http://web.archive.org/web/20040429232408/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/op-03120401.htm
3/12/04 LNG Debate: Moving
Forward with Caution
by Jeff Leonard
Because we own property on the Samoa Peninsula, the city of Eureka is in the middle of the community debate currently taking place over Calpine’s proposed liquefied natural gas facility.
As a City Council member, I am writing this guest opinion in response to the many phone calls, letters and e-mails I’ve received from both proponents and opponents of the project.
I support continuing this community debate. I also support establishing a fair public process, in keeping with the democratic system we enjoy, that allows everyone to participate in the decision-making process. I have a responsibility as an elected official to ensure that both sides of divisive issues have a fair opportunity to present their case.
Because the Eureka city airport property is the most-feasible site for this project, the next step in that public process is the Eureka City Council’s March 16 meeting, when the council discusses an exclusive right to negotiate agreement with Calpine. This agreement provides the opportunity for our community to carefully examine this project, while preserving the city of Eureka’s control over the property’s future.
Essentially, the ERTN is the city’s agreement to reserve its property while Calpine presents its project to the community, and local governments complete their independent analysis. Before getting any option to actually buy or lease the property, Calpine will have to make its entire project public, fund an independent study of the project and convince our community that LNG is a suitable fit for Humboldt Bay. If it gets our community’s acceptance, Calpine will still be required to obtain all of the necessary permits – more than 100 – before it can complete any transaction with the city.
To ensure that the city of Eureka controls this entire process, the city has negotiated several important “off-ramps” into the ERTN. Most importantly, the Eureka City Council retains the power to meet and decide – for any reason – to halt negotiations if it feels this project is unsuitable.
Consequently, the city is not under any obligation to ever accept or permit an LNG facility. The Eureka City Council retains the absolute power to use its judgment and terminate this agreement.
Moving forward with the ERTN will allow Calpine to present its entire project in detail. The process will put the burden on Calpine to convince our community that an LNG energy center is both feasible and desirable for Humboldt Bay.
Furthermore, local governments will be able to complete their own independent analysis of the project, guaranteeing a fair public process that allows everyone to participate in this community debate.
Although I support moving forward with the ERTN, I cannot make a fair decision about the actual project until we get reliable answers to the many questions LNG poses for Humboldt Bay. Both supporters and opponents of the project are working hard to answer those questions. However, as an elected representative, I need to gather and absorb a lot more information before I can make an educated and reasonable decision. One thing is certain – the community debate has begun, and I am listening to both arguments.
Despite the many economic opportunities, there are a number of important concerns that must be completely satisfied before this project could ever become a desirable next step for our community. For the time being, we need to move forward so that we can evaluate all of these issues, and everyone can fairly participate in the decision-making process.
(Jeff Leonard is a Eureka City Council member.)
Showing posts with label CalPine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CalPine. Show all posts
10.27.2009
Majority Oppose Calpine
http://web.archive.org/web/20040413223932/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/op-03170406.htm
3/17/04 Majority Oppose Calpine
(This letter was sent to Eureka’s mayor and City Council Wednesday via e-mail.)
By David Elsebusch
You heard lots of testimony last night. The majority opposed the Calpine project and some supported a “study” and a “process.” None said they researched the project and have sufficient knowledge to conclude that it is a good one.
Support for a “process” is universal. Part of the process is what you experienced last night – public comment.
Mr. (Ken) Abreu of Calpine has testified that the project will be aborted if it lacks community support. Well Calpine doesn’t have “community support” and as more of the populace becomes informed about the project and the adverse effects of an LNG facility on Humboldt Bay, there is no doubt that should the matter be put on the November ballot for voter approval, the “process” would end right there and voters would tell Calpine to “get out of Dodge.”
Calpine has spent years schmoozing with private interests and meeting with elected officials and bureaucrats in private, and now it is desperate to have the city locked into an agreement to sell the airport property to Calpine before the public is adequately informed about the pros and cons of the project, going so far as to buying full page ads in the Times-Standard making five false assertions.
1. Calpine states, “Nothing in the agreement makes the city sell this property to Calpine.” The truth behind that falsehood is that the exclusive right to negotiate does require the city to sell the property to Calpine after certain conditions are met.
2. Calpine states, “Calpine will be prohibited from applying for any local, state or federal permits until after the City Council’s approval of an “option agreement.” The truth behind that falsehood is that the contract that Calpine desperately wants the City Council to approve specifically permits Calpine to engage in “pre-filing” activities which is the precursor to permit applications.
3. Calpine states, “There can be no independent report until there is a proposal from Calpine. There can be no proposal until after there is a site. There can be no site until the City Council approves the pending site agreement. The agreement is ready to be approved now.” The truth behind that falsehood is that although Calpine desperately wants the city to sign the agreement now, Calpine has simply unilaterally decided that it will not present a proposal until the city agrees to sell the property to it. It is clear that Calpine is free to present a proposal before the city agrees to sell the property. That’s the way business is conducted – a proposal is made and if it is acceptable, a written agreement is executed.
4. Calpine states, “Without approval of the site agreement, there can be no proposal from Calpine.” The truth behind that falsehood is that Calpine does not admit that it made up this rule, which is contrary to the best interests of the city and the county.
5. Calpine states, “The pending agreement gives Calpine the right to physically evaluate the site. Without that right, there can be no proposal. Without a proposal, there can be no “independent report.” The truth behind that string of lies is that, while the proposed agreement to sell the property to Calpine gives Calpine the right to physically evaluate the site, it is not necessary to agree to sell the property before providing Calpine a right to inspect the site and an independent report can be generated without executing an agreement to sell the property.
Please don’t get the cart before the horse and approve the “exclusive right to negotiate” and lock the city into that agreement, at least before there is a truly independent study and additional public comment.
Many of us believe that, based on information we have acquired, the project is absolutely wrong for Humboldt Bay, but concede that information could be provided to more of the populace. Rejection of Calpine’s request for the ERTN would permit the “process” to continue in a rational and reasonable manner and avoid possible litigation.
(Tuesday) night, I furnished you with copies of the (federal) General Services Administration’s letter of March 10 addressed to Mr. Tyson. I trust you agree that it represents proof that the ERTN is seriously flawed and the basic concept – the sale of the site – has not been sufficiently researched and addressed.
The position of the GSA that it – not the city – is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the (airport) property at fair-market value looks like a deal-buster to me.
(David Elsebusch is a McKinleyville resident. Following is the letter from the GSA that he said was addressed to Eureka City Manager David Tyson on March 10.)
Re: QuitClaim Deed Dated Dec. 9, 1947
Dear Mr. Tyson,
This pertains to the proposed abrogation of the airport restrictions contained in the QuitClaim Deed dated Dec. 9, 1947 between the United States of America and the City of Eureka. As you know, the General Services Administration is the successor agency to the War Assets Administration and, therefore, the authority to abrogate the use restrictions rests with GSA.
We understand that you are contemplating a sale and/or lease to Calpine Corp. for a portion of the property that was conveyed for airport purposes in the deed referenced in the paragraph above.
The MOA between the city of Eureka and Calpine Corp. includes a provision whereby Calpine Corp. would be contacting GSA to obtain a release of these deed restrictions.
It is GSA’s position that any abrogation request must be submitted by the city of Eureka, the grantor under 1947 deed, and include the concurrence of the Federal Aviation Administration, the successor agency to Civil Aeronautics Administration.
After receipt of the abrogation request and the required FAA concurrence, our office would then obtain an independent appraisal of subject property to determine the fair-market value for the payment to the United States of America. Upon receipt of such payment, we would then prepare a release. …
Clark Van Epps
Director, Property Disposal Division (9PR)
General Services Administration ...
3/17/04 Majority Oppose Calpine
(This letter was sent to Eureka’s mayor and City Council Wednesday via e-mail.)
By David Elsebusch
You heard lots of testimony last night. The majority opposed the Calpine project and some supported a “study” and a “process.” None said they researched the project and have sufficient knowledge to conclude that it is a good one.
Support for a “process” is universal. Part of the process is what you experienced last night – public comment.
Mr. (Ken) Abreu of Calpine has testified that the project will be aborted if it lacks community support. Well Calpine doesn’t have “community support” and as more of the populace becomes informed about the project and the adverse effects of an LNG facility on Humboldt Bay, there is no doubt that should the matter be put on the November ballot for voter approval, the “process” would end right there and voters would tell Calpine to “get out of Dodge.”
Calpine has spent years schmoozing with private interests and meeting with elected officials and bureaucrats in private, and now it is desperate to have the city locked into an agreement to sell the airport property to Calpine before the public is adequately informed about the pros and cons of the project, going so far as to buying full page ads in the Times-Standard making five false assertions.
1. Calpine states, “Nothing in the agreement makes the city sell this property to Calpine.” The truth behind that falsehood is that the exclusive right to negotiate does require the city to sell the property to Calpine after certain conditions are met.
2. Calpine states, “Calpine will be prohibited from applying for any local, state or federal permits until after the City Council’s approval of an “option agreement.” The truth behind that falsehood is that the contract that Calpine desperately wants the City Council to approve specifically permits Calpine to engage in “pre-filing” activities which is the precursor to permit applications.
3. Calpine states, “There can be no independent report until there is a proposal from Calpine. There can be no proposal until after there is a site. There can be no site until the City Council approves the pending site agreement. The agreement is ready to be approved now.” The truth behind that falsehood is that although Calpine desperately wants the city to sign the agreement now, Calpine has simply unilaterally decided that it will not present a proposal until the city agrees to sell the property to it. It is clear that Calpine is free to present a proposal before the city agrees to sell the property. That’s the way business is conducted – a proposal is made and if it is acceptable, a written agreement is executed.
4. Calpine states, “Without approval of the site agreement, there can be no proposal from Calpine.” The truth behind that falsehood is that Calpine does not admit that it made up this rule, which is contrary to the best interests of the city and the county.
5. Calpine states, “The pending agreement gives Calpine the right to physically evaluate the site. Without that right, there can be no proposal. Without a proposal, there can be no “independent report.” The truth behind that string of lies is that, while the proposed agreement to sell the property to Calpine gives Calpine the right to physically evaluate the site, it is not necessary to agree to sell the property before providing Calpine a right to inspect the site and an independent report can be generated without executing an agreement to sell the property.
Please don’t get the cart before the horse and approve the “exclusive right to negotiate” and lock the city into that agreement, at least before there is a truly independent study and additional public comment.
Many of us believe that, based on information we have acquired, the project is absolutely wrong for Humboldt Bay, but concede that information could be provided to more of the populace. Rejection of Calpine’s request for the ERTN would permit the “process” to continue in a rational and reasonable manner and avoid possible litigation.
(Tuesday) night, I furnished you with copies of the (federal) General Services Administration’s letter of March 10 addressed to Mr. Tyson. I trust you agree that it represents proof that the ERTN is seriously flawed and the basic concept – the sale of the site – has not been sufficiently researched and addressed.
The position of the GSA that it – not the city – is entitled to the proceeds of the sale of the (airport) property at fair-market value looks like a deal-buster to me.
(David Elsebusch is a McKinleyville resident. Following is the letter from the GSA that he said was addressed to Eureka City Manager David Tyson on March 10.)
Re: QuitClaim Deed Dated Dec. 9, 1947
Dear Mr. Tyson,
This pertains to the proposed abrogation of the airport restrictions contained in the QuitClaim Deed dated Dec. 9, 1947 between the United States of America and the City of Eureka. As you know, the General Services Administration is the successor agency to the War Assets Administration and, therefore, the authority to abrogate the use restrictions rests with GSA.
We understand that you are contemplating a sale and/or lease to Calpine Corp. for a portion of the property that was conveyed for airport purposes in the deed referenced in the paragraph above.
The MOA between the city of Eureka and Calpine Corp. includes a provision whereby Calpine Corp. would be contacting GSA to obtain a release of these deed restrictions.
It is GSA’s position that any abrogation request must be submitted by the city of Eureka, the grantor under 1947 deed, and include the concurrence of the Federal Aviation Administration, the successor agency to Civil Aeronautics Administration.
After receipt of the abrogation request and the required FAA concurrence, our office would then obtain an independent appraisal of subject property to determine the fair-market value for the payment to the United States of America. Upon receipt of such payment, we would then prepare a release. …
Clark Van Epps
Director, Property Disposal Division (9PR)
General Services Administration ...
Now That Calpine Has Left, What About Our Economy?
http://web.archive.org/web/20040413224304/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/op-03220403.htm
3/22/04 Now That Calpine Has Left,
What About Our Economy?
by Jason Whitcomb
The community spoke and Calpine withdrew, but what about our economy?
Tuesday’s City Council meeting was quite an event. As I approached the Eureka Municipal Auditorium I had to wade through petitioners, protesters, citizens and police.
As the meeting progressed, it was clear that the people of our small community did not want to risk their safety and way of life to let this outside interest develop our bay.
Of the 20 or so proponents of the LNG project who spoke to the council, there were some fallacies and there were some facts.
Since Calpine had the integrity to listen to the people’s voice and withdraw its proposal, these truths and myths no longer matter.
What does matter is the underlying theme in each proponent’s message: we need to focus on the economic future of Humboldt County. This is a truth and it is a belief shared by most every member of our area. The looming question is how?
The first step in answering how is to look at the history of Humboldt County. Steven Hackett summarized our economic history in 1999¹.
In the 1950s the timber industry hit its high point employing 50 percent of the county. In the ’60s, the economy started shifting away from timber toward services. This movement continued through to today, also paralleling increases in retail, public-sector and manufacturing jobs.
In 1997, lumber-based manufacturing was responsible for less than 10 percent of county employment.
While our heritage is rooted in the timber industry, it is clear that our future is woven in diversity. As any wise investor will tell you, diversity is key to economic stability.
Our next step is to look at the present.
When the painfully overinflated dot-com bubble burst, California took the hardest hit. Then the terrible events of Sept. 11 occurred, causing further economic instability, which continues through today.
It is common sense that if the stock market is floundering, one should invest in real property. This demand in property and housing drove local home prices higher and higher.
Then Alan Greenspan sunk the interest rate and local housing became unaffordable for far too many residents of the community. At the current time, home affordability is down to 33 percent of local residents² and countywide unemployment is at 7 percent³.
Of the households in Humboldt, almost 14 percent live below minimum-wage standards and more than half live below a living wageª.
This is legitimately scary stuff. I understand why a woman was in tears pleading for the City Council to consider Calpine.
But Calpine wasn’t for us. It was clearly a bad fit for our area.
Most, if not all, of those who desired to progress with the exclusivity agreement did not particularly want to see an LNG plant on our bay. They wanted a future in Humboldt. They wanted very reasonable things like a more useful deep-water port, higher employment rates, consulting and engineering contracts, and future consideration from outside investors. Calpine was their pot of gold.
The problem is that we need to stop chasing rainbows.
We need to stop looking outside of our community for our future. We cannot wait for some outsider whose intent is to profit off of us to solve our problems.
While these interests may help us survive, they will not solve our problems and we may be waiting forever. What we need is to define and build our economy from the within. We need an internal movement to unite economic, social and environmental goals.
Once we have reached a common ground we can then lay a path to our future. Easier said than done? Yes, but we must start now. The term "division" has been tossed around our community so long it is cliché. Let us make it antiquated.
(In the next column, Whitcomb will discuss ways to build our economy from within. Jason Whitcomb is a fifth-generation Humboldt County resident and is a small-business owner.)
References:
¹ "The Humboldt County Economy: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?" Steven C. Hackett, Humboldt State University, February 1999, www.humboldt.edu/~economic/humcoecon.html.
² INDEX OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FOR HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Professor Steven Hackett, executive director, John Manning, managing director
www.humboldt.edu/~economic/current/index.html.
³ Employment Development Department, March 12, 2004, News Release No.: 04-07, www.edd.ca.gov/urate200403.htm.
ª A Living Wage in Humboldt County: A comparative study of three models* Deborah Keeth, Assistant Director, Index of Economic Activity for Humboldt County, September 1999 www.humboldt.edu/~economic/LivingWage.htm.
3/22/04 Now That Calpine Has Left,
What About Our Economy?
by Jason Whitcomb
The community spoke and Calpine withdrew, but what about our economy?
Tuesday’s City Council meeting was quite an event. As I approached the Eureka Municipal Auditorium I had to wade through petitioners, protesters, citizens and police.
As the meeting progressed, it was clear that the people of our small community did not want to risk their safety and way of life to let this outside interest develop our bay.
Of the 20 or so proponents of the LNG project who spoke to the council, there were some fallacies and there were some facts.
Since Calpine had the integrity to listen to the people’s voice and withdraw its proposal, these truths and myths no longer matter.
What does matter is the underlying theme in each proponent’s message: we need to focus on the economic future of Humboldt County. This is a truth and it is a belief shared by most every member of our area. The looming question is how?
The first step in answering how is to look at the history of Humboldt County. Steven Hackett summarized our economic history in 1999¹.
In the 1950s the timber industry hit its high point employing 50 percent of the county. In the ’60s, the economy started shifting away from timber toward services. This movement continued through to today, also paralleling increases in retail, public-sector and manufacturing jobs.
In 1997, lumber-based manufacturing was responsible for less than 10 percent of county employment.
While our heritage is rooted in the timber industry, it is clear that our future is woven in diversity. As any wise investor will tell you, diversity is key to economic stability.
Our next step is to look at the present.
When the painfully overinflated dot-com bubble burst, California took the hardest hit. Then the terrible events of Sept. 11 occurred, causing further economic instability, which continues through today.
It is common sense that if the stock market is floundering, one should invest in real property. This demand in property and housing drove local home prices higher and higher.
Then Alan Greenspan sunk the interest rate and local housing became unaffordable for far too many residents of the community. At the current time, home affordability is down to 33 percent of local residents² and countywide unemployment is at 7 percent³.
Of the households in Humboldt, almost 14 percent live below minimum-wage standards and more than half live below a living wageª.
This is legitimately scary stuff. I understand why a woman was in tears pleading for the City Council to consider Calpine.
But Calpine wasn’t for us. It was clearly a bad fit for our area.
Most, if not all, of those who desired to progress with the exclusivity agreement did not particularly want to see an LNG plant on our bay. They wanted a future in Humboldt. They wanted very reasonable things like a more useful deep-water port, higher employment rates, consulting and engineering contracts, and future consideration from outside investors. Calpine was their pot of gold.
The problem is that we need to stop chasing rainbows.
We need to stop looking outside of our community for our future. We cannot wait for some outsider whose intent is to profit off of us to solve our problems.
While these interests may help us survive, they will not solve our problems and we may be waiting forever. What we need is to define and build our economy from the within. We need an internal movement to unite economic, social and environmental goals.
Once we have reached a common ground we can then lay a path to our future. Easier said than done? Yes, but we must start now. The term "division" has been tossed around our community so long it is cliché. Let us make it antiquated.
(In the next column, Whitcomb will discuss ways to build our economy from within. Jason Whitcomb is a fifth-generation Humboldt County resident and is a small-business owner.)
References:
¹ "The Humboldt County Economy: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going?" Steven C. Hackett, Humboldt State University, February 1999, www.humboldt.edu/~economic/humcoecon.html.
² INDEX OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY FOR HUMBOLDT COUNTY, Professor Steven Hackett, executive director, John Manning, managing director
www.humboldt.edu/~economic/current/index.html.
³ Employment Development Department, March 12, 2004, News Release No.: 04-07, www.edd.ca.gov/urate200403.htm.
ª A Living Wage in Humboldt County: A comparative study of three models* Deborah Keeth, Assistant Director, Index of Economic Activity for Humboldt County, September 1999 www.humboldt.edu/~economic/LivingWage.htm.
Coalition Against LNG Conducts Poll That Finds Many Against LNG
http://web.archive.org/web/20040405102932/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/fp-03150403.htm
3/15/04 Coalition Against LNG Conducts
Poll That Finds Many Against LNG
by Leann Whitten
The Eureka Reporter
A poll funded by the Humboldt Bay Coalition Against LNG found that 63 percent of Eureka registered voters oppose construction of a liquefied natural gas facility on Humboldt Bay.
The recently formed organization is comprised of the Fairhaven Residents’ Association, EPIC, Seventh Generation Fund and LNG Watch.
“When the project is described and arguments of supporters and opponents of the facility are presented, 63 percent of survey respondents oppose the LNG with nearly a majority — 48 percent — saying they are ‘strongly opposed,’” according to the pollsters’ key findings.
Interviews were conducted March 10 and 11 between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 9 p.m., said Don McDonough, co-founder of the firm that conducted the survey — Evans/McDonough Co.
The margin of error is ±5.7 percentage points, according to Evans/McDonough.
McDonough said a computer program randomized a list of Eureka’s registered voters and called the number three times throughout the polling period until going on to another name.
“Concerns about safety and the fishing and crab industries greatly outweigh any arguments that the facility will bring jobs and economic development,” according to the poll’s key findings. “Ninety-one percent of residents say they are concerned or very concerned about ‘protecting Humboldt’s commercial fishing and crabbing industries,’ and 82 percent state concern about ‘protecting tourism and recreational opportunities around Humboldt Bay.’”
Eighty-two percent of those surveyed had heard of or seen something about plans to build an LNG facility on Humboldt Bay.
“This high level of awareness indicates that residents are well-informed and are paying attention. It also means that levels of support and opposition are likely to remain fairly static,” according to Evans/McDonough. “Support is not likely to increase and additional information moves those who are undecided to opposition.”
Survey respondents were told, “Calpine wants to construct a liquefied natural gas or LNG facility and power plant, with liquefied natural gas transported by tankers to Humboldt Bay as often as twice as week. The gas would be stored in 15-story tall storage tanks, and then piped underneath Humboldt Bay and out to California’s Central Valley, a distance of 155 miles.
“Supporters say the plant would create up to 100 good-paying new jobs, drive economic growth for the county, generate tax revenue for Eureka’s schools and provide a clean source of energy for California.
“Opponents say the plant would put lives at risk in the event of an accident, earthquake or terrorist attack, dramatically reduce jobs in the fishing and crab industries, impede future economic development on the bay and pollute the environment.”
3/15/04 Coalition Against LNG Conducts
Poll That Finds Many Against LNG
by Leann Whitten
The Eureka Reporter
A poll funded by the Humboldt Bay Coalition Against LNG found that 63 percent of Eureka registered voters oppose construction of a liquefied natural gas facility on Humboldt Bay.
The recently formed organization is comprised of the Fairhaven Residents’ Association, EPIC, Seventh Generation Fund and LNG Watch.
“When the project is described and arguments of supporters and opponents of the facility are presented, 63 percent of survey respondents oppose the LNG with nearly a majority — 48 percent — saying they are ‘strongly opposed,’” according to the pollsters’ key findings.
Interviews were conducted March 10 and 11 between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 9 p.m., said Don McDonough, co-founder of the firm that conducted the survey — Evans/McDonough Co.
The margin of error is ±5.7 percentage points, according to Evans/McDonough.
McDonough said a computer program randomized a list of Eureka’s registered voters and called the number three times throughout the polling period until going on to another name.
“Concerns about safety and the fishing and crab industries greatly outweigh any arguments that the facility will bring jobs and economic development,” according to the poll’s key findings. “Ninety-one percent of residents say they are concerned or very concerned about ‘protecting Humboldt’s commercial fishing and crabbing industries,’ and 82 percent state concern about ‘protecting tourism and recreational opportunities around Humboldt Bay.’”
Eighty-two percent of those surveyed had heard of or seen something about plans to build an LNG facility on Humboldt Bay.
“This high level of awareness indicates that residents are well-informed and are paying attention. It also means that levels of support and opposition are likely to remain fairly static,” according to Evans/McDonough. “Support is not likely to increase and additional information moves those who are undecided to opposition.”
Survey respondents were told, “Calpine wants to construct a liquefied natural gas or LNG facility and power plant, with liquefied natural gas transported by tankers to Humboldt Bay as often as twice as week. The gas would be stored in 15-story tall storage tanks, and then piped underneath Humboldt Bay and out to California’s Central Valley, a distance of 155 miles.
“Supporters say the plant would create up to 100 good-paying new jobs, drive economic growth for the county, generate tax revenue for Eureka’s schools and provide a clean source of energy for California.
“Opponents say the plant would put lives at risk in the event of an accident, earthquake or terrorist attack, dramatically reduce jobs in the fishing and crab industries, impede future economic development on the bay and pollute the environment.”
Eureka City Council Continues Meeting On LNG To Thursday
http://web.archive.org/web/20040429215458/www.eurekareporter.com/Stories/fp-03170401.htm
3/17/04 Eureka City Council Continues
Meeting On LNG To Thursday
by Leann Whitten
The Eureka Reporter
Approximately 1,000 people attended Tuesday night's City Council meeting held at the Municipal Auditorium to hear LNG discussion. The Eureka City Council continued its public hearing and consideration of its decision regarding an exclusive right to negotiate agreement between the city and Calpine Corp. — a San Jose-based independent power producer — at its Tuesday night meeting.
Of the more than 200 speakers who signed up to speak Tuesday night, about half got to speak before a 10:15 p.m. decision to continue the meeting was made. Councilwoman Mary Beth Wolford made a motion to continue the public hearing, but limit it to two hours on Thursday night, starting at 6 p.m. at the Municipal Auditorium.
The 107 residents on the list will have priority in that time to make their 3-minute comment to the council. Then the council will deliberate.
A clear majority of speakers spoke in favor of suspending the decision until a “truly independent” report can be conducted or terminating any consideration at all at Tuesday night’s meeting.
The Eureka Fire Department estimates that roughly 1,000 people filled the auditorium at the beginning of the 6 p.m. meeting.
Calpine is considering proposing a facility that would receive exports — via tanker at a Samoa Peninsula location — of liquefied natural gas, heat it back to its gaseous state and distribute it via pipeline to the Central Valley. Energy from the plant would also power a power plant that Calpine may propose to build for the area.
The council has three options: suspend a decision on the ERTN until “such a time that a memorandum of understanding and associated independent review process can be defined and approved by the county of Humboldt, the city of Eureka and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District; or approve an amended ERTN with Calpine and adopt a specific list of council concerns and issues to be forwarded to an independent review committee for formal deliberation and inclusion in an independent report process,” according to a staff report.
Eureka Police Chief Dave Douglas who stood to the side most of the night only stepped in once when one man went over his 3-minute general public comment and refused to forgo the microphone.
City Manager David Tyson gave the staff report to the council on its options, adding a third option on Tuesday night.
“The City Council approves the ERTN, as amended, between the city of Eureka and Calpine Corp. and authorizes the mayor to execute the agreement subject to the approval of an memorandum of understanding between the county of Humboldt, the city of Eureka and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District. In addition, the City Council further directs that the listing of issues and concerns be forwarded to an Independent Review Committee for formal deliberation and inclusion in an Independent Report process."
Calpine representative Ken Abreu followed with a 10-minute presentation.
“We are not asking you to make a judgment on the project,” Abreu said. “(We’re asking) do you want to consider it?”
A loud “no” was the reply from the audience.
Mayor Peter La Vallee and other councilmembers reiterated the importance of respecting all speakers despite their viewpoints at this point and several times throughout the night.
Abreu said the project could be a huge opportunity for economic development in Humboldt County, but acknowledged there were legitimate concerns involved.
“We only ask that you get the facts,” he said. Abreu said he has 2,100 names of Eureka residents who have expressed support, among businesses and other organization endorsements.
Eureka resident Barry Evans said he was undecided on whether the project is a fit for Humboldt Bay.
“I don’t believe we have the answers yet to these concerns,” Evans said.
President of the Humboldt Watershed Council Mark Lovelace said the matter facing the council is a question of the future, not feasibility.
“When have you ever had this many people for a good idea,” Arcata Mayor Bob Ornelas asked the council, which he told to reject the ERTN and any consideration of a LNG facility.
Eureka resident Rex Bohn said he wants to see job opportunities available in the area for his son.
“If we don’t at least look at an independent report … (it would be) a grave injustice to our future,” he said. “There may be other resource-based opportunities … but we won’t know that without studies.”
“I don’t want to see the view of the bay damaged, but I do want to keep the window open (to opportunity),” Bohn said.
Northcoast Environmental Center Director Tim McKay reported he had 3,500 signatures opposing LNG on Humboldt Bay “and counting.”
Other residents alluded to more of a fight if the city chooses to enter into the ERTN, as well.
Fortuna resident Dorothy Iversen said she and many generations before her have seen Humboldt change, and change is inevitable. She, as a few others, said the strong opposition in attendance Tuesday night wasn’t necessarily representative of Eureka.
“The loudest voices are not always the most accurate.”
3/17/04 Eureka City Council Continues
Meeting On LNG To Thursday
by Leann Whitten
The Eureka Reporter
Approximately 1,000 people attended Tuesday night's City Council meeting held at the Municipal Auditorium to hear LNG discussion. The Eureka City Council continued its public hearing and consideration of its decision regarding an exclusive right to negotiate agreement between the city and Calpine Corp. — a San Jose-based independent power producer — at its Tuesday night meeting.
Of the more than 200 speakers who signed up to speak Tuesday night, about half got to speak before a 10:15 p.m. decision to continue the meeting was made. Councilwoman Mary Beth Wolford made a motion to continue the public hearing, but limit it to two hours on Thursday night, starting at 6 p.m. at the Municipal Auditorium.
The 107 residents on the list will have priority in that time to make their 3-minute comment to the council. Then the council will deliberate.
A clear majority of speakers spoke in favor of suspending the decision until a “truly independent” report can be conducted or terminating any consideration at all at Tuesday night’s meeting.
The Eureka Fire Department estimates that roughly 1,000 people filled the auditorium at the beginning of the 6 p.m. meeting.
Calpine is considering proposing a facility that would receive exports — via tanker at a Samoa Peninsula location — of liquefied natural gas, heat it back to its gaseous state and distribute it via pipeline to the Central Valley. Energy from the plant would also power a power plant that Calpine may propose to build for the area.
The council has three options: suspend a decision on the ERTN until “such a time that a memorandum of understanding and associated independent review process can be defined and approved by the county of Humboldt, the city of Eureka and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District; or approve an amended ERTN with Calpine and adopt a specific list of council concerns and issues to be forwarded to an independent review committee for formal deliberation and inclusion in an independent report process,” according to a staff report.
Eureka Police Chief Dave Douglas who stood to the side most of the night only stepped in once when one man went over his 3-minute general public comment and refused to forgo the microphone.
City Manager David Tyson gave the staff report to the council on its options, adding a third option on Tuesday night.
“The City Council approves the ERTN, as amended, between the city of Eureka and Calpine Corp. and authorizes the mayor to execute the agreement subject to the approval of an memorandum of understanding between the county of Humboldt, the city of Eureka and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District. In addition, the City Council further directs that the listing of issues and concerns be forwarded to an Independent Review Committee for formal deliberation and inclusion in an Independent Report process."
Calpine representative Ken Abreu followed with a 10-minute presentation.
“We are not asking you to make a judgment on the project,” Abreu said. “(We’re asking) do you want to consider it?”
A loud “no” was the reply from the audience.
Mayor Peter La Vallee and other councilmembers reiterated the importance of respecting all speakers despite their viewpoints at this point and several times throughout the night.
Abreu said the project could be a huge opportunity for economic development in Humboldt County, but acknowledged there were legitimate concerns involved.
“We only ask that you get the facts,” he said. Abreu said he has 2,100 names of Eureka residents who have expressed support, among businesses and other organization endorsements.
Eureka resident Barry Evans said he was undecided on whether the project is a fit for Humboldt Bay.
“I don’t believe we have the answers yet to these concerns,” Evans said.
President of the Humboldt Watershed Council Mark Lovelace said the matter facing the council is a question of the future, not feasibility.
“When have you ever had this many people for a good idea,” Arcata Mayor Bob Ornelas asked the council, which he told to reject the ERTN and any consideration of a LNG facility.
Eureka resident Rex Bohn said he wants to see job opportunities available in the area for his son.
“If we don’t at least look at an independent report … (it would be) a grave injustice to our future,” he said. “There may be other resource-based opportunities … but we won’t know that without studies.”
“I don’t want to see the view of the bay damaged, but I do want to keep the window open (to opportunity),” Bohn said.
Northcoast Environmental Center Director Tim McKay reported he had 3,500 signatures opposing LNG on Humboldt Bay “and counting.”
Other residents alluded to more of a fight if the city chooses to enter into the ERTN, as well.
Fortuna resident Dorothy Iversen said she and many generations before her have seen Humboldt change, and change is inevitable. She, as a few others, said the strong opposition in attendance Tuesday night wasn’t necessarily representative of Eureka.
“The loudest voices are not always the most accurate.”