Put LNG siting on hold.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Imagine a fire so fierce that it could burn skin a mile away.

A new study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says a terrorist attack against a tanker ship carrying liquefied natural gas could cause an inferno that intense. It urged the Department of Energy to research the risks of a major fire or gas release caused by natural disasters or terror attacks on LNG tankers.

Until that research is complete, and until Congress can conduct thorough hearings on LNG safety and licensing, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should delay approval of any of the 32 pending applications to build new terminals in 10 states and five offshore areas.

Five sites in Oregon - four on the Columbia River and a fifth at Coos Bay - are among those jockeying for position to receive supercooled natural gas from overseas via giant tanker ships.

Opponents, who fear that LNG plants are potentially unsafe and pose environmental risks, normally could rely on local and state governments to make sure their concerns are addressed. But Congress in 2005 approved an energy bill giving final siting powers for LNG terminals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Unless the courts rule otherwise, that means federal authority trumps state and local laws and regulations. Developers can pledge, as they invariably do, to fully comply with state and local laws, but the fate of their applications lies in the hands of a five-member federal commission in Washington, D.C. Once the commission gives its approval, state and local officials can do nothing to block a project.

Congress should review this sweeping and unwise usurpation of local control, which was part of energy legislation crafted six years ago by Vice President Dick Cheney and a coterie of industry lobbyists. The natural gas industry pushed for federal siting authority because it wanted to avoid the cost and inconvenience of delays caused by local debates over the projects - debates such as those that the proposed Oregon sites are already generating.

The GAO study provides ample evidence that safety issues must be addressed before more terminals are sited. Even though U.S. terminals have operated without a serious accident for decades, the study warns that a terrorist attack on even a double-hulled tanker carrying LNG could cause immense destruction. A natural disaster could prove just as deadly.

The nation's natural gas transmission system is overtaxed, and new pipelines from Canadian and new U.S. natural gas sources are unlikely to keep pace with the country's rapidly growing demand for natural gas. LNG terminals can play a critical role, enabling distributors to ship liquefied gas to water-accessible terminals. From there, the gas can be distributed regionally through pipelines.

But the serious safety issues raised in the new GAO study must first be addressed. Meanwhile, Congress should restore the authority of local and state governments to make the final determinations on where LNG terminals are located.