PORTSMOUTH — The state agency reviewing National Grid’s application for a license to mobilize and operate a liquified natural gas (LNG) vaporization facility at Old Mill Lane formally requested advisory opinions from a host of local and state agencies last week.

Narragansett Electric Company, doing business as National Grid, has been operating the facility, located within a residential neighborhood, during periods of peak loads in the winter after a severe outage on Aquidneck Island in January 2019. 

Initially, National Grid said it planned to keep LNG at the seasonal facility for up to 10 more years. But last year, the utility announced it was seeking to use the Old Mill Lane facility as long as needed, and that it was the only viable option providing uninterrupted service of the natural gas distribution system on the island. Critics of the plan, including the Town Council, say the utility should seek alternate methods to remedy its longterm gas supply needs.

The R.I. Energy Facility Siting Board (EFSB) voted 3-0 during a 37-minute hearing Aug. 24 to designate the agencies that will be asked for advisory opinions on the application. There was no public comment allowed at the meeting.

The first is the R.I. Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which EFSB Chairman Ron Gerwatowski also serves as director. The PUC is being asked its opinion on several issues, including:

• Whether the license for the facility should contain an expiration date, and the extent to which a moratorium on new gas connections on the island should contribute to shortening the period of the facility’s need.

• Whether the facility is cost-justified, including an evaluation of alternatives that could eliminate the need for the facility if it’s cost-effective for consumers.

• Whether the facility is expected to produce and perform reliability functions at the lowest reasonable cost to the consumer in compliance with all applicable laws.

• An estimation of hypothetical emissions impacts if an island-wide moratorium on new gas connections was imposed, considering the alternative hearing sources available to the public. PUC may hire experts if needed to assist in the performance of its evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions impacts over time for the expected life of the projects, including any cost-effective non-infrastructure options.

Here are the other agencies to be asked for advisory opinions, including five from Portsmouth: 

• The R.I. Division of Statewide Planning will be asked about the socioeconomic impact of the proposed facility, as well as its “consistency” and compliance with the state guide plan. “Consideration must be given to the benefits associated with having a reliable supply of natural gas to serve the winter heating on Aquidneck Island, while citizens on the island continue to depend upon natural gas as a primary heating resource, including the avoidance of gas system outages similar to what occurred in January of 2019,” Gerwatowski said.

• The R.I. Department of Health will be asked about potential health concerns related to the facility’s impact of quality drinking water. “The application indicates there may be groundwater near. While all the folks who live nearby (use public water), there may be some wells that could be affected,” Gerwatowski said.

• The Portsmouth Zoning Board of Review will be asked its advisory opinion on whether the proposed facility will meet the zoning ordinance and whether any variance, including a special use or dimensional variance, should be granted.

• The Portsmouth Planning Board will be asked whether a major variance is required for the facility, and whether National Grid will be able to comply with the town’s Comprehensive Community Plan.

• The Portsmouth Town Council will be asked whether the project will meet the town’s noise ordinance limits and, if not, whether an exemption should be granted.

• The Portsmouth building inspector will be asked to comment on whether National Grid’s soil erosion and sediment control plan would conform to the town’s Soil Erosion Sediment Control Ordinance, as well as whether the project would meet the requirements of other municipal ordinances.

• The Portsmouth Department of Public Works will be asked about the potential impact on traffic and road conditions related to construction and operation of the facility on town roads.

• The R.I. Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission will be asked to form an opinion as to whether the proposal is subject to its jurisdiction and, if so, whether it conform to its requirements, or if any variances or exceptions should be granted.

• The R.I. Department of Environmental Management will be asked about the potential impact on local fish and wildlife that would be caused by disruption of the habitat, and whether the facility would do unacceptable harm to the environment.

Objections pile up

Meanwhile, the EFSB continues to receive written public comment filings objecting to the proposal.

Stephen and Lori MacDonald, who have lived at 124 Old Mill Lane for 30 years, wrote on Aug. 23 that the “operational noise projected from this site is unacceptable for a residential area,” and that the number of trucks required during a maximum peak load “is a recipe for a tragic accident. It does not belong in this neighborhood.”

Bill Welch, of 180 Mitchell's Lane, wrote on Aug. 12: “Having this dangerous facility in the middle of our suburban neighborhood indefinitely is unacceptable.”

Lawrence Silvia, of 24 Old Mill Lane, wrote on Aug. 22 that EFSB should not grant National Grid any further extensions. “Instead of looking for ways to upgrade and improve their system, they just continue to try to force the board into the extension. They are putting all their effort into the cheapest way for them,” Silvia said.

Brian Burns, of Peckham Avenue in Middletown, stated in an Aug. 11 letter that the board should require National Grid to develop a more sustainable longterm solution. “It seems as though there has been little effort made for a longterm solution to the energy problems facing the island and National Grid is simply defaulting to using what is existing, which was in no way designed or approved for the proposed utilization of the site,” Burns stated.