FERC Office of Energy Projects The Pre-Filing Process: Working with the Federal Family Richard R. Hoffmann, Director Division of Gas – Environment & Engineering.

FERC

Office of Energy Projects

The Pre-Filing Process:Working with theFederal Family

Richard R. Hoffmann, DirectorDivision of Gas – Environment &

Engineering

Managing Major Rights-of-Way November 15, 2004

FERC


Quiz Question #1

Does FERC regulate all types of pipelines?

No, only natural gas pipelines in interstate commerce.

FERC


2004 - Who’s Who in DG2E

Richard HoffmannDirector

Michael BoyleChief, Gas 1

John LeissChief, Gas 2

Lon ListerChief, Gas 3

Lauren O’DonnellDeputy Director

Chris ZerbyChief, LNGE

Laurie BorosDave GalloDave HanobicSaifa HasinDan LaffoonAlisa LykensRich McGuireDoreen ProctorLarry SauterDave Swearingen

Van ButtonRoberta CoulterHerman DerJennifer KerriganMedha KochharMagdelene Mancos John PeconomJuan PolitDoug SipeJoyce TurnerLaura TurnerJoanne WachholderJohn Wisniewski

Ellen Armbruster

Charlie Brown

Monica DeAngelo

Shannon Dunn

Paul Friedman

Shannon Jones

Jim Martin

Rafael Montag

Eric Tomasi

Serge Theroux

Steve Busch

Heather Ferree

Ken Frye

Kandi Jacaman

Kareem Monib

Thach Nguyen

Ghanshyam Patel

Phil Suter

Terry Turpin

Hugh Thomas

FERC


Newly Created Positions

Senior Technical Experts:

Alisa Lykens, Outreach 202-502-

8766

Rich McGuire, Compliance 202-502-

6177

Medha Kochhar, T&E Species 202-502-

8964

FERC


NEPA Pre-Filing Guidelines

Applicant must:

File a written request

Explain reasons and timing considerations

Verify other major state and federal

agencies support the process

Describe consultations completed to date

FERC


Applicant must:

Propose options for third-party

contractor

Agree to file complete application

Preliminary route maps (if possible)

Prepare a Public Participation Plan

NEPA Pre-Filing Guidelines

FERC


Assign a PF docket numberIssue a scoping noticeExamine alternativesAttend site visits and meetingsInitiate preparation of NEPA

documentReview draft Resource Reports

FERC Activities in Pre-Filing

FERC


Identify affected parties Landowners Agencies Others

Facilitate: Issue identification Study needs Issue resolution

FERC Activities in Pre-Filing

FERC


FERC Timelines:Traditional vs. NEPA Pre-Filing Process

AnnounceOpen

Season

AnnounceOpen

Season

Develop

StudyCorrido

r

DevelopStudy

Corridor

Conduct

Scoping

Conduct

Scoping

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Review DraftResource Reports& Prepare DEIS

IssueDraftEIS

IssueDraftEIS

FileAt

FERC

IssueOrder

IssueOrder

FileAt

FERC

Prepare ResourceReports

Prepare ResourceReports

IssueFinalEIS

IssueFinalEIS

(months)

Traditional - Applicant

Traditional - FERC

NEPA Pre-Filing - Applicant

NEPA Pre-Filing - FERC

FERC


Benefits of NEPA Pre-Filing

More interactive NEPA process, no shortcuts

Earlier, more direct involvement by FERC, other agencies, landowners

Goal of “no surprises” Time savings realized only if we are

working together with stakeholders FERC staff is an advocate of the Process,

not the Project!

FERC


Average CertificateProcessing Time

475 469 448

300 ?

0

100

200

300

400

500

Act

ual

No. o

f D

ays

2002 2003 2004 2005

Fiscal YearPerformance Target for Major Cases - 480 Days

Can we do it?

FERC


Major Pipeline ProjectsOn The Horizon

19

Project Name – Capacity In MMcf/d & Miles1. Coronado – 5002. Kern River Expansion – 5003. KM Advantage – 330, 4114. KM West Texas – 300, 1965. KM Piceance-Cheyenne – 500,

3416. KM Silver Canyon – 750, 4557. KM Wheatland Expansion – 808. Maritimes Phase IV – 400, 319. Northwinds – 500, 21510. Bison – 240, 31511. Muncie Lateral – 500, 12412. Petal Gas Storage Project – 50013. Western Frontier – 540, 40014. Freedom Trail – 150, 4015. Trailblazer Expansion – 100, 8716. TransColorado Extension - 750,

10017. Transcontental Gas Pipeline

Project -15018. Sun Devil/Phoenix Lateral -

450, 53019. Blue Atlantic – 1,000, 75020. Kern River CA Expansion – 20021. Chicago Expansion Project III -

13022. Eastern Expansion/MGT – 120,

3023. TransColorado Gas Pipeline

Project – 30024. Vector Mainline Expansion -

500

1

23

4

6

7

910

13

14

15

1618

8

5 11

12

17

20

21

22

23

24

November 2004

1. Weaver’s Cove LNG & Mill River Pipeline: 800 MMcf/d LNG; 2 pipelines totalling 6.11 miles (CP04-36, et.al.)

2. Sound Energy Solutions Long Beach LNG (Mitsubishi): 700 MMcf/d LNG; 2.3 mile pipeline (CP04-58)

3. San Juan Expansion (Transwestern): 375 MMcf/d, 72.6 miles (CP04-104). Certificate issued 8-5-04, 11 months after NEPA Pre-file initiated

4. Golden Pass LNG (ExxonMobil): 2.0 Bcf/d (CP04-386, et. al.)

5. Crown Landing LNG (BP): 1.2 Bcf/d (CP04-411, et.al.)Logan Lateral (Texas Eastern): 12 miles PL(CP04-416)

6. Vista del Sol LNG (ExxonMobil): 1.1 Bcf/d (CP04-395, et.al.)

7. Southern System Expansion (Questar): 102 MMcf/d, 18 miles

8. Entrega Gas Pipeline (EnCana): 1.5 Bcf/d; 327 miles (CP04-413)

9. Seafarer US Pipeline System (El Paso): 41 miles jurisdictional (128 total) PL from High Rock Bahamas LNG

10. Ingleside Energy Center LNG1 Bcf/d; 26 mile pipeline (CP05-13, et. al.)

11. Northwest Pipeline Corporation: Capacity Replacement Project, 80.7 mi.; 36" PL loop

12. Sempra Energy International: Port Arthur LNG; 1.5 Bcfd sendout capacity; 2 interconnecting pipelines totaling 73 miles.

13. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline: 3.8 miles of pipeline loop in NJ. (CP04-396)

14. Piceance Basin Expansion Project (El Paso): 143 miles of pipeline In Colorado & Wyoming; 350 MMcfd capacity

15. Hardy Storage Field; Virginia Pipeline Looping Project (Columbia): 37.5 miles of PL loop & development of storage field.

16. Dominion Cove Point LNG; Dominion Transmission: Increase sendout capacity by 800 MMcfd; additional 149 miles of pipeline in Maryland and Pennsylvania.

17. Empire State Pipeline: Empire Connector Project: 80-mi, 24-inch; 22,000 HP compression adding 250,000 Dth capacity in New York upstream of Millennium.

18. Colorado Interstate Gas Co.: Raton Basin 2005 Expansion Project, 99-mi. pipeline looping in CO, KS, & OK; added compression in OK

19. Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.: MGT Eastern Expansion Project; 30-mi. 120,000 Dth/d

FERC

3

7 14

Pipeline and LNG Projects in NEPA Pre-Filing


9

10

2

1

5

Originally NEPA Pre-filing, now Pending Certificate Proceeding

NEPA Pre-filing

12

11

1516

44

6

1317

Began as NEPA Pre-filing;Certificate has been issued

8

1819

FERC


Kudos for the Federal Family

BLM and FS were the first agencies to develop implementing guidance for the Interagency Agreement Copies of the guidance documents

are in your notebookConcerted effort at coordination

plays well with industry, the HillModels for other agencies

FERC


What It Means To BLM

Federal agencies are pulling together from the beginning

Establishing consistent key agency contacts Ability to get consistent and timely

information from project sponsors Avoiding duplication Marshalling resources early Better project design, quicker decision

process

FERC


Quiz Question #2

According to the May 2002 Interagency Agreement on interstate natural gas pipelines, how is the Lead Agency determined?

FERC will be the lead agency unless, at the request of another Participating Agency (or after FERC’s own review), FERC determines that another agency better meets the CEQ lead agency requirements.

FERC


Opportunities forInvolvement

The FERC Process: Request cooperating

agency participation Issue Notice of the PF

Process or Application Issue Notice of Intent to

prepare the EA/EIS Hold scoping meetings

Review draft and/or final Resource Reports

BLM/FS Input: Confirm cooperating

agency status Use our notice to fulfill

your requirements Send initial comments

to FERC Participate in agency

and public scoping meetings

Review draft and/or final Resource Reports

FERC


Opportunities forInvolvement

The FERC Process: Send Preliminary DEIS to

cooperating agencies Issue DEIS Hold public meetings on

DEIS Send Preliminary FEIS to

cooperating agencies Issue FEIS Issue a Commission

Order

BLM/FS Input: Send comments, fill in

the blanks

Sit back and relax

Participate in Public Meetings

Send comments, fill in the blanks

Sit back and relax

Issue Record of Decision

FERC


Expanded Use Of ThePre-Filing Process

Process works for major EAs Option of providing either 3rd-party

contractor or applicant prepared draft EA If project scope expands, staff may require

3rd-party contractor Company open houses may be sufficient for

scoping Move from draft EA to issued document very

quicklyCan include discussion of non-

environmental issues

FERC


The Pre-Filing Process –Continuous Learning

We review draft RFP and contractProjects must be out of the closet;

we don’t like secretsApplicants need to be clear and

realistic about expectationsWe ALL need to be proactive about

solving problemsDealing with unrealistic time frames

FERC


NEPA at FERC

The EA/EIS is the Commission staff’s analysis The EA/EIS contains conclusions regarding

impacts and make recommendations to the Commission for mitigation

The EA/EIS is only one part of the record on which the Commission will base its decision

Our Record of Decision is the Commission’s Order either approving or denying the project

FERC


NEPA at FERC

Cultural resources and T/E Species surveys

of the proposed route must be completed

before an application is submitted to FERC

The EA/EIS presents a detailed analysis

(equal level of analysis, T/E & CR surveys)

of only those alternatives likely to be

preferable to the proposal

FERC


NEPA at FERC

Applicants cannot conduct surveys on private land if landowners object

Requirements on Federal land will often be different from those on private/state land

On Federal land, what you folks want, you get!

FERC


NEPA at FERC

Cultural Resources Survey requirements on private land determined

through applicant consultation with SHPO Survey requirements on public land based on

applicant consultation with the land manager FERC makes determinations of eligibility and

effect on private land, consults with land manager on Federal/state land

Native American consultation will be directed by FERC, in consultation with SHPO, land managers

The need for a Programmatic Agreement will be determined once we determine that the project will adversely affect an eligible cultural resource

FERC


NEPA at FERC

Biological Assessment EA will be BA Normally DEIS will be BA Separate BA at the request of U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service

Biological Opinion Included in FEIS if possible If not included in FEIS, Commission Order

will be conditioned on completion of consultation with FWS

FERC


Workload Pressures

We’ve all got ‘em!DG2E staff have a single focus –

interstate natural gas facilitiesIn FY04, had 22 EISs going

simultaneouslyRenewed emphasis on Energy

Policy, streamlining efforts?We’re all in this together!

FERC


Working TogetherThen and Now

FERC and BLM:

FERC


Quiz Question #3

Does FERC establish cost recovery agreements for each project?

No. The Commission recovers costs through annual charges to the regulated industries; however, these fees do not directly fund project review

FERC


Us and BLM,We Go Way Back…

FERC Lead Altamont (1991) – Larry Sauter Northwest Expansion (1992) – Lauren O’Donnell Tuscarora (1995) – Alisa Lykens Southern Trails (2000) – Larry Sauter North Baja (2001) – Mike Boyle Kern River (1987 & 2002) – Larry Sauter, Mike

Boyle Grasslands (2003) – Rich McGuire

BLM Lead TransColorado (1992) – Mike Boyle QWK (2001) – Mike Boyle

FERC


Common Ground

We speak the same language: NEPAWe see the benefit of Pre-Filing

involvementResponsible to a variety of

stakeholder interestsDesire to avoid duplication of effortsWe follow projects through from

cradle to grave

FERC


Recent Experiences:Issues for Discussion

Who should the applicant approach first, BLM or FERC?

How does BLM establish the lead office?

How do we facilitate survey access for the applicants?

What lessons have we learned from recent projects?

FERC


Recent Experience – Success!!

Picacho Pipeline ProjectEarly discussions of how to coordinate the

efforts

Constant communication between the

agencies

Agreement on when to cut our losses

Applicant not providing timely or consistent

information

FERC



Kern RiverCoordination between FERC Project Manager

and BLM nationwide project managerBLM’s core review team for EISValuable early agency scopingSharing of information between various

contractors (ours, yours, theirs) Need for coordinated review and reporting

during construction

FERC


Recent Experience – Success??

CIG’s Ruby ProjectEarly coordination meeting set up by BLM

Significant delay in Applicant’s ability to

gain access from BLM for cultural resource

surveys

Confusion over need for Programmatic

Agreement

False start, project not ripe for processing

FERC



Transwestern San Juan ExpansionFirst use of Pre-Filing Process for an Applicant-

prepared draft EAReviewed by us, BLM, Navajo Nation; comments

incorporated before filing with FERCIssued EA for 30-day comment period < 2

months after filingReceived 3 comments; no changes made to EAIssued Commission Order < 4 months after filing Applicant kept changing the project scope

FERC


Recent Experience –Working Toward Success!!

Entrega and Piceance Expansion ProjectsHigh level discussion of potential issuesEarly agreement on how to proceed Applicants approached BLM to start work

prior to contacting the FERC Two projects, two EISs, very similar route,

dissimilar timing Differing view of connected

action/nonjurisdictional facilities

FERC


Questions?

Contact information

Richard R. Hoffmann 202-502-8066

[email protected]

FERC website, ferc.gov

Maps and details of filed and on-the-

horizon projects

FERC Office of Energy Projects The Pre-Filing Process: Working with the Federal Family Richard R. Hoffmann, Director Division of Gas – Environment & Engineering.

Documents

prefiling slide

nepa prefiling process

stakeholders ferc staff

date slide

interactive nepa process

issue identification

natural gas pipelines

federal agencies