Now Maybe We Can Talk About LNG?

The Sacramento Bee does a little "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" on the Cabrillo Port votes and takes up the issue of LNG.

The Bee's theory-- which I share-- is that we need LNG as a bridge fuel to more reliable renewable energy sources.

But in retrospect, it was impossible to have this discussion because Cabrillo Port became--for a time-- the face of LNG in California. The lines between "opposing Cabrillo Port specifically" and "opposing LNG, in general" became blurred.

The Bee's position, in a nutshell:

"Let's review reality: California is on borrowed time. It is importing roughly a quarter of its electricity from states such as Arizona and Washington that will need more power for their growing populations. California will either have to produce a lot more electricity or reduce demand, likely both. If the concern is air pollution, the worst thing for the air would be to say No to LNG plants here, and let Mexico and Oregon build them. (That would just increase transportation and pollution problems.) The environment doesn't win by exporting the problem to a neighbor. Saying Yes to LNG -- as a necessary part of an overall energy strategy that maintains California as a leader against climate change -- would be a saner course than saying No and somehow feeling good about it."

Editorial: LNG can't R.I.P. [Sacramento Bee]