Can LNG expansion be stopped in RI? Despite GOP talk of states’ rights, a federal commission might approve a proposal opposed by top elected officials BY IAN DONNIS

IT’S A POTENTIAL nightmare. An intentional breach of a liquefied natural gas terminal at Fields Point in Providence could unleash concentric waves of damage, burning buildings in the immediate vicinity, and causing second-degree burns in a broad radius encompassing elementary schools, colleges, India Point Park, the Metacomet Gulf Club, and parts of Rhode Island Hospital and Women & Infants Hospital. The wider risk for flammability, as identified in an analysis by Sandia National Laboratories, encompasses a broad ring containing Brown University, East Providence City Hall, the Edgewood Yacht Club, and Central High School.

Even if this scenario might be unlikely — hardly a guarantee in an age when jihadist terrorist groups seek to inflict dramatic damage on US targets — why risk it? At a time when East Providence is developing its waterfront, and tentative plans are proceeding to do likewise in Providence, why do something that would harm these efforts, disrupt boating activity in Narragansett Bay, and have other adverse effects, especially when there could be alternatives? Rhode Island’s top elected officials, and a growing number of local officials and residents in the communities lining the Bay, are united in asking these questions.

For a long time, the LNG tank in Fields Point has been an unremarkable part of Providence’s industrial waterfront. Perhaps this helps to explain why KeySpan LNG LP’s proposed $100 million expansion of the facility — in which liquefied natural gas would be brought in by ships instead of trucks — stirred relatively little public interest after it became public in the fall of 2003. Now, though, with the prospect of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) overriding broad local opposition, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch and other critics are waging an active and full-fledged fight against the project. In one measure of the stakes, Lynch brought in Richard A. Clarke, the former White House terrorism expert, to take a helicopter ride over Narragansett Bay on April 21. Clark is slated to present a security analysis during a May 9 forum to be hosted by Brown University president Ruth Simmons.

Carmen Fields, a spokeswoman for KeySpan, a subsidiary of New York-based KeySpan Corporation, takes issue with descriptions of the company’s proposal as a disruptive and potentially dangerous change. Describing the increased flow of LNG as compatible with the other uses of the port, Fields says, "That tank has been there for 30 years and has operated quite safely and collegially with its neighbors. Second of all, it was built as a marine delivery facility, so it’s not changing the usage in any way. And thirdly, the LNG industry has one of the safest operations as a whole of any industry, bar none." In terms of the potential safety risk, she says, "It’s just the method of receiving LNG that is changing, but the product and the regulations and all that applies to it do not."

Such talk offers little solace to opponents. From their perspective, it only gets worse since another company, Amerada Hess, hopes to build a new LNG facility in Fall River, Massachusetts, and the FERC, whose four commissioners were appointed by President George W. Bush, has a perfect record in approving proposals to establish or expand LNG facilities in recent years.

Lynch’s office has filed lawsuits against KeySpan LNG LP in state and federal court, arguing that it would be illegal for the company to create a ship berth without state approval. If just the Fields Point project gets the nod, he says, it will mean that a 900-foot-long LNG tanker will enter and exit through 29 miles of Narragansett Bay roughly every five days. But if both the Providence and Fall River proposals are approved, Lynch says, the big tankers will be moving through the area (including 23 miles of Rhode Island water on the way to or from Fall River) every two to three days.

Although the US Coast Guard’s security recommendations for the proposals have not been made public, it wouldn’t necessarily be a stretch to envision closed bridges, gunboats, and a security presence along the banks of the Bay. In Everett, Massachusetts, the site of one of four current LNG facilities in the US, the security cost associated with each trip of an LNG tanker is pegged at upward of $80,000. Fields downplays talk of disruption for recreational boaters and others, saying there are no plans at present to close bridges. But it’s clear that moving LNG tankers through Narragansett Bay in the post-9/11 age is no small deal — and it’s not unimaginable that state and local communities would be stuck with the cost of providing security.

Such uncertainties lead Lynch and other opponents to cite a "gold rush mentality" in the LNG field, and the need for a more measured review of something that could impact Rhode Island for years to come. Despite such a prospect, and despite the broad opposition of the state’s most powerful elected officials, this mater will be decided not locally, but in the corridors of the nation’s capital, by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And while the GOP might take a good game about states’ rights and reeling in "big government," Republicans in Congress have rallied behind the federal government’s jurisdiction over the placement of LNG terminals.