The proposal by California's gas utilities to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on the coast has generated five years of controversy, stalemates among agencies, and new state legislation, with no final decision yet in sight. Different perceptions of the public safety risks from LNG have played a major role in this controversy. Agencies and other parties have generally become increasingly conservative in regarding and regulating these risks as the LNG issue has continued. How agencies viewed the seriousness of the risks depended on how close they were to neighborhoods that might be affected, whether they had LNG‐related responsibilities or wanted such responsibilities, their experience with LNG and other hazardous materials, and the professional orientation of their staffs. The track record of LNG risk assessments is discussed, and some prescriptions are presented to make the LNG terminal review process more sensible.