Regulators divided on offshore gas plant

One California regulatory agency advocates approval of an $800-million liquefied natural gas terminal off the Ventura County coast, and another says that the project would be harmful to the coastal environment.

The staffs of the California State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission have reached vastly different conclusions based on the environmental impact report of the BHP Billiton project.

It is a duality that has dogged the Australian energy company for four years as it has sought to build the first gas-processing plant on the West Coast. The outcome of the project could be decided in the next 10 days in a series of public hearings.

The U.S. Coast Guard will hold the first of those hearings Wednesday in Oxnard. That meeting is key because it starts a clock giving Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger 45 days and the U.S. Maritime Administration 90 days to render a final decision.

All the regulatory bodies must approve the project before it can be built at a site 14 miles offshore, roughly midway between Port Hueneme and Malibu. The hearings come one month after release of the project’s final environmental impact report, which identified more than a dozen significant, irreparable harmful effects on marine life, air quality and the coastal environment.

Paul Thayer, executive officer for the California State Lands Commission, said that although his staff identified the project’s deficiencies in a 60-page report, he said he would nonetheless urge commissioners to approve the project. He said California needs more and diverse energy sources and that natural gas, a clean-burning fossil fuel, would help to reduce air pollution in smoggy Southern California.

“Energy demand in California is increasing, and California needs the fuel,” Thayer said. “We think the benefits outweigh the risks.”

The commission has scheduled a public hearing next Monday at the Oxnard Performing Arts Center to consider approving permits for pipelines to move the gas onshore. Meanwhile, staff members of the California Coastal Commission object to the project, arguing that it is inconsistent with state and federal coastal protection laws. Specifically, the staff members write in a 184-page report released Monday that the project would produce too much air pollution, harm sea life and contribute to global warming.

Although the company pledges to use natural gas to power its tankers within 24 miles of the California coast, Coastal Commission staffers want the ships to run on the low-polluting fuel from Australia to California to minimize emissions of greenhouse gases. It marks the first industrial project for which the commission has required greenhouse gas reductions.

The Coastal Commission meets in Santa Barbara on April 12. At that meeting, the panel will decide the narrow issue of whether the project conforms to state and federal coastal protection laws.

Kathi Hann, a spokeswoman for BHP Billiton, said she was satisfied the company has proven it can operate the LNG terminal safely and with minimal harm to the environment.

The project would bring tankers filled with super-chilled and condensed natural gas across the Pacific Ocean, heat about 800 million cubic feet of gas per day aboard a floating terminal and pipe it to shore in Oxnard for use in the Southern California Gas Co. distribution system.

“This is the right time and right place and the right project for California,” Hann said. “We’re very pleased to be entering the final phase. We want to get started.”

Coastal environmental activists and some community groups oppose the project. They say BHP Billiton lobbied White House officials to win a key exemption that allows the project to meet lenient air pollution standards in force on the northern Channel Islands, rather than the more rigorous standards of mainland Ventura County.

“Not only will this project pose unacceptable risks, but it’s not necessary,” said Linda Krop of the Environmental Defense Center. “Why would they want to rely on another form of imported energy?”

In Congress, U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) announced last week that he is expanding an investigation to determine if the White House forced the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reverse its position requiring that the project meet rigorous air pollution cleanup standards. Waxman is seeking additional documents by Wednesday, including materials from BHP Billiton, the EPA and the White House.

gary.polakovic@latimes.com