Senator Jack Reed stated, I am pleased that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has reaffirmed its decision to reject the proposed construction of an LNG storage facility in Providence."Unfortunately LNG supertankers serving the Weavers Cove LNG terminals would pass by several Rhode Island towns and cities and along miles of populated coastline."In its process for approving the siting of these terminals FERC has chronically failed to take into consideration the safety of citizens and how to balance security with the long-term, regional energy needs of New England. "I will continue to work with my colleagues in Rhode Island and Massachusetts to discuss what we can now do to stop the Weavers Cove decision. It is my hope that the Army Corps of Engineers rejects dredging permits for this projectOn January 17, 2006, Senator Jack Reed, and Congressmen Patrick Kennedy and Jim Langevin sent a letter urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to reject a request by KeySpan LNG and Algonquin Gas Transmission for a rehearing for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility in Providence.Text of the letter follows:We write to urge the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject a request from KeySpan LNG, L.P. BG LNG Services, LLC (BGLS) and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC for a rehearing for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility in Providence, Rhode Island. Further, we encourage FERC to grant a request for a rehearing on its approval of the Weavers Cove Energy LNG marine terminal in Fall River, Massachusetts. While we recognize that natural gas is an important and growing component of New Englands energy supply, we are extremely concerned about the safety and security risks associated with siting LNG marine terminals in urban communities and requiring LNG tankers to pass by eleven Rhode Island towns and cities and more than 25 miles of densely populated coastline. We have long worked with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to identify safer ways to deliver LNG to our region. Unfortunately, the Commission refused to consider a regional approach to LNG terminal siting, one that would take a comprehensive look at all the options, including offshore terminals, remote facilities that are being built in Canada, and other sites in the northeastern United States that are not in the heart of densely populated urban communities. We urge the rejection of these LNG proposals for a variety of reasons, including a concern that the approval process for LNG terminals is deeply flawed and leaves too many questions unanswered. We do not know exactly what impact the arrival and departure of 100 or more LNG tankers each year will have on recreational and commercial traffic on Narragansett Bay, or on transportation in the region due to bridge closures during LNG tanker transits. Further, the Coast Guard has told our offices repeatedly that it does not have the resources to adequately secure these LNG tankers and marine terminals while fulfilling its other post-9/11 responsibilities. Adequate security would require a whole new level of personnel and infrastructure, yet we have no cost estimate and no guarantee that new federal resources will be made available. Similarly, a tremendous new burden will be placed on our state and local law enforcement and first responder agencies.We hope we can work with FERC to explore other means, including offshore facilities, to bring more natural gas to our region while minimizing the risk to our citizens. Thank you for your attention to this matter.