Whatcom Hearing Examiner recommends GSX approval

The Whatcom County Hearing Examiner refers the matter of a shoreline development permit for GSX-US at Cherry Point, to Whatcom County Council for a decision, because it is a "major project". He also recommends that the county council approve the application.

In his findings and conclusions, Michael Bobbink makes a number of important points, some potentially contentious:

- he appears to agree with FERC and the proponent that the project will not have significant environmental impacts

- he says that if the county wanted to stop the pipeline, the opportunity and legally correct place to do that was in the FERC review of GSX, not in a matter of a local permit.

- he concludes that $1.7 million in county taxes each year, plus additional school district taxes, are sufficient local benefits to accept the pipeline (p14)

Bobbink's two most troubling conclusions, however, have to do with jurisdiction and alternatives.

- bilateral agreements, he says, "forbid discrimination in this situation by either Country against the citizens of the other. In that case, the benefits to the citizens of Vancouver Island would have to be considered the same as the benefits to the citizens of Whatcom County or Washington State." (p16-17)
Speaking as a Canadian, this is bullshit. We've had enough of protecting the interests of corporations and other governments with these trade agreements. If the people of Whatcom County don't want the pipeline they must be able to refuse it.

- project alternatives, says Bobbink, don't need to be reviewed, because "none of the environmental documents conclude that there are other more environmentally desirable alternatives." and FERC has already examined the matter and issued a permit. (p18)
FERC refused to look into the alternatives, even when they realized that some existed. In the draft Environmental Impact Statement, FERC states "Direct transmission of electrical energy to Vancouver Island from the mainland would negate the need for the GSX Project, but no such project has been approved by potential sponsors." Subsequent to this, BC Hydro planning engineers acknowledged that a new cable system to Vancouver Island was their preferred option, but that the gas-fired strategy was forced on them by government. Also subsequent to the draft EIS, Terasen, which owns the existing gas pipeline to Vancouver Island filed evidence that they could deliver the required gas for less capital cost, with mere upgrades to their existing system. BC Hydro accepted Terasens' conclusion in its 2004 Integrated Electricity Plan. Alternatives clearly exist.

Bobbink concludes "the Hearing Examiner cannot find either a factual basis or a legal basis that would justify denial of the Shoreline Permits. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner is recommending that the Whatcom County Council grant the requested Shoreline Permits. This is not a recommendation that the project be finally approved or built."

This may be viewed as a lack of courage or creativity on Bobbink's part, but it is probably a legally correct, if conservative, conclusion.

Nevertheless, the "my hands were tied" legal findings that recur through the permitting processes for GSX on both sides of the border are not merely pathetic. They speak to a more fundamental or structural failing of the permitting structures to address issues in a meaningful way. Most egregious is the failure to represent and give voice to, the people.

Also problematical, but a matter that the people of Whatcom County and Washington State are concerned about, is this situation:

- both the Whatcom County Council, and the Washington State Department of Ecology have staff reports with recently recommended either against or strong concerns with the GSX project,

- yet both offices were interveners in the FERC review of GSX and both let dates and opportunties to intervene lapse

- and both subsequently have concluded, in slightly different ways, that their legal options now are limited because of these earlier oversights.

Are these evidence of bureaucratic carelessness? political spinelessness? Where is the accountability here? The people of Whatcom County and of Washington State have been failed either by their elected officials, their staff, or both.

Whatcom Hearing Examiner's report

Three excerpts from Bobbink's report:

A major point of opposition to the proposal is the claim that it will not provide any benefits to either local or State interests. The major benefit from the pipeline would be to electricity users on Vancouver Island. The proposal is not expected to create more than a couple of permanent jobs in Whatcom County. Some additional jobs may be created during the construction phase of the project; however, the record indicates that most of this work will go to large contractors outside the local area. GSX estimates that the construction phase will provide approximately eight million dollars in one-time sales tax revenue to State and local governments. GSX also estimates that upon completion of the pipeline and associated facilities, it will be paying approximately 1.7 million dollars yearly in property taxes to Whatcom County. All local school districts through which the pipeline passes will receive additional tax money without having to provide the additional educational services that would be required for a project that created a significant number of new jobs. (page 14)

As indicated in the findings, there are some local benefits, including tax revenue, and the potential source of natural gas for future industrial development within the Cherry Point Management Area. Additionally, the United States has entered into a treaty with Canada, which apparently forbids discrimination in this situation by either Country against the citizens of the other. In that case, the benefits to the citizens of Vancouver Island would have to be considered the same as the benefits to the citizens of Whatcom County or Washington State. In any case, there is no requirement for local or State benefit before a Shoreline Permit can be granted. (page 16,17)

Proponents of the proposal consistently reiterate that there are feasible alternatives available which would not require this pipeline to go through Whatcom County or Washington State. However, none of the environmental documents conclude that there are other more environmentally desirable alternatives. In addition, FERC has granted the project a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, after evaluating the alternatives. In the context of this Shoreline Permit, taking into account the environmental documents and FERC’s ruling, the discussion of alternatives is out of place. (page 18)

WHATCOM COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SHR02-0003
SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE, SHC02-0003
Application for
Williams Pipeline
Georgia Strait Crossing
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL