Can LNG expansion be stopped in RI? (continued)
	SUDDEN IMPACT: Although perhaps unlikely, an LNGdisaster would affect a broad swath of Providence and East Providence. See Chart

A NUMBER OF Rhode Island officials, including Governor Donald L. Carcieri and US Senator Lincoln Chafee, reacted favorably when KeySpan unveiled its plan in 2003 to significantly increase the amount of LNG being moved through its facility in Providence. The thinking was that LNG, touted as an environmentally sensitive source of energy, could help to lower energy prices while meeting regional needs for electricity and heat.

Over time, though, Rhode Island officials have turned against the project — not for any fault with LNG, they say, but because of the potential safety risk posed by expanding the Providence facility and the negative effect that it would have on simmering plans to develop the city’s waterfront.

Carcieri, for example, now favors a regional approach that "would enable us to develop common standards for the siting of LNG facilities, to jointly site LNG facilities that don’t meet those standards, and to explore other options for getting natural gas," says spokesman Jeff Neal. "In that context, the governor has recognized that the KeySpan proposal to construct a marine terminal in Providence simply poses too many security, safety, and environmental concerns to be viable."

In comments to the FERC in February, Carcieri asked the commission to turn down the corporation’s request to enhance its terminal for marine delivery. "In the post-September 11 environment, LNG vessels and terminals plainly are potential targets for terrorist attacks," he wrote. "Although the probabilities of a successful attack are low, the consequences would be devastating to life and property within a substantial area surrounding the target vessel or terminal. There simply is no justification for accepting the known risks associated with LNG import activities in densely populated locations like the City of Providence."

Citing the dramatic findings of the scenario prepared for Lynch’s office by Sandia National Laboratories last December, a host of other officials — including Chafee, US Senator Jack Reed, US Representatives Patrick J. Kennedy, and James R. Langevin, Lynch, Providence Mayor David N. Cicilline, and Lieutenant Governor Charles Fogarty — have asked the FERC to take the information into account. Meanwhile, a variety of concerned citizens, community groups, and town councils from Portsmouth to Jamestown have sided against the initiative.

"It seems to me that in today’s world, when the technology exists to do these [LNG facilities] as offshore terminals, it makes no sense to significantly expand capacity in an urban center," says Peter Gengler, president of the board of directors of Community Boating, which offers sailing classes near India Point Park in Providence. KeySpan’s proposal is even stranger, Gengler says, considering how the city’s waterfront has become far nicer since Community Boating was established in 1987 and stands to get still better. In getting his morning coffee at the Cable Car on South Main Street, he notes the steady flow of visitors to Providence from France, Spain, Germany, and other distant points. "That wasn’t happening 15 years ago," Gengler says.

To some, the fight against expanding the flow of LNG reeks of NIMBY-ism. As the Providence Journal editorialized on April 16, "As a matter of general principle we don’t like it when federal powers increase at the expense of state and local ones. But in the absence of hysteria-free permitting of LNG’s infrastructure at the state level, there may be no alternative — if we want electricity, etc. And we cannot expect much considered leadership or courage on this from local politicians, who will inevitably oppose any project near them that often ill-informed opposition asserts might pose a risk."

Critics, though, point to the prospect of alternative LNG facilities and the need for regional planning. Not surprisingly, they contend that leaving LNG-siting decisions to a deregulatory federal government and the free market is sharply contrary to the interests of local communities.

Like some other opponents, Jerry Landay, a board member of Save Bristol Harbor, says plans for an offshore facility near Gloucester, Massachusetts, and LNG supplies from the Canadian Maritimes would be sufficient to meet New England’s energy needs, without the potential negative consequences of KeySpan’s Providence proposal. Landay notes that existing LNG facilities around the country have between 500 and 1500 acres of separation from populated areas, compared to the 17-acre size of KeySpan’s Providence site and the 68 acres envisioned for the LNG facility in a populated part of Fall River.

Yet despite concerns ranging from the possibility of a disaster to disrupting boaters, Landay cites a sense that the writing is on the wall when it comes to the FERC’s pending decisions. "The orders come from the White House, which represents, as you know, the major energy interests, that want to cash in," he says. "Ten years ago, this would never have moved past the second day. That it moves forward now is simply a reflection of who’s running the country."

PATRICK H. WOOD III, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, plans to leave the federal panel when his term expires June 30, leading some observers to think the FERC will make its decision on the Providence proposal before then.

As is stands, the FERC is coming close to concluding a final environmental impact statement on the project. Tamara Young-Allen, a FERC spokeswoman, says the panel will vote on whether to approve the project after the document is issued, although there is no specified timeline. "They look at all aspects, the potential environmental, the impact of safety and security, a thorough review," she says. "We take all of those risks into consideration. We also look at the potential risks [of terrorism] and look at the risks, and whether the risks are manageable."

Sixteen nationwide LNG proposals are before the FERC and, Young-Allen says, "they’re coming in every day" — a situation she attributes to dwindling North American supplies of energy and unprecedented demand for natural gas. "A lot of electricity generators want to use gas as a fuel because it’s clean-burning." Young-Allen rejects assertions that the FERC rubberstamps LNG proposals because of White House influence, saying, "Our staff undertakes a very thorough review of these proposals." The reviews generally take 12 to 18 months, enough time, she says, for an extensive review and an objective decision.

Rhode Island, officials, though are decidedly less sanguine, and critics point to ties between the federal panel and the energy industry. AG Lynch says his requests to include additional comment for the environmental impact statement were denied until he brought in Richard Clarke. He feels the FERC has been disinclined to consider the density of the capital city — something that Clarke immediately commented on after his helicopter tour of the area — in making its decision. For his part, Lynch holds out some hope that KeySpan’s Providence proposal will be rejected.

In March, Rhode Island officials were heartened when Wood told them that KeySpan must bring its grandfathered shipping facility into line with contemporary safety standards before it can accept LNG from ships at Fields Point. KeySpan officials claim, however, that the company is not obligated to meet the tougher, more modern standards.

In Fall River, city officials have hired Washington lawyers to help fight the LNG facility proposed in that community. Cicilline says the city is reviewing its options after a previous effort to intervene in federal litigation related to the case was denied. Like some other observers, the mayor cites his belief that FERC has "a strong predisposition for siting these facilities."

It remains to be seen if the outpouring of opposition by Rhode Island officials — and the reasons they cite — is enough to stop a federal agency from overriding local concerns. "I doubt there is any case in the history of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in which the top four, five statewide elected officials all met with the chairman of FERC to oppose an application," says Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal. "That has probably not happened in the past."

Few would deny the regional energy needs of New England, and the opportunities afforded by LNG as an energy source. As it stands, though, the Bush administration has shown no interest in reducing US dependence on foreign oil — a move that could enhance US security — and some Republicans joined Democrats in rapping $8 billion in tax breaks for energy producers in a recent US House energy bill. Given such hallmarks, expecting the federal government to act in the local interest is hardly a safe bet.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.