GSX-US: Two Countries, One Pipeline

BC Hydro and Williams Pipeline Co. are jointly proposing a natural gas pipeline that would stretch 84.5 miles from Sumas to Vancouver Island, crossing Whatcom County streams and erosional bluffs. The project was initially routed through lower B.C., but was rejected by the Canadian government. Citing no apparent good for the county, both county staff and residents requested permits for the project be denied. So what’s next?

BY REBECCA SCHWARZ

About 25 people attended a public hearing held Wednesday afternoon before the
Whatcom County Hearing Examiner regarding shoreline permits for the proposed
Georgia Straight Crossing (GSX) Project, a joint pipeline effort between
Williams Pipeline Co. and B.C. Hydro.

The purpose of the hearing was to collect information from the proponents,
county staff and public regarding shoreline permits for the project; however,
what actual permits the hearing would focus on was unclear, as both sides
disagreed on protocol.

GSX counsel Steven Snarr said the project had already received necessary
shoreline permits from the county, because the county had not responded within
120 days of the filing of the GSX application. County officials, however, said
the 120-day timeframe does not apply to this project as it is a major
development, thus the project does not have the necessary permits.

“This is a major development permit,” said Randy Watts, the Chief Civil Deputy
Prosecutor. “They haven’t filed yet.”

Snarr said “We have not been of the view that a major development permit is
necessary.”

The county was willing to move forward with the scheduled hearing, Watts said,
because the project will require “several other permits.”

Despite the difference in opinion regarding permits, the hearing moved forward,
and more than 10 residents spoke about the project, all of them against it.

The project, according to GSX officials, will supply the fuel needed by new
natural gas-fired electricity generating plants on Vancouver Island. The
pipeline will also provide western Washington with an additional source of
natural gas to meet future industrial and residential needs.

But this provision of gas to Whatcom County was a point questioned by several
members of the public.

Birch Bay resident Patrick Alesse was the first to speak, stating this proposed
pipeline is between the United States and Canada, but really it’s a “Canadian
pipeline going through the U.S. and back to Canada. Yes, there’s some promise
of future use, but we really don’t know when.”

Alesse, who held up a map declaring his proposed route for the pipeline –
through Canada – said if problems were to occur with the pipeline, it would be
easier to have one agency deal with it, rather than multiple international
organizations. “Take GSX and X it,” he said. Others echoed his statements
concerning county use of the pipeline.

“GSX is not for our use, it’s for Canada’s use,” said Linda Franz, who lives
near Cherry Point. “I question the long term benefit versus the damage and
versus the depletion of Whatcom County.”

Questions concerning the actual route through Whatcom County also surfaced.

“I see no reason to approve of this project. There are alternatives - from
Canada to Canada,” said Wendy Steffensen, the North Bay Sound Keeper. “Why are
you coming through Cherry Point?”

So why isn’t the GSX project going through Canada, instead of the U.S.? Seeing
that Canada will benefit nearly 100 percent from the project, why go through
almost 85 miles of rural land and shoreline acreage for a Canadian pipeline?

The project, in the works for more than three years now, initially called for a
route through Lower B.C., leaving Surrey to go through the straight and ending
on Vancouver Island. However, the Canadian government rejected that plan. GSX
officials then reworked the plan and are now fighting for the route through
Whatcom County.

Steffensen commented on the number of people attending the meeting, stating
“This is a relatively good turnout for a meeting at 1:30 on a Wednesday. This
has been an incredibly long process ... A majority of folks in Whatcom County
want this project denied.”

FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has granted the project certain
permits, a statement Snarr repeatedly made when making the GSX case. The
agency, he said, waived local and state authority permits regarding coastal
regulations because two deadlines were missed.

However FERC has decision decisionmaking power over inter-state projects, not
international projects. The pipeline project, some pointed out, is just that:
international. Carl Weimer, the Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety
Trust, said he agrees with the county’s findings that the project should not
move forward through Whatcom County, and said “look at the way the federal
government tweaks this whole process ... Does FERC have any jurisdiction?”

This pipeline, he said, is not interstate, it crosses an international
boundary, not a state. “I hope you turn down this permit,” he told the hearing
examiner. Some questioned the amount of employment that would be generated from
this pipeline - a key statement referred to by the proponents regarding the
benefits to Whatcom County. After all, some said, the employment would only be
temporary, as the pipeline’s $250 million construction would be complete at
some point.

Residents and county staff agreed that the main beneficiary would be Canada.
Whatcom County would see little or no economic benefit from the county,
declared County shorelines planner Jim Thompson.

County staff stated a number of reasons as to why this project would not
benefit the county, including: the pipeline did not comply with shorelines
rules, alternatives have not been fully explored, it would overall not benefit
the county, and it could harm county land and wildlife. However, Snarr stated
that Whatcom County would see $8 million in sales and use taxes during
construction and $1.7 million in property taxes annually.

But residents did not care about the money, just the environment. Eliana
Steele-Friedlob, who resides in Point Whitehorn and has lead stream restoration
efforts within the community, said she agrees there will be some money coming
in, but there will be a huge deficiency to the county. “I would like recommend
the council deny such a permit,” she said, noting environmental affects,
including eelgrass, heron and the bluffs.

“I don’t care what kind of monetary benefit it brings,” said Point Whitehorn
resident Kay Schumacher. “It is our duty to protect this ... place. Listen to
the citizens of Whatcom County who oppose this. It is a very strong no.”

Another hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 28 at 1:30 p.m.

The public is welcome to submit written materials to the Hearing Examiner’s office over the next two weeks. Materials can be sent to: Hearing Examiner, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98226.

Whatcom Independent, Issue 39, August 20, 2004 (link)