Long Beach Council Delays LNG Decision

The Long Beach City Council abruptly postponed a vote Tuesday night on a $450-million liquefied natural gas terminal at the city-owned port, frustrating residents who had showed up to urge the lawmakers to oppose the project.

The delay comes the same week that Congress is considering legislation to give the federal government the final say in the siting of onshore LNG terminals, an issue raised by the Long Beach dispute. Some residents said Tuesday that the council’s inaction would hurt lobbying efforts in Washington to retain some state and local control. The council was poised to vote on whether to continue or stop talks with Mitsubishi Corp., which has proposed the import terminal at the Port of Long Beach, about two miles from the city’s downtown.

But Mayor Beverly O’Neill stunned a standing-room-only crowd 90 minutes into the meeting when she announced that some council members still had questions about the project and that the measure would be delayed until June 21.

The announcement surprised and angered about 170 people, most of whom wore anti-LNG T-shirts or carried signs opposing the LNG plant. Some residents have accused the council of caving in to energy interests. Others have voiced fears that gas could leak from the terminal and ignite, either by accident or because of a terrorist attack.

Only one woman was allowed to speak about the terminal, and only because she had signed up to speak on another item.

“This council has to find the courage to say no to LNG,” Ann Cantrell, 71, a lifelong Long Beach resident, told officials. “We don’t want the pipeline, we don’t want the facility, and we don’t want a catastrophe in this city.”

After the vote was postponed, Karen LaMantia, 56, a Long Beach author and health professional, said that the council had the information it needed. “It’s quite typical of this council to not make decisions on important issues,” she said.

Council members Dan Baker, Frank Colonna and Rae Gabelich said Monday that they wanted to end talks. Three others -- Jackie Kell, Tonia Reyes Uranga and Val Lerch -- said they were not yet prepared to end them.

The Long Beach debate mirrors others that have erupted in cities on the East and West coasts, as interest has grown in importing natural gas in liquid form.

LNG is natural gas chilled and compressed so that it can be transported from gas fields by tanker.

Five U.S. import terminals are operating today. But 40 terminals have been proposed, including four in California -- the onshore Long Beach plant, two off the Ventura County coast and one off Camp Pendleton coast in northern San Diego County.

The Mitsubishi proposal for Long Beach attracted virtually no public attention in May 2003, when the city-owned port gave the Tokyo company exclusive rights for three years to pursue the project. The council authorized city officials that same month to begin talks with Mitsubishi about a pipeline that would be needed to transport gas from the terminal.

Last week, the city attorney and city manager took the unusual step of asking the council for direction on LNG policy. They suggested that the council select one of three options: renew talks with Mitsubishi, keep them dormant or terminate them.

The last option would effectively invalidate the two-year-old agreement between the port and Mitsubishi, since that pact is conditioned on the city reaching a pipeline agreement, said City Atty. Robert E. Shannon.

As the LNG controversy has accelerated, some residents have called on the mayor and the council to oppose the plant. But O’Neill and many council members have steered clear of taking an adversarial role with the port and Mitsubishi.

Ironically, despite the relative quiet until recently in Long Beach, the Mitsubishi proposal became the lightning rod for the current Washington tug-of-war over federal jurisdiction.

The California Public Utilities Commission has maintained that it has the authority to permit the terminal, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also has claimed jurisdiction, prompting a pending appeal to the federal courts.

In response, the House passed an energy bill that gives the federal energy commission the final say -- a position favored by President Bush. This week, a Senate committee is considering a similar measure.