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.’s transmission system, Tuscarora Gas Transmission’s system and Gas Transmission Northwest’s system.

Pacific Connector said previously it had entered into agreements with seven customers for the full capacity of the pipeline. The proposed pipeline is a limited partnership of Williams Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline LLC, PG&E Strategic Capital Inc. and an affiliate of Fort Chicago Energy Partners, Fort Chicago LNG II US LP.

Jordan Cove sponsors have said they hope to have a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other state and local authorizations by June.

In his dissent Wellinghoff said the Commission majority view did not take into account the recent development of abundant shale gas supplies which some authorities say equals 100 years of supply at current consumption levels. He took issue with claims the LNG would be cheaper than domestic gas delivered to the West Coast, noting that the prices and relationships vary.

Wellinghoff also noted the numerous preliminary permits along the coast for the development of hydrokinetic energy. While there are no plants operating the chairman pointed to estimates that the Oregon coast could provide 500 MW of electricity. He objected to Jordan Cove’s location less than a mile from the expanding Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, which posed a hazard because of the chance an airplane could crash into the LNG terminal. He endorsed the call by the Federal Aviation Administration for further studies of potential adverse effects on operations in navigable airspace.

Wellinghoff also had voted against another LNG terminal, NorthernStar Natural Gas Inc.’s proposed Bradwood Landing LNG facility on the Columbia River in Clatsop County, OR, which was approved by FERC more than a year ago (see Daily GPI, Sept. 19, 2008). That project has been mired in a land use dispute with local officials (see Daily GPI, Sept. 30).

A third LNG proposal would locate a terminal near Astoria, OR, at the mouth of the Columbia River. The Vancouver, WA-based Oregon LNG has received a number of local approvals but still must get FERC authorization.

Separately Thursday, FERC reaffirmed its Jan. 15 order authorizing the AES Sparrows Point LNG LLC import terminal near Dundalk in Baltimore County, MD, and the related Mid-Atlantic LLC pipeline project.

The AES terminal would send out gas at a rate of up to 1.5 Bcf/d, which would be transported through the 88-mile Mid-Atlantic pipeline to Eagle, PA, where the new pipeline would interconnect with several existing interstate pipelines serving customers in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. The Commission denied late motions to intervene, requests for a supplemental environmental impact statement and requests for stay because the petitioners raised no new specific issues or facts that had not already been addressed in the previous orders or in FERC staff’s environmental analyses.

Wellinghoff continued his objections to the East Coast terminal, saying “an analysis of relevant factors indicates that the Sparrows Point Project is not needed to serve the energy needs of the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. Further, I found that the future energy needs of these regions can be better met with alternative resources, such as domestic natural gas infrastructure and renewable and distributed energy resources. Finally, environmental and community concerns had not been fully and fairly evaluated.”

©Copyright 2009Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.