Is villification of LNG missing something?

In today's L.A. Weekly, writer William J. Kelley compares the importation of liquefied natural gas to the Next Enron:

A report last month by the Energy Ventures Group in Washington, D.C., bolstered that concern by concluding that LNG importers will become “pivotal suppliers,” similar to the power generators that caused the state’s energy crisis. To head off the potential for high prices, the report urged policymakers to consider alternatives to LNG, which it said could add up to $4 trillion to the U.S. trade deficit by 2025. Companies already bring LNG to five U.S. terminals, and some 40 are proposed nationwide.

Meanwhile, exporting nations want more money for their resources. Last month saw the fifth annual meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum in Trinidad and Tobago, which provides a place for gas-rich nations — like Russia, Indonesia, and others expected to supply California — to discuss their interests.

In California, the prospect of LNG is particularly troubling, said Morris, because Southern California Gas Co. is terminating contracts for some gas now imported through pipelines from the interior Southwest. Moreover, the company plans to make incoming pipelines bi-directional so gas can flow from California to points east.

What Kelly and other critics fail to note about the market-power issue is that if Sound Energy or BHP Billiton do not build terminals for LNG in California, then Sempra will have complete market power, since it is getting the go-ahead to build a terminal in Mexico. Having these other suppliers with just a sliver of the market share would force Sempra (the parent company of So Cal Gas) to be more honest with its pricing.