A proposal to expand propane storage in the Port of Providence will need a full review, Rhode Island regulators have decided.
Sea 3 Providence currently imports liquefied petroleum gas by ship. The company last year asked regulators for a declaratory order that would allow it to build six new 90,000-gallon storage tanks and start bringing in daily shipments by rail.
Rhode Island’s Energy Facility Siting Board on Thursday decided the proposal would be a significant enough change that it requires a full application.
“This decision is not a decision to deny them a license. It’s only a decision to require more inquiry,” EFSB Chairman Ronald Gerwatowski said at a hearing Thursday.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha praised the decision.
“My Office, alongside community stakeholders, intervened in this matter because we believe that energy facility expansions like this project should be subject to full and comprehensive regulatory oversight given the direct impacts they have on our environment, health, and public safety,” Neronha said.
“There should be no room for regulatory shortcuts, and I am grateful that the EFSB saw things the same way. Today’s decision is a clear win for all Rhode Islanders, and especially those who live, play, and work near this facility.”
Local officials and advocacy groups had asked the EFSB to deny the petition, raising concerns about additional air pollution and increased risk of explosion.
“Sea 3’s proposed rail service addition would mean that LPG would be traveling by rail through densely settled areas where it previously was not, exposing those areas to additional risk,” Clara DeCerbo, Director of the Providence Emergency Management Agency, said in testimony.
Opponents also cited environmental concerns, arguing that a proposal to import more propane would work counter to Rhode Island’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
“They’re hoping to expand their business and to be selling more propane in Rhode Island for years to come. So that’ll have a climate impact,” James Crowley, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation said. “Propane is a fossil fuel. And to the extent that they’re successful in getting new propane customers, those are people that then for a long time, you can’t convert to a cleaner source of heating fuel, like an electric heat pump, for instance.”
The EFSB concluded that both those arguments warranted further scrutiny.
Gerwatowski said that, in a full application, Sea 3 might be able to effectively address the concerns.
“One might be able to conclude in a future proceeding that the risk to public safety weighed against all the other factors that are relevant in a licensing proceeding support a conclusion that the railcar deliveries will not rise to a level of an unacceptable harm to the environment,” he said.
And he added, “I really do want to emphasize that no one should be drawing any conclusions about this board doubting the ability, the intentions, the sincerity and the effort that Sea 3 put not only into this proceeding, but [into] its operating the existing site, or how it would operate a new site, if it were to obtain a license.”
—
Reporter Sofie Rudin can be reached at srudin@thepublicsradio.org.
