Weekly responds to criticism over LNG article

The Los Angeles Weekly writer who ranted over liquefied natural gas a week ago is responding to his critics:

Bill Kelly sent along a friendly e-mail documenting his "confidential" source for his statement about the extensive costs for marine and air security escort, underwater scuba diver inspections, and port shutdowns while transporting Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) through the Boston Harbor. Kelly states that the "confidential" report was done at the request of the Governor of Maine for a proposed LNG terminal in his state. He also relates that he interviewed an MIT scuba club president for a previous story.

Given the public's growing cynicism about journalism in the wake of the Newsweek scandal, kudos go to Kelly's responsible follow through in supplying his sources. Kelly points out that a 1500 word limit for his column precluded providing his sources.

Kelly's email continues to assert his concern about LNG gaining "monopoly power" in California. If by "monopoly power" Kelly means that LNG will be lower in price and thus "blow out" the competition, wouldn't that be just called the workings of a market? Kelly may be right that LNG will monopolize the market, but it may do so with lower prices. That would mean trading a high-priced monopoly for a lower-priced monopoly to the potential benefit of the public. The apparent problem not disclosed in the media is that labor unions and their political backers will be the losers in this market shift to LNG. The reality is that California can no longer continue to afford its high-priced power as long as it is compelled to open up its barricaded energy market.

Game. Set. Match. Wayne Lusvardi.