Residents speak out about proposed coastal gas plant

Citing safety and pollution concerns, most of the 250 people who turned out Wednesday night for a public hearing in Oxnard urged denial of a proposed $800-million liquefied natural gas terminal that would be moored off the Ventura County coast.

“It’s a dirty and dangerous floating LNG factory,” said Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), whose district includes Oxnard, just before the hearing. “It should not go forward.”

The public hearing, the first in a series of pivotal meetings that will help decide the fate of the project, culminates a four-year effort by Australian energy giant BHP Billiton to export liquefied natural gas to California.

But most who attended the hearing before U.S. Coast Guard officials just want the energy company to go home.

“It’s not safe, it’s not tested, and I don’t want to take that risk,” Malibu Councilwoman Pamela Conley Ulich said of the terminal, which would be roughly 20 miles offshore from her city.

Public comments from the hearing will be submitted to the federal Maritime Administration, which must decide in the next 90 days whether to certify the project’s environmental impact report and grant an operating permit.

Supporters say that California needs new sources of natural gas. The state gets 40% of its electricity from the fuel and seeks more to meet rising demand.

Innes Willox, Australian consul-general for the western United States, said Wednesday that California needs reliable energy sources to avoid blackouts that plagued the state in 2001.

“Our LNG can be a great contributor to the California economy,” Willox said. “It’s cheap, efficient and reliable and it’s proven to work.”

Community leaders and many residents from Oxnard and Malibu point to a recently completed environmental impact report, which cites numerous significant ecological effects associated with the project. The Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration, among other agencies, will decide whether to certify the environmental report and issue a permit for the project.

Among the concerns is that the project would emit about 215 tons of smog-forming air pollutants annually immediately upwind from the Los Angeles area, one of the smoggiest places in the nation. The terminal, tankers and support vessels combined would rank among the largest polluters in Ventura County.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had ordered Billiton to comply with rigorous California air pollution controls, but reversed itself, instead allowing the company to meet a much more lenient air pollution limit in force on the Channel Islands, where there is no smog.

U.S. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is investigating whether the EPA acted in response to White House demands after lobbying by company officials.

The California Energy Commission and the state Public Utilities Commission cite growth and rising energy demand as a need for more reliable and diverse sources of energy, including natural gas.

The fuel is favored in California where tough air quality standards preclude use of dirtier fossil fuels, such as fuel oil or coal.

After Wednesday’s hearing, the U.S. Maritime Administration has 90 days to decide on a permit under the Deepwater Port Act and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has 45 days to decide on the fate the project.

Meanwhile, the California State Lands Commission will hold a hearing Monday in Oxnard and the California Coastal Commission will conduct a hearing Thursday in Santa Barbara.

Staff at the lands commission, which prepared the environmental impact report, identified numerous major uncorrectable environmental effects, but is nevertheless recommending approval.

The staff says that although the project will produce excessive noise, air pollution and harm to marine life, the need for new energy sources is of overriding concern.

But the staff at the state Coastal Commission objects to the terminal because it concluded that the project is inconsistent with state and federal laws that protect the coast.

gary.polakovic@latimes.com