Environmental & neighborhood groups say "NO TO GSX"

Contacts:
RE Sources for Sustainable Communities; Wendy Steffensen, (360) 733-8307
Fuel Safe Washington; Fred Felleman, (206)595.3825
Neighbors for Birch Point; Jo Slivinski, (360) 371-0301
Smart Growth Birch Bay; Alan and Elie Friedlob, (360) 371-3441
Friends of the San Juans; Tina Whitman, (360) 378-2319
GSX Concerned Citizen Coalition of BC; Arthur Caldicott (250) 370-9930 x22
Norhwest Ecosystem Alliance; Lisa McShane
North Cascades Audubon Society; Paul Woodcock

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 2003

A broad coalition from Canada, Whatcom and San Juan Counties will reiterate their opposition to the GSX pipeline before the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner on September 28th at 1:30 P.M. at the Whatcom County Courthouse Annex, 1000 North Forest St. in Bellingham.The proposed GSX project, a major natural gas transmission pipeline slated to deliver natural gas from the BC mainland to Vancouver Island, by way of Whatcom and San Juan Counties has been going through the regulatory permitting process since 2001.

The Hearing Examiner will hear the remaining arguments on the County permits needed for the GSX project on Tuesday and will make his decision within ten days of the closing comments. The public is invited to attend the hearing.

Opponents of the project contend that the route through the US is not necessary because feasible all-Canada routes exist for the pipeline, and, additionally, there are other simpler means to generate electricity for Vancouver Island. They maintain that pipeline construction and operation could harm the declining Cherry Point herring, as well as the biologically rich Cherry Point reach. Herring are a key species in the Puget Sound food chain, are a primary food source for endangered salmon, which are critical to the recovery of our endangered resident orca population.

County staff in both Whatcom and San Juan Counties have recommended against the GSX pipeline based on the potential harm the GSX pipeline could cause to marine resources and because it is an unnecessary project. Staff in both counties found that the GSX project did not meet guidelines under the Shoreline Management Act.

In San Juan County, the Hearing Examiner overruled County staff and approved the GSX project. Friends of the San Juans (FSJ) appealed that decision to the San Juan County Council. Spokesperson Tina Whitman says, "Our appeal is focused on project inconsistency with county and state shoreline management policy and concerns over the legal precedent set by allowing a new utility corridor along a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. The public benefit has not been demonstrated, while the risks to human safety and ecological systems are many."

In Whatcom County, RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, Neighbors for Birch Point, Smart Growth Birch Bay, and North Cascades Audubon Society have been working to thwart the GSX pipeline. "The GSX pipeline offers no benefit to Whatcom County or to the state of Washington, and could come at a great environmental cost. Placement of pipelines need to be part of a comprehensive energy plan; the GSX project could engender other new energy projects, creating an unplanned utility corridor and potentially even more environmental problems," said Wendy Steffensen, North Sound Baykeeper with RE Sources.

Jo Slivinski, whose grassroots group Neighbors for Birch Point gathered more than 200 Whatcom County signatures in a few days on a petition against GSX, commented, "What's at stake are tremendously adverse environmental impacts on marine wildlife and vegetation in an area of known seismic activity and along a designated 'Shoreline of Statewide Significance.' The area's fisheries could be impacted--environmentally and economically. Add to that Williams' [one of the pipeline co-developers] extremely poor pipeline safety record. How can what Williams is calling 'benefits' (possible tax revenues) to our counties be in any way worth such abysmally terrible trade-offs on our environment, safety, and economy?"

The considerable dangers posed by this pipeline, especially in light of the Williams Company's pipeline safety record, concerns more than a few opposing groups. Arthur Caldicott of GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition of BC has written extensively on this issue. For example, the company's Northwest Pipeline, which runs from Canadian border to southern Oregon, ruptured twice in 2003, in one case releasing gas for 3 hours before it could be stopped. At least 8 other failures or safety incidents with Williams' various pipelines in the Pacific Northwest have been documented between 1992 and 1999. Following the 1999 Olympic Pipeline explosion (not one of Williams' pipelines) in Bellingham, the Washington State Utilities and Transportation
Commission launched an investigation into pipeline inspection and testing records of companies operating in the state. Williams came out at nearly the bottom of the list, having inspected only 17% of its system and tested a mere 11%.

Elie Friedlob, representing Smart Growth Birch Bay, a group interested in monitoring development in the Birch Bay area stated, "Should this pipeline be approved and built by overriding the known concerns of the County and Washington State, it will seriously weaken the ability of these governments to control and monitor the type and quality of development along our critical shorelines and our vulnerable farmlands."

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has already given the GSX project conditional approval. FERC also maintains that the County and State do not have jurisdiction in the GSX case. The Department of Ecology is challenging FERC's contention that they do not have standing in the case. DOE has not decided whether to grant permits for this project or not, and at this point the question of their jurisdiction has not been resolved.

In another legal twist, the jurisdiction of FERC itself is being challenged by Fuel Safe Washington (FSW). "FSW is challenging FERC's jurisdictional authority since this is not an interstate pipeline. This proposed gas transmission line should be reviewed by the State's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), not an agent of the Bush Administration which supports anything that smells like oil and gas infrastructure. Furthermore, given the dire straits of our orca, salmon and herring populations they have done an incredibly poor job of assessing the environmental impacts of such an unnecessary project" said Fred Felleman, President of FSW. That hearing is scheduled for September 29th in Denver before the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Canada, opposition to the GSX Pipeline project has been intense, resulting in one of the longest hearings in Canadian pipeline history. The pipeline cannot be built unless BC Hydro also builds a gas fired generation plant in Nanaimo, on Vancouver Island. Last September, however, the BC Utilities Commission denied BC Hydro's application for the Nanaimo plant. In any event, Terasen, the owner of the existing
all-Canadian pipeline to Vancouver Island, has demonstrated in evidence that they can provide all the gas needed on Vancouver Island with modest upgrades to their existing system.

The odds of this pipeline being built are very low", says Arthur Caldicott, a director of the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition, "but if it does get built, it would be senseless for Americans to accept all the environmental impacts when they stand to get no benefit from it." Caldicott adds, "What was FERC thinking when they determined that GSX would be in the public interest and convenience of citizens of Whatcom and San Juan counties? It's an absurd conclusion." Caldicott's group wrote an amicus brief in support of the Fuel Safe case going to Court on Wednesday.

-30-