SACRAMENTO — A bill to require the California Energy Commission to study whether the state needs to import liquefied natural gas to meet its future energy needs won narrow approval Monday from a key Assembly committee.

The measure, although it is neutral on the question of the need for LNG, is supported by environmental groups and opposed by many in the oil and gas industry.

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, the author of SB 412, said that while he personally believes "LNG is part of California's long-term energy portfolio," no intelligent decision can be made until the state does a comprehensive study of the issue.

"Right now, we don't have a process," he argued. "For the past 20 years we have been without a process."

Simitian said that LNG supporters ought to welcome the study, which he argued could help avert a repeat of the years-long attempt by the Australian energy firm BHP Billiton to build a floating terminal off the coast of Oxnard, an attempt that failed after two state agencies and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected the project late this spring.

"I would think the LNG community would welcome a finding that LNG is needed," he said.

The president of a company that hopes to build what would become California's first LNG facility, however, complained that the bill would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome process.

Steve Larson, president of Woodside Energy, said his company is "next in line" in the regulatory process and is about to embark on an environmental study, required by the California Environmental Quality Act, that will take from 18 months to two years to complete.

"We're quite ready to proceed into the CEQA process," Larson said. "It is the way the state has operated for the last 30 years. We want to engage in that process."

By also requiring the California Energy Commission to make a finding as to whether the state needs to import LNG to meet its energy needs, Larson said, "It seems to me you're trying to prove you don't need it."

Proponents of two other projects — including NorthernStar Natural Gas, which seeks to convert an abandoned oil platform off the Oxnard coast — took no position on the bill.

Both those projects would require approval from the same California State Lands Commission that voted down the BHP Billiton project. Woodside Energy, because its project would be off the coast near Los Angeles International Airport, would require approval from the Los Angeles City Council instead.

The Lands Commission rejected the BHP Billiton project on a 2-1 vote, with Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and Controller John Chiang in opposition.

Susan Jordan of the California Coastal Protection Network noted that Garamendi and Chiang each "cited insufficient evidence of need for LNG."

"Without the information SB 412 is designed to produce, these proposals face the very same grounds for denial," Jordan said.

The bill would require the California Energy Commission to complete its study by Nov. 1, 2008. It would prohibit Schwarzenegger or any state or local entity from approving an LNG facility before that date.

Simitian noted that two LNG proposals have now been rejected. The other, an onshore facility proposed for Long Beach, was turned down by local officials. Now, three more proposals are about to begin the environmental review process.

"We have a unique window of opportunity," Simitian said. "This is not something we can do next year."

The bill, which has already been approved by the Senate, next goes to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.