Bill says feds can overrule states on LNG
Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - Bangor Daily News

      AUGUSTA - Buried in the 3,300-page Omnibus Appropriations bill
approved by Congress on Nov. 20 is a provision that says federal regulators
have the power to overrule state and local officials in deciding where ships
can deliver liquefied natural gas. "I am really very concerned," said Rob
Gardiner, vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation, an
environmental advocacy group with offices in Rockland and Boston. "The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, unlike the federal EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency], has never done a good job of environmental protection."

      Gardiner blasted Congress for making the change "in the dark of night"
and said such actions will raise the level of public concern. He said it is
important to have states comment on issues that are important to the states.

      The change was made through a three-paragraph statement in the
appropriations bill, which stresses that FERC should have control over the
handling of permits for proposed LNG facilities.

      "The Natural Gas Act of 1938 clearly pre-empts states on matters of
approving and siting natural gas infrastructure," states the new language.

      The statement was introduced during a conference committee, in which
lawmakers from the Senate and House ironed out differences over the
appropriations bill. In this case the new language appears under the
headline, "Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Salaries and Expenses."

      The provision states the FERC contention that it has "exclusive
jurisdiction" over siting LNG facilities. It also states that the process
for regulating facilities needs to consider the "national public interest"
as opposed to the views of any one state.

      "It is just not OK for the federal government to dictate and pre-empt
and bully and preclude the states," said Linda Godfrey, a coordinator with
the Save Passamaquoddy Bay Alliance. The group was formed by Americans,
Canadians and Passamaquoddys who oppose a proposal by the Passamaquoddy
Tribe to locate a $300 million LNG terminal at Pleasant Point in Washington
County. "Maine is a special place and we will fight to protect it from
this."

      Godfrey said the group was gearing up for a battle against the project
in front of state agencies, but now expects the battle will shift to the
federal level.

      Godfrey said the state should take a leadership role and challenge the
federal government. She is concerned about the limits FERC puts on the
hearing process, where public comments are limited to "certain people" and
the opinions of some are ignored.

      Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch is among a group of
officials from that state who still hopes to rally enough support from U.S.
representatives and senators, who return for another lame-duck congressional
session next week, to attach an amendment striking the new language before
President Bush signs the omnibus appropriations bill into law.

      Gov. John Baldacci and other Maine officials, however, were just
learning about the language in the bill this week, and had no immediate
response about what action they might try to take. Baldacci has previously
been quoted supporting the Passamaquoddy Tribe's proposal because it could
provide "a tremendous economic boost" to the area by providing good-paying
jobs while bringing clean energy to Maine.

      Ron Huber of Penobscot Bay Watch, a Rockland-based environmental
activist group, said the action taken to get the language in the omnibus
bill should not have been wholly unexpected. He said FERC indicated last
spring it did not see a role for the states to play outside of the FERC
process.

      "The state may be knocked out of the water, so to speak, but there
will still be the processes before the other federal agencies for groups to
become involved," he said.

      Gardiner agreed and said the National Environmental Policy Act will
still apply and groups opposing the siting of an LNG facility in Maine will
have several opportunities to challenge the permits and licenses from the
several federal agencies that will be involved.

      "[But] the receptiveness of state officials to comments from the
public is much better than that of FERC," he said. "I think the public would
be better served by more state involvement."

      Maine has had several proposals for LNG facilities, but none have
actually filed for the necessary permits to be built. Voters in Harpswell
blocked construction of a facility earlier this year after a contentious
campaign there and Cianbro Corp. pulled plans for building an LNG terminal
in Gouldsboro after residents there balked at the idea.

      Besides the Passamaquoddy Tribe's proposal, there also is one still
floating for a facility on Sears Island in Penobscot Bay.

      Much of the opposition to the facilities deals with safety issues and
aesthetics.

      The federal Department of Homeland Security has identified LNG ships
as potential targets of terrorist attack, so the vessels must be escorted
into port.

      The ships are very large, requiring deep waters and wide approaches to
a port. There also needs to be at least 250 acres available on shore to
support the facility in which the liquid form of the fuel can be reconverted
into gas. Such requirements and difficult tidal currents in some areas of
the coast have eliminated several sites already.

      Another key factor in finding an appropriate site for an LNG terminal
is access to the gas pipeline that Maritimes & Northeast built in
the late 1990s that connects gas fields off Sable Island, Nova Scotia, to
large markets for the fuel in Massachusetts. A terminal would have to be
close enough to economically tie into that pipeline.

           Mal Leary

            mal@mainecapitolnews.com