Bill said to undercut local LNG control

WASHINGTON -- The federal government could override local opposition to new or expanded liquefied natural gas facilities under a provision that House Republicans have added to a major energy bill, Representative Edward M. Markey, Democrat of Malden, warned yesterday.

Under the proposal, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would consult with state and local governments about LNG facilities, but could override their concerns if it chose to do so.

In addition, if local agencies failed to meet the commission's deadline for reviewing proposals, they would be ''conclusively presumed" to have approved the site for a new LNG terminal.

State and local governments would also not have the power to enforce citations if they discovered problems at an LNG facility during a safety inspection. That would be left to the federal government.

High oil prices have driven up demand for the clean-burning gas, leading to 55 proposals to build new LNG facilities around North America.

Among them are proposed facilities in Fall River and off the coast near Gloucester, both of which have drawn local opposition stemming from fears of terrorism and ecological damage.

Markey, a longtime LNG watchdog, said the language would also affect the existing Distrigas facility in Everett, which brings tankers with the supercooled gas within yards of downtown Boston about once a week.

Should the bill pass, he said, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have final say over any future proposal to expand the Everett facility, potentially increasing LNG tanker stops.

''As concern for terrorism increases, it is startlingly shortsighted for the Republican Party to trample states' rights on behalf of the gas industry," Markey said. ''This provision directly undermines the ability of state and local officials to play their proper role in ensuring that any new LNG facility is not sited in an area where it could pose a danger to the surrounding community."

The state of California and the federal government are fighting a legal battle in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over whether current law gives the commission the power to preempt local concerns over a proposed Long Beach LNG facility.

The LNG industry argues that the federal government should regulate it because of its impact on interstate and international commerce.

Harvey Morris, the principal counsel for the California Public Utilities Commission, said the language in the House energy bill appears designed to shut down the state's lawsuit.

''Some of the things in the House bill are exactly what our litigation is about," Morris said. ''This is much more comprehensive than anything they've done before to try to get language down that will ensure they can knock out the states and have complete control through FERC. . . . It's obviously aimed to cure a lot of the vulnerabilities they have in the current law."

The language was added to a draft version of the energy bill by Republican staffers of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is chaired by Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas. The committee is due to review the bill next week, and Markey, a member of the committee, said he would offer an amendment to remove the language.

Kevin Schweers, a spokesman for Barton on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would not directly address a question about why the language about LNG site regulation was added to the energy bill, but confirmed that it was in the bill draft released yesterday.

He said Barton welcomed ''any proposals or amendments that committee members may offer."