In Oregon, A Skewed View of the Energy World

By December 28, 2008Energy

The Oregonian has a major Page 1 piece in the Sunday paper examining the future of PGE’s coal-fired power plant at Boardman in the eastern part of the state. “PGE confronts dirty dilemma at Boardman” proclaims the paper.

Much of interest in this report. Such as:

All of which leaves PGE, its 814,000 ratepayers and the public a stark choice between economics and the environment: Should they spend hundreds of millions of dollars — perhaps more than a billion eventually — to keep the old workhorse going, albeit with a smaller stream of the pollutants that belch from its 656-foot stack today? Or would it be better to shut the plant now, eliminating the largest stationary source of air pollution in the state, but leaving its largest utility more dependent on natural gas and its customers exposed to higher, more volatile rates?

So let’s just switch to natural gas. Perhaps more expensive, but that substitution is a done deal…

Wyden Asks Feds To Rescind Mt Hood Pipeline Approval“:

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden strongly objected Thursday to the plan for a natural gas pipeline through the Mt Hood National Forest.

In a letter to the head of the U.S. Forest Service, the Portland Democrat labeled the proposed Palomar company pipeline’s route as a “freeway-wide clear-cut.”

Land board reiterates governor’s LNG demands“:

Opponents of liquefied natural gas terminals along the Oregon Coast, and the pipelines that would connect them to regional gas networks, hailed a resolution by the Oregon State Land Board last week supporting Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s demand that federal officials evaluate whether the projects are needed.

The land board consists of Kulongoski, Secretary of State Bill Bradbury and State Treasurer Randall Edwards.

LNG foe earns state role

Liquefied natural gas opponents got a boost Monday when Oregon’s Attorney General-elect John Kroger announced his appointment of Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brent Foster to his executive team at the Oregon Department of Justice.

So let’s just switch to natural gas, which, well, we won’t make or allow, either, but …uh…

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • Ann says:

    The inconsistent views reflect an inability to look at the bigger picture. Gas is fine and relatively clean. People supporting Liquidified Nature Gas think that they are finding a safe source without environmental impacts. They look at the front end – someone will build somethign that will increase the availablity of gas and create jobs but do not look at the intermediate (impact on environment, damage to forests, impact on people) and they assume that the gas will be used to serve Oregonians. Maybe. Ask why we need the Palomar Pipeline except to take it away from the LNG plant to other states. The one near Coos Bay is intended to ship the gas to the SW. People supporting LNG plants assume jobs without asking how many (it has been reported only 6 in Coos Bay). We have energy groups weighing in – the Governor just named anew advisory committtee (made up of uitity and energy stakeholders, not business people, nor the regular folks) – we have the Energy Trust, Oregon Department of Energy, the PUC, and various zoning groups all playing a part and none of it is coordinated. Wind – a renewable- has as many issues associated with it but still no coordination. What this state needs is a coordinated energy effort with attention to all of the issues and not just some, including peopel in the process who do not have a direct financial interst in the outcome.

  • […] Earlier post: “In Oregon, A Skewed View of the Energy World“ […]

Leave a Reply