Opposing factions on the city council will attempt Tuesday to get a thumbs-up/thumbs-down reading on the sentiment of Long Beach, Ca, elected officials regarding a proposed $450 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in the city’s harbor.

The port commission, a politically independent body, however, will have the ultimate local say on whether the project, which is sponsored by Mitsubishi and ConocoPhillips, ever gets built.

The Long Beach Press Telegram on Saturday editorialized that while it thinks the council’s vote is premature, it may be time for the council to “make a crucial decision” on how the majority of the elected officials feel about the much-debated project. Three city council members who have been opposed to siting a LNG receiving terminal in their harbor have set up the council vote on Tuesday. The vote will be on the a potential supply contract between the city and the LNG terminal sponsors.

The city council’s vote is separate from ongoing permit work being done jointly between the port and FERC. Two other council members have suggested that the city council wait to give its opinion on the proposed facility until this fall when a joint FERC-port environmental impact report is released.

Late last month, the city council postponed a scheduled vote on the issue, which subsequently riled organized opponents of the proposed 1 Bcf/d receiving terminal (see NGI, May 26).

Mitsubishi’s COO for the project, Tom Giles, emphasized that the city should hold off breaking negotiations for what could ultimately help clean up local air pollution coming from diesel-driven harbor operations and could provide a solid new supply source.

While the city has no direct vote on the proposed terminal, which has been the subject of a jurisdictional fight between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the California Public Utilities Commission, the vote by the nine-member city council is viewed by local officials and residents as a referendum of sorts for the project, originally proposed three years ago by Mitsubishi subsidiary Sound Energy Solutions (SES) and since joined by ConocoPhillips.

At stake is the city-SES agreement to negotiate a possible supply contract with the LNG terminal operators. This is separate from the ultimate question of whether the proponents will get a permit from the port and from FERC to allow construction to begin. However, the city talks with SES do involve added energy infrastructure, including a 2.5-mile natural gas transmission pipeline to bring supplies into Long Beach’s municipal natural gas network.

The vote on Tuesday will be on a resolution that would “authorize the city manager to terminate negotiations with SES/Mitsubishi regarding a long-term natural gas supply and the feasibility of constructing and operating interconnecting natural gas pipelines to the proposed LNG facility, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding approved by the city council May 13, 2003.”

©Copyright 2005Intelligence 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.