Vote on Gas Plant Draws Hundreds

Four hundred people packed Long Beach City Hall on Tuesday night for a City Council debate over the future of a controversial liquefied natural gas terminal proposed for a pier in the city’s harbor.

The crowd spilled out of the chambers as the council began the debate over whether to end talks with a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Mitsubishi Corp., which is planning a $450-million gas terminal less than two miles from downtown.

Dozens of supporters and critics planned to address the nine-member council before the scheduled vote late Tuesday evening.

Terminal supporters, most of them union members, outnumbered opponents, judging from the bright orange T-shirts supporting the project and fluorescent orange “Yes! LNG” stickers.

Critics held up anti-terminal signs.

The project has provoked strenuous opposition among residents who fear that an accident or terrorist attack could cause a catastrophic fire. But others have argued vehemently that Long Beach needs the jobs the terminal would provide.

Two proposed California gas terminals have been canceled because of public criticism. If the council votes to terminate negotiations, it will seriously undermine the Long Beach project. Although the city’s Harbor Commission holds the power to cancel the project, commissioners would have a difficult time forging ahead in the face of council opposition.

The council meeting attracted residents from across southern Los Angeles County.

Tom Miller, 40, came with his wife, Rebeca Shelley, 38. They are 10-year residents of Long Beach who own the Viento y Agua gallery and coffeehouse.

“We’re frightened about the possibilities of liquefied natural gas coming to Long Beach -- not only its presence but what could happen in a potential terrorist attack,” Miller said. “I just don’t trust big business anymore, and the way it works with local government.”

Among those supporting the plant was Bobby Newman, 52, of Lynwood, president of Laborers and Plaster Tenders Union Local 507.

“LNG, number one, will clean up the air around here and get rid of the diesel. Number two, it brings the gas prices down. Utility rates are monstrous,” he said. “There will be jobs from building it, with benefit packages and a living wage. And not only do they need to build it, but it has to be maintained. And those are long-term jobs.”

The gas terminal debate in Long Beach is drawing national attention at a time when the energy industry is seeking to dramatically increase imports of liquefied natural gas. As prices rise and domestic supplies dwindle, importing the fuel from overseas has grown increasingly attractive.

Only five gas import terminals operate in the United States, all on the East and Gulf coasts. But amid the current upsurge of interest in liquefied natural gas, companies have proposed or planned more than 40 terminals, including four in California: one onshore in Long Beach, two off the coast of Ventura County and one off Camp Pendleton in northern San Diego County.

But safety concerns have caused a groundswell of public opposition in Long Beach and other coastal communities where terminals are planned.

Those concerns increased after a January 2003 explosion at an Algerian gas plant that killed 27 people, and after several scientific reports raised questions about the potential dangers of placing such projects in urban areas.

What makes the debate particularly divisive is the nature of liquefied natural gas. The liquid contains enormous potential energy. If it escapes from a tanker or storage tank, it creates a vapor that is flammable at some concentrations. Gas terminal critics say that if the vapor were ignited, it could create a major conflagration.

Liquefied natural gas is cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, which allows it to be shipped by tanker. .

A December 2004 report from Sandia National Laboratories warned that if terrorists attacked a tanker, the fire could seriously injure people and damage buildings within a third of a mile. People as far as a mile away could suffer second-degree burns within 30 seconds, the report said.

But gas supporters call fears of a massive fire overblown, noting that countries in Asia and Europe have imported it for decades without a major leak or fire.

The Long Beach debate has been going on for two years.

Few people took note in May 2003 when the Port of Long Beach entered into an agreement with Mitsubishi subsidiary Sound Energy Solutions providing exclusive rights to develop the terminal on a pier. That same month, the City Council directed the city to begin talks with Mitsubishi about a planned pipeline and sales of the gas to the city-owned gas utility.

But as concern grew, some residents began lobbying council members to take a stand against the terminal.

The council was due to vote on whether to end the city’s talks two weeks ago, when Mayor Beverly O’Neill abruptly delayed the vote so council members could gather more information.

That prompted a storm of public criticism. Three council members -- Frank Colonna, Rae Gabelich and Bonnie Lowenthal -- promised to introduce the motion Tuesday to halt the talks.

Two other members -- Tonia Reyes Uranga and Val Lerch -- then announced an alternative motion that would allow the vote to be postponed until the port and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completed environmental reviews of the project by late summer or fall.