The Pre-Filing Process: Working with the Federal Family

1. Managing Major Rights-of-Way November 15, 2004 The Pre-Filing Process:Working with theFederal Family Richard R. Hoffmann, Director Division of Gas – Environment & Engineering

2. Quiz Question #1 • Does FERC regulate all types of pipelines? No, only natural gas pipelines in interstate commerce.

3. 2004 - Who’s Who in DG2E

4. 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

5. 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

6. NEPA Pre-Filing Guidelines • Applicant must: • Propose options for third-party contractor • Agree to file complete application • Preliminary route maps (if possible) • Prepare a Public Participation Plan

7. FERC Activities in Pre-Filing • Assign a PF docket number • Issue a scoping notice • Examine alternatives • Attend site visits and meetings • Initiate preparation of NEPA document • Review draft Resource Reports

8. Identify affected parties Landowners Agencies Others Facilitate: Issue identification Study needs Issue resolution FERC Activities in Pre-Filing

9. FERC Timelines:Traditional vs. NEPA Pre-Filing Process Develop Study Corridor File At FERC Announce Open Season Prepare Resource Reports Traditional - Applicant Conduct Scoping Issue Draft EIS Issue Final EIS Issue Order Traditional - FERC Announce Open Season Develop Study Corridor File At FERC Prepare Resource Reports NEPA Pre-Filing - Applicant Conduct Scoping Review Draft Resource Reports & Prepare DEIS Issue Draft EIS Issue Final EIS Issue Order NEPA Pre-Filing - FERC 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 (months)

10. 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!

11. Average CertificateProcessing Time Can we do it?

12. Major Pipeline ProjectsOn The Horizon • Project Name – • Capacity In MMcf/d & Miles • Coronado – 500 • Kern River Expansion – 500 • KM Advantage – 330, 411 • KM West Texas – 300, 196 • KM Piceance-Cheyenne – 500, 341 • KM Silver Canyon – 750, 455 • KM Wheatland Expansion – 80 • Maritimes Phase IV – 400, 31 • Northwinds – 500, 215 • Bison – 240, 315 • Muncie Lateral – 500, 124 • Petal Gas Storage Project – 500 • Western Frontier – 540, 400 • Freedom Trail – 150, 40 • Trailblazer Expansion – 100, 87 • TransColorado Extension - 750, 100 • Transcontental Gas Pipeline Project -150 • Sun Devil/Phoenix Lateral - 450, 530 • Blue Atlantic – 1,000, 750 • Kern River CA Expansion – 200 • Chicago Expansion Project III - 130 • Eastern Expansion/MGT – 120, 30 • TransColorado Gas Pipeline Project – 300 • Vector Mainline Expansion - 500 8 10 14 9 19 24 17 7 21 5 11 15 2 23 3 13 16 20 18 1 22 6 12 4 November 2004

13. FERC Pipeline and LNG Projects in NEPA Pre-Filing • Weaver’s Cove LNG & Mill River Pipeline: 800 MMcf/d LNG; 2 pipelines totalling 6.11 miles (CP04-36, et.al.) • 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 LNG • 1 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. • Transcontinental Gas Pipeline: 3.8 miles of pipeline loop in NJ. (CP04-396) • Piceance Basin Expansion Project (El Paso): 143 miles of pipeline In Colorado & Wyoming; 350 MMcfd capacity • 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. • Colorado Interstate Gas Co.: Raton Basin 2005 Expansion Project, 99-mi. pipeline looping in CO, KS, & OK; added compression in OK • Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.: MGT Eastern Expansion Project; 30-mi. 120,000 Dth/d 11 1 17 13 5 7 8 14 16 15 18 2 3 19 4 4 12 6 10 9 Originally NEPA Pre-filing, now Pending Certificate Proceeding Began as NEPA Pre-filing; Certificate has been issued Office of Energy Projects NEPA Pre-filing

14. 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 notebook • Concerted effort at coordination plays well with industry, the Hill • Models for other agencies

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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 Opportunities forInvolvement

18. 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 Opportunities forInvolvement

19. 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 quickly • Can include discussion of non-environmental issues

20. The Pre-Filing Process –Continuous Learning • We review draft RFP and contract • Projects must be out of the closet; we don’t like secrets • Applicants need to be clear and realistic about expectations • We ALL need to be proactive about solving problems • Dealing with unrealistic time frames

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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!

24. 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

25. 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

26. Workload Pressures • We’ve all got ‘em! • DG2E staff have a single focus – interstate natural gas facilities • In FY04, had 22 EISs going simultaneously • Renewed emphasis on Energy Policy, streamlining efforts? • We’re all in this together!

27. FERC and BLM: Working TogetherThen and Now

28. 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

29. 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

30. Common Ground • We speak the same language: NEPA • We see the benefit of Pre-Filing involvement • Responsible to a variety of stakeholder interests • Desire to avoid duplication of efforts • We follow projects through from cradle to grave

31. 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?

32. Recent Experience – Success!! • Picacho Pipeline Project • Early 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

33. Recent Experience – Success!! • Kern River • Coordination between FERC Project Manager and BLM nationwide project manager • BLM’s core review team for EIS • Valuable early agency scoping • Sharing of information between various contractors (ours, yours, theirs) • Need for coordinated review and reporting during construction

34. Recent Experience – Success?? • CIG’s Ruby Project • Early 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

35. Recent Experience – Success!! • Transwestern San Juan Expansion • First use of Pre-Filing Process for an Applicant-prepared draft EA • Reviewed by us, BLM, Navajo Nation; comments incorporated before filing with FERC • Issued EA for 30-day comment period < 2 months after filing • Received 3 comments; no changes made to EA • Issued Commission Order < 4 months after filing • Applicant kept changing the project scope

36. Recent Experience –Working Toward Success!! • Entrega and Piceance Expansion Projects • High level discussion of potential issues • Early 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

37. Questions? • Contact information • Richard R. Hoffmann 202-502-8066 • Richard.hoffmann@ferc.gov • FERC website, ferc.gov • Maps and details of filed and on-the-horizon projects