WASHINGTON (AP) – Federal and local authorities sparred Tuesday over whether Congress should cement the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s exclusive power to determine where liquefied natural gas terminals are located.

A FERC representative told the Senate Energy Subcommittee that the energy bill should confirm the commission’s authority, so project reviews could be expedited. And he said local agencies should be required to follow FERC’s timetable for granting permits.

State and local officials insisted there are serious safety and security issues involved in siting LNG facilities, and asked Congress to not erode local controls.

FERC has recommended expanding an LNG terminal in Providence, R.I. and siting one in Fall River, Mass and in Long Island Sound off the Connecticut shoreline.

On Tuesday, Providence Mayor David Cicilline and others told the panel that FERC has refused to work with local agencies on terminal reviews, and failed to address their security worries.

“In any new legislation, state jurisdiction should be concurrent with federal jurisdiction,” Cicilline said.

J. Mark Robinson, FERC’s director of energy projects, said the commission is not trying to limit local environmental or coastal zone management reviews. But, he said, “the perception by those agencies that each needs to conduct its own review process under its own schedule and, where necessary, subject to its independent environmental review, can lead to inordinate delay.”

Senators said LNG terminals could help answer the nation’s growing energy needs, but they differ on how far Congress should go to protect local sovereignty. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said the legislation should recognize and reward states that agree to put energy projects within their borders.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said the commission has refused to consider a regional approach that would consider all of the options along the eastern seaboard, particularly those not in densely populated cities.

In Maine, the Passamaquoddy Indians are pursuing plans to build an LNG facility on tribal land Down East. The tribe is working with an Oklahoma-based partnership to develop the waterfront facility.

Last March, residents of Harpswell voted against allowing an LNG terminal in the coastal Maine town.

California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey told the subcommittee that local and state agencies have a better understanding of conditions in the region. He said FERC’s refusal to work with the state forced officials to sue the commission.

In that lawsuit, CPUC has argued that state officials should be involved in the safety and environmental reviews of a proposed Long Beach LNG terminal.

Maine earlier this year joined several other eastern and western states in signing a brief urging the federal courts to ignore a provision passed by Congress that reinforces FERC’s authority to decide where to locate LNG plants.

Richard Grant, president of Distrigas, which has an LNG terminal in Everett, Mass., said a more coordinated review process would cut out duplication and speed up decisions. And he the risk is relative, adding that while LNG shipments may pose a safety challenge, so do the more prevalent gasoline terminals and storage tanks.

As of the end of the year, there were 31 active LNG proposal under review. Currently there are four LNG import terminals, including the Distrigas facility.

Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., acknowledged that “all is not going well for the siting of these critically needed LNG terminals,” but he said he plans to introduce an energy bill in the next several weeks.

In other testimony, U.S. Coast Guard Capt. David L. Scott, said LNG vessels have a strong safety record, but the Coast Guard must determine if there are enough resources to deal with any accident or security breach.

Copy the Story Link