Accusations fly in latest LNG battle

Carrie Bartoldus March 2, 2009

February 25th Larry Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General with the Natural Resources Section of Oregon’s Department of Justice wrote a letter to Northern Star’s (Bradwood Landing) attorney and to Columbia Riverkeeper’s (CRK) director/attorney. In the letter Knudsen gave an update on the progress of two of the permits that Bradwood Landing had before Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Northern Star’s Bradwood Landing project is applying for permits to site an LNG storage facility on private property in Clatsop County on what was once a saw mill site and is currently zoned for marine industrial, using private money from investors. Columbia Riverkeepers, a regional branch of a private organization which monitors the use of rivers throughout the country, opposes the project mainly because they say that spending money on fossil fuel projects takes away from “green” projects, the majority of which are heavily subsidized by the government, according to

In the bitter conflict between the two adversaries both continue to accuse the other of “duping” the public with “misinformation”. In the latest confrontation between the two, Columbia Riverkeepers appealed land use law decisions made by Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners to Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals as Respondent-Interveners. Their arguments, along with the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission’s and Dunzer’s, were addressed in LUBA’s final decision.

LUBA had three choices of decisions to render when considering the appeal. The state agency could uphold the Board’s decision. They could reverse (overturn) the Board’s decision or they could remand it back to the Board for further clarification (send it back to be fixed).

The Inter-tribal Fish Council lost on all eight points it was contesting, and the Board’s decisions were upheld. Dunzer lost on both points he was contesting and CRK lost on 21 issues, with the Board’s decision’s being upheld on each. Two decisions that CRK contested were remanded back to the BOCC. None of the land use decisions were reversed.

Knudsen clarified that because the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded two decisions back to the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) the permit for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the permit for the Air Contaminant Discharge Permit (ACDP) would more than likely be denied and recommended that Bradwood Landing formally agree to continue the suspension of permitting activities for the two permits until the remanded decisions were resolved.

The letter went on to update the recipients regarding additional matters that Bradwood Landing had not yet applied for, explaining what needed to be accomplished for the NPDES to be issued for “construction stormwater permits or registration under the 1200 C general permit for the proposed pipeline.”

Upon receiving the letter Columbia Riverkeepers sent out a press release informing media that DEQ had stopped reviewing all permits. Columbia Riverkeeper’s press release stated:

First, Clatsop County Citizens for Common Sense passed a referendum on September 16, 2008 that barred LNG pipelines in protected areas. Second, Columbia Riverkeeper and partners won a challenge at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) that overturned the county’s approval of Bradwood Landing. Based on these two victories, DEQ has suspended review of all permits for the LNG terminal and pipeline.

Bradwood Landing quickly issued its rebuttal:

A letter sent yesterday by the Oregon Department of Justice on behalf of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality addresses procedural matters relating to processing certain permits for Bradwood Landing, but in no way constitutes a suspension of work … “The permitting process associated with an LNG terminal and pipeline is highly complex,” said Joe Desmond, senior vice president for external affairs for NorthernStar Natural Gas. “It consists of hundreds of local, state and federal permits, many of which are connected to other permits. In addition, there are overlapping and interdependent schedules for review and processing.” The DOJ letter makes clear that the State has not stopped processing all of our permits.

The Columbia Riverkeeper’s point of view is that Northern Star’s Bradwood Landing project has met a critical point in its permitting process. “DEQ’s action of suspending the permits is another major blow to Bradwood Landing,” stated Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “Bradwood is trying to push through an incredibly unpopular project, but sixty-seven percent of Clatsop voters rejected the pipeline and LUBA overturned the rest. Considering the broad state-wide opposition and Bradwood’s legal problesm, I don’t see this as a viable project.”

Bradwood Landing counters, in its press releases, that the recent development with DEQ is par for the course when dealing with permitting agencies.

The critical point for the public to understand is that these permits are NOT on the project’s critical path, which means there is flexibility within the overall schedule to work through these types of delays until such time that DEQ can issue its final decision. Starting and stopping a clock is standard practice for any agency reviewing an application. We will be meeting with DEQ in the near future to discuss the appropriate next steps.

Columbia Riverkeepers also restated in its press release that they, and assorted interveners, had prevailed in the LUBA appeal. The following parties prevailed in the LUBA appeal: Columbia Riverkeeper, Columbia River Business Alliance, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, Columbia River Clean Energy Coalition, Jack Marincovich, and Peter Huhtala (represented by Jan Wilson of the Western Environmental Law Center) and the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission (represented by Julie Cater).

As previously stated, Columbia Riverkeepers and its co-interveners asked that the land use decisions made by the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners be reversed (overturned). In point of fact, Columbia Riverkeepers requests, as well as all those by the rest of the co-interveners, were denied. None of their over 30 arguments convinced LUBA to reverse any of the Board’s decisions. The Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners land use decisions were upheld, with only two issues being remanded back to the Board for further clarification.

Columbia Riverkeepers then accused BWL of “continuously” deceiving the public and agencies in its application for the Bradwood Pipeline.

New evidence shows that NorthernStar Natural Gas Company has a binding commitment to deliver all of the gas imported to its proposed Bradwood Landing LNG terminal to the Palomar Pipeline in Oregon. Therefore, the pipeline that Bradwood Landing has proposed through Cowlitz County (known as the “Bradwood pipeline” and shown on map in green) is unnecessary because all of the gas is committed to travel though the Palomar Pipeline. Bradwood has performed a bait-and-switch, wasting tremendous resources at FERC, federal agencies, the State of Washington, and Cowlitz County, as well affected landowners.

Bradwood countered in its press release that CRK “fundamentally” misunderstands the Bradwood Landing project and the workings of interstate gas pipelines.

The paper’s conclusion is fundamentally flawed – even the title itself was wrong. Since BWL does not own the gas, it cannot commit to where the gas goes. Our customers will make that decision. That is how we’ve previously explained the Precedent Agreement.

As determined by FERC and Clatsop County, Bradwood Landing has “independent utility” and will be constructed regardless of whether or not the Palomar pipeline is constructed. The objective of the Bradwood Landing pipeline is to deliver 1.3 Bcfd of natural gas into the Northwest gas market; the proposed route meets this objective, regardless of whether Palomar is built.

Columbia Riverkeepers went on to state that there is “new” evidence that Bradwood’s intent was to pump all of its gas through Palomar. In doing so, CRK alleged, Bradwood raised serious doubts as to whether the application for the Bradwood pipeline was in bad faith if Bradwood already had an agreement to ship the gas via the Palomar Pipeline. Bradwood’s own Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that Bradwood intended to use Palomar as early as 2006. Bradwood stated: “we have recently submitted a request for service to TransCanada and NW Natural for their open season under which they would construct, own and operate a pipeline that would connect the Bradwood terminal to Williams’ Northwest pipeline at Molalla and TransCanada’s GTN Pipeline near Mollala.

Bradwood Landing responded by stating that the “new” evidence CRK was referring to has been a part of its permitting process for over two years, and went on to show the timeline for its applications.

Northern Star initiated the pre-filing process for the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal and associated pipeline on February 23, 2005, Palomar Pipeline initiated the pre-filing process on August 20, 2007. The Bradwood Landing project was proposed to FERC nearly 2 ½ years prior to the Palomar project. In addition, Bradwood began working with the State of Oregon through its Energy Facility Siting Council in 2004 and received a project order for the Bradwood terminal and pipeline in 2005, again two years before Palomar was proposed to FERC.

The Bradwood Landing project consists of the Bradwood Landing Terminal and Bradwood Landing Pipeline, the Bradwood Landing project has “independent utility.” It would have made no sense, argues BWL, to suggest building a holding facility without a pipeline to get the gas to the market at the time that the project first began working with the State of Oregon in 2004. It makes no sense, now, BWL argues, to suggest that BWL would continue to spend millions of dollars in the permitting process for a pipeline that was not going to be used.

Columbia Riverkeepers continues to assert, as can be seen in its last two press releases, that the gas that is coming from the Bradwood Landing holding tanks is intended for California, with Oregon merely being a “conduit”.

• Columbia Riverkeeper and local citizens have argued since 2006 that the Bradwood pipeline does not make sense because there is no way for the gas to get to California.
• The Palomar Pipeline leads directly to the California-bound GTN pipeline so nearly all of the Bradwood Landing gas now has a direct conduit to California.
• Considering that Bradwood has an agreement to use Palomar to take the gas to California, this report is highly deceptive.
• However, it is clear that Bradwood needs Palomar to serve California markets.
  
  
  In fact, Columbia Riverkeepers is protesting all of Palomar’s permitting process in Oregon at local, state and federal levels, in the hope of blocking its ability to come into Oregon from the Rockies. While protesting the pipeline, Columbia Riverkeepers has referred to the Oregon Department of Energy’s report to Governor Kulongoski which opined that LNG was not needed. Oregon Department of Energy went on to predicate its determination on the assumption that natural gas from the Midwest would be able to adequately supply Oregon along with what is provided from Canada.
  
  

  Although CRK continues to use the DOE report as a reason why LNG is not needed, CRK has refused to clarify the discrepancy -that it continues to fight the very thing that makes the DOE report on imported LNG a valid argument. The following week a memo from Oregon’s Public Utilities Commission to Governor Kulongoski stated that Oregon is served primarily by Canadian natural gas that is shipped via a pipeline through Washington. “Oregon also receives natural gas from the Rocky Mountain states via the Northwest Pipeline that accesses the Opal Hub in Wyoming.” The memo went on to report that about 70% of Northwest natural gas comes from Canada. The Northwest pipeline from Wyoming is currently operating at or near capacity.
  

  The press releases are contained in the NorthCoastOregon article Lng press releases accuse deception.
  

  A related article regarding the Oregon Department of Energy report and the Oregon Public Utility memo to Governor Kulongoski can be read at NorthCoastOregon’s PUC memo says LNG storage could benefit the state.

72 Comments

Nicole Williams to take helm until new county manager hired

Carrie Bartoldus February 26, 2009

Assistant county manager, Nicole Williams, will be taking over manager duties on March 1st when interim county manager, Andy Anderson’s, contract runs out at the end of this month. With the hire of a new county manager eminent, the Clatsop County Board of County Commissioners decided not to extend Anderson’s contract. All five of the commissioners commended Anderson for a job well done and thanked him for his services and the inconvenience of commuting from his home in Bend.

Anderson is a veteran of 36 years in city government. He served as city manager of Medford from 1987 to 1997, and most recently was city manager of Bend from 2004 until his retirement in 2007. He also has worked in cities in Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois. Clatsop County paid Anderson $8,500 per month, plus $1,500 a month living expenses, for his services since his start date October 13, 2008.

Williams replaced longtime county employee Debra Kraske last February, coming from her post as Clatsop County Clerk, where she served since 2005. Before that Williams was the chief deputy clerk for nearly five years. She was the records supervisor for the department for three years. Williams began working for the county in 1997 as a payroll accountant in the Central Services financial division. She has a bachelor’s degree in speech communications from Western Oregon State College and minored in business, taking courses in accounting and business management.

The BOCC appointed Commissioners Raichl and Roberts to work out William’s additional duties and compensation. Williams will serve in her new capacity until a new manager is hired which is expected to occur in mid- or late March.

In other board business

Russ Farmer was appointed to another term on the Budget Committee. After posting notices for a month in local media venues Mr. Farmer was the lone applicant for the position, he serves from District 1.

Lecktro asked for a letter of support to Congress, to support their products being on an appropriations list. Passed unanimously.

Rick Gardner with CEDR asked for monetary commitment so that lobbyist Jim Beal could be retained to continue lobbying efforts in Congress for Clatsop County and the cities here. Astoria and the Port have both agreed to monetary commitments and Gardner has asked other cities to help also. The Board agreed to commit $1,500 a month through May when it would have a better idea of financial picture.

Pulled from the Consent Calendar

Commissioner Raichl asked that the Commission Goals be pulled from the consent calendar so that the rough framing around the wording regarding bringing together people for emergency dike repairs could be expanded to include infrastructure building to include relating to water and transportation, specifically. The Board approved unanimously and staff was directed to change wording and include it on next meeting agenda.

Commissioner Roberts asked that the contract with the Port for the loan for the purchase of Tongue Point be pulled as the loan did not specify that it was for the purchase of Tongue Point. She asked that the wording be amended to reflect the intent of the loan, specifically. The Board approved unanimously and staff was directed to prepare document accordingly.

Commissioner Rohn asked that the item regarding 2009 Restatement of Clatsop County”s Deferred Compensation Plan and Trust be pulled and stated that he recuesing himself from discussion or vote. The Board approved unanimously 4-0 with Rohn recuesing.

Consent Calendar approved

BOCC regular meeting minutes 28 JAN 2009
BOCC work session minutes 11 FEB 2009
County Counsel services contract and 2008-09 budget adjustment
Letter to lawmakers re HB 2436
Approval of construction contract with Warrenton Fiber

Lawyer asks Ethics Commission to dismiss preliminary findings in Jewell School Board case

Carrie Bartoldus February 24, 2009

One lawyer has responded to the preliminary findings resulting from an investigation conducted by staff for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, completed January 30th. Attorney Roy Pulvers has asked the Commission to dismiss the preliminary findings of the staff and if it will not do that to, “at most, and “in lieu of finding a violation of law,” the Commission should issue a written letter of explanation or education, pursuant to ORS 244.350(5).” Pulvers is representing Ann Samuelson.

Last year, in August 2008, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission began an investigation of eight current and former Jewell School Board directors, initiated after a complaint was made by Lauren Jacobsen, herself a past director on the same school board, earlier that year.

Jacobsen charged that the board members had broken the law in 20 executive sessions and asked that they be investigated. According to Ronald A. Bersin, Executive Director, Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the Commission can charge up to $5,000.00 and require up to two times the financial benefit if a public official violates any of the laws in ORS Chapter 244. However, Bersin cautioned, in this particular instance, if a public official relies on its legal council for advice on executive sessions, the Commission is prohibited from charging a civil penalty.

The investigation of Jacobsen’s complaint included minutes relating to the 20 executive sessions that were convened between October 2006 and March 2008 and include board members Karl Meier, Ulrich “Oly” Schockelt, Carrie Thompson, Terri Greenwood, Ann Samuelson, Alan Foster, Cathy Rosinek and Tania Skinner. Foster and Skinner are the only two that are current board directors.

Ironically, Schockelt led a recall campaign against Samuelson and Meier, alleging in mailers and an open letter to the Jewell community that as the “two most senior members of our school board” Meier and Samuelson “had inappropriate discussions behind closed doors.” In the Ethic Commission’s preliminary findings Samuelson and Schockelt have both been charged with violating executive session meeting laws for the exact same three meetings. Schockelt was the senior board member at these meetings having served a full term before Samuelson was appointed. Meier and Samuelson were subsequently recalled May, 2008.

The turmoil dates back to October 2006, when the board put former superintendent-principal John Seeley and later his wife, kindergarten teacher Laura Seeley, on paid leave, pending the results of a criminal investigation and subsequent child abuse charges. Because of Oregon law pertaining to not allowing those charged with child abuse to hold positions in school administration or teaching executive sessions were held, according to the ethics investigation, so that legal matters could be discussed and an interim superintendent could be hired.

The Ethics Commission staff found that on all occasions the Jewell School Board met in executive session on the advice of legal counsel and as such the Commission would be prohibited from charging a civil penalty. Notwithstanding, the Ethics Commission staff found that four separate executive sessions resulted in four distinct violations of ORS 192.660(2) had occurred and as such all eight school board members had committed violations, to a certain extent: Karl Meier (4 violations), Ann Samuelson (3 violations), Ulrich Schockelt (3 violations) and Carrie Thompson (3 violations), Terri Greenwood (2 violations), Cathy Rozinek (1 violation), Allen Foster (1 violation), Tania Skinner (1 violation).

The preliminary findings are hard to follow. For instance, the preliminary findings seem to suggest there isn’t enough evidence to make a determination, then it goes on to make a determination. For example:

[1/30/08] In the public meeting following this executive session there was a motion passed to adopt a resolution that changed Mr. Jones title from Interim Superintendent to Superintendent and extend his employment agreement by 24 months. One member of the board of directors believed that this resolution was discussed in the preceding executive session. Three other participants in the executive session indicated that the resolution was not discussed in the executive session, but they were aware of Mr. Jones willingness to extend the term of his employment agreement. There is not a preponderance of evidence to indicate that the resolution was discussed in the executive session in violation of ORS 192.660.
The evidence relating to the executive session held on 1/30/08 is sufficient to recommend making a preliminary finding that [Meier, Rozinek, Foster, Skinner] participated in an executive session to discuss the Maintenance Supervisor’s contract which was not authorized by provisions set forth in ORS 192.660(2).

In another example the staff feels that the wrong provision was used and proper prerequisites weren’t followed.

As in the executive sessions that were held on 10/30/06 and 1/20/07, the prerequisites set forth in ORS 192.660(7) were not satisfied and the board of directors violated ORS 192.660(2)(a) when the presiding officer provided this provision as the statutory authority for holding the executive session and again violated ORS 192.660(2)(a) by discussing the selection of Mr. Jones as the school district’s chief executive officer.
The evidence relating to the executive session held on 5/16/07 is sufficient to recommend making a preliminary finding that [Meier, Shockelt, Samuelson, Thompson, Greenwood] participated in an executive session to discuss topics not authorized by ORS 192.660(2)(a) and for which the prerequisites in ORS 192.660(7) were not satisfied.

Jim Mabbot, superintendent of NWRESD, states, “I believe that the Jewell School Board was correct in all four instances. They did nothing wrong. Out of all of the bogus claims against them by a frustrated community member, at the end of a long investigation, four were mentioned. This was not the best use of valuable tax payer dollars.”

The Northwest Regional Education Service District (NWRESD or ESD) has the job of providing support services to the school districts. They provide Special Education, Instructional Services and Technology Support to the 20 School Districts in Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook and Washington Counties. The Northwest Regional ESD’s service area includes more than 170 public schools and serves 115, 373 students. When school districts are in trouble or need help they often turn to the NWRESD for guidance, support and answers, as the Jewell School Board did in the fall of 2007.

Mabbot clarifies what the Jewell Board was experiencing during the executive sessions, “Hiring an interim superintendent is very similar to hiring a substitute teacher. Oregon state law says that school boards must hire licensed staff but substitute teachers are hired every day without the board taking action, without them being posted or advertised. The same logic applies to the interim superintendent. You cannot hire a person into the job with any permanence because someone else currently holds that position (in this case, John Seeley).”

When asked if the school board should have done something differently, or what NWRESD would recommend school board members do in similar situations Mabbot responded, “My advice to board members is to get advice from their legal counsel and follow it. That is exactly why the Jewell board members have no sanctions or fines against them.”

In the Objection to Final Order, Samuelson’s attorney, Roy Pulver, writes,

“… the Commission appears to have concluded that the job description for the position and hiring policies of the Board, all in place for years, were not sufficient to satisfy the law requiring hiring procedures, standards, criteria and public comment. In addition, the Commission appears to have concluded that the act of making the vacancy known to a statewide body of licensed school administrators was insufficient to satisfy the law requiring advertisement of the position.

In both of these respects the lawyer for the School District and senior statewide school administrators involved in the decisions strongly disagree with the Commission and have concluded that the Executive Sessions were properly held. In all events, and in each instance, the purpose of the meeting was to facilitate the ability to attract and hire in an emergency an Interim Superintendent for the District so that the school could operate.”

Bersin said that next the Board members can move for a contested case or or they can settle their case with the Commission. Samuelson is the only board member who has made a decision to respond to the preliminary findings at this point.

Seeley Update

According to George Finch, Coordinator of Professional Practices with the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, on May 16, 2008, the Commission considered reports regarding John and Laura Seeley. The Commission voted to charge both with violations of standards. An educator has 21 days following the date of the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing within which to request a hearing. The commission cannot suspend, revoke, or otherwise take action against a license until the case is completed. The case is completed whenever any of the following occurs:

1. The educator agrees to the charges and enters into a settlement agreement and discipline order describing the discipline and conditions of the discipline.
   
2. The commission enters a final order as a result of a hearing officer’s recommendation and the educator’s decision to not further appeal the commission’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
   
3. The educator fails to respond to the charges and the commission enters a Default Order against the educator that includes the terms of any discipline on the license (unless there is an appeal to the Court of Appeals).
   

Finch clarified that an educator’s license remains active until the commission takes final action that results in either a suspension or a revocation. A suspension may not exceed one year and may be for as little as 30 days. At the end of a suspension, barring any further misconduct, the license is generally reinstated upon application by the educator. A revocation based on facts not related to serious criminal convictions is for one year. An educator may apply for reinstatement of the revocation after one year has expired and must convince the commission with compelling evidence that the educator is “fit” to be relicensed. An educator is eligible for employment so long as the educator holds an active license.

Whether the educator must disclose whether they are being investigated by the commission and/or charged by the commission depends on various factors, including whether the employing school district asks the educator to disclose this type of information. The Commission does not govern the employment contracts between districts and educators. If the commission takes final action against the educator the order, including the charges and facts found by the commission become public information.

Seeley, Laura L.—Charged by Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on 05-16-08. Contested case hearing scheduled before the Office of Administrative Hearings for April 28-29, 2009.

Seeley, John H.—Charged by Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on 05-16-08. Contested case hearing scheduled before the Office of Administrative Hearings for June 2-5, 2009.


192.660 Executive sessions permitted on certain matters; procedures; news media representatives’ attendance; limits. (a) To consider the employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. (b) To consider the dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent who does not request an open hearing. © To consider matters pertaining to the function of the medical staff of a public hospital (d) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations. (e) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. (f) To consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection. (g) To consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations. (h) To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. (i) To review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member who does not request an open hearing. (j) To carry on negotiations under ORS chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments.

244.350 Civil penalties; letter of reprimand or explanation. (5)In lieu of or in conjunction with finding a violation of law or any resolution or imposing a civil penalty under this section, the commission may issue a written letter of reprimand, explanation or education.

4 Comments