(Dec. 3, 2005) -- Declaring that a proposed 80+ million gallon Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility in the Port of LB "is suffering from a shortfall of both careful attention and regulatory oversight in the public's interest," LB Councilman Frank Colonna has urged the "active involvement" of the leaders of several state and regional regulatory agencies, saying the agencies have "a duty to comment" on the project. Comments on a draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/EIS) prepared by the Port of LB and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are due by Dec. 8.

"More than any other factor, it is the proposed location - attached to and part of the Port - I urge you to take under serious consideration," Councilman Colonna writes in Dec. 1 correspondence separately addressed to CA Coastal Commission chair Meg Caldwell, South Coast Air Quality Management District's Barry Wallerstein and Jan Perry, State Lands Commission chair Cruz Bustamante, CA Pubic Utilities Commission chair Michael Peevey and CA Air Resources Board interim chair Barbara Riordan.

"I fear that if you do not take action, it will become a reality for no other reason than because the people’s representatives failed to stop it," Councilman Colonna writes.

Councilman Colonna's correspondence says the proposed LNG plant "has the potential to become a terrorist target and significantly increases the risk of accident at one of our nation's most essential ports. I share the very real concerns that are being raised right now by our first-line responders - police officers and fire fighters - about a potential terrorist target being built in our city," adding that the Port-FERC draft EIR/EIS [which calls the proposed facility the environmentally preferable/superior alternative that can meet the project objectives and contends none of the potential LNG release scenarios would result in a substantial increase in the potential for incidents that would cause serious injury or death to members of the public] "raises many more troubling questions than it answers."

Councilman Colonna says in the letters, "I am fully aware that California has considerable energy needs now and on a going forward basis. I also understand that our state requires a significant amount of natural gas to generate the electricity that powers much of our lives. I do not oppose the development of an LNG terminal in California or even on the West Coast, just not in an urbanized and industrial area like Long Beach."

The letters conclude:

Related coverage: