Motion reasserts LNG site controls Lawmakers balk at federal sway

WASHINGTON – A coalition of East and West Coast lawmakers filed a motion in a federal appeals court Tuesday in an effort to thwart any increase in federal authority over the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals.

The legal brief, filed in a California lawsuit, urges the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to ignore a provision passed by Congress last year that reinforces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority to decide where to locate LNG plants.

The “friend of the court” brief, signed by 18 House and Senate members from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, Connecticut, New York and California, argues that FERC has only limited authority in LNG terminal sitings. The motion says FERC overstepped that authority by rejecting California officials’ assertion that they should be involved in the decision to put an LNG terminal in Long Beach.

FERC has said it has exclusive jurisdiction over LNG permits, and a provision slipped into the $388 billion spending bill just before Congress adjourned last month reasserted that authority.

The provision is not legally binding, but lawmakers said Tuesday they filed the brief to make sure the courts know it has no legal standing.

“There is always a possibility that the provision could be given some weight as part of an overall ruling,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who coordinated the legal action. “If that were to happen in the California case, it could make it harder to ensure that local and regional safety concerns about other LNG proposals are fully taken into account.”

Last month, a study by a federal weapons lab found a terror attack on a tanker delivering liquefied natural gas at a U.S. port could set off a fire so hot it would burn skin and damage buildings nearly a mile away.

An expanded LNG facility has been proposed for Providence, R.I., and other terminals have been proposed in Fall River, Mass., and in Long Island Sound off the Connecticut shoreline. The Rhode Island and Massachusetts plans received generally positive environmental reviews from FERC.

The legal brief, the lawmakers said, will prevent the appropriations’ language from being misused in the California case.

Members of Congress who signed the brief are: Sen. Edward Kennedy and Reps. Barney Frank, Edward Markey, William Delahunt, Stephen Lynch, Michael Capuano and James McGovern, all D-Mass.; Rep. Michael Michaud, D-Maine; Sen. Jack Reed and Reps. Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin, all D-R.I.; Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; Reps. Lois Capps, Sam Farr, Hilda Solis and Anna Eshoo, all D-Calif., and Reps. Timothy Bishop and Steve Israel, both D-N.Y.

Overall, there are about 40 LNG proposals before FERC and the U.S. Coast Guard that involve coastal locations around the country.

The California Public Utilities Commission has argued that state officials should be involved in the Long Beach terminal decision to ensure that state environmental and safety concerns are addressed. FERC rejected that argument last April, and CPUC took the case to federal court.