For Internal use only


Sixth Interstate Natural Gas Facility-Planning Seminar
"Presentation of Staff's Findings"
October 26, 2001
Washington, DC

Link to "Ideas" document:  http://www.ferc.gov/gas/stakeholder.pdf
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
	
Comments due on pre-filing stakeholder "Ideas" document November 9
Overriding theme to all Action Ideas is "earlier is better"
Pre-filing process has a new docket prefix (PF) and is underway; explained in some detail
Staff seems to be looking for best practices, possibly even a vehicle for industry-wide (and public) sharing
		
Highlights

Though FERC's Office of Energy Projects intends to hold more public and industry outreach seminars, this sixth seminar was the last of this series; OEP presented their final draft of "Ideas for Better Stakeholder Involvement in the Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Planning Pre-Filing Process: Industry, Agencies, Citizens and FERC Staff."  

Following this presentation, there is one last round of comments on the document due to the Outreach Team by November 9th.  The Outreach Team's goal is to release a final document by the end of this year.  Overall, the Team wants to know if they're findings are on target, and they have asked for comments that include edits, additions or omissions.  To note, however, is that "The Ideas" is seen as a "living document" by OEP, and it will be changed and updated on an ongoing basis as better practices and ideas emerge.  Again Rich Hoffmann stated that there is no intention for any of this to be included in a rulemaking or policy statement (I believed him this time).   Also, Rich clarified that "we recognize these ideas have to be customized for every project."  [This is, in fact, why the document was not issued as "guidelines" -- industry argued they would become de facto requirements.]

For comment on the document itself, we will look for ETS recommendations from interested groups (there is a link to the document above).  At the end of this memo, there is also a list of general questions from the Outreach Team.  Please send replies or comments on those questions, as well as the "Ideas" document, to me by November 7th for aggregation and inclusion in informal comments to go to the Outreach team (comments will not be filed with the Secretary).

FERC Staff Presentation

The Gas Outreach Team (Rich Hoffmann, Lauren O'Donnell, Jeff Shenot, Howard Wheeler) presented their findings of Action Options for the four major stakeholder sectors: Pipeline Industry, Agency (local, state and resource agencies), Citizen and FERC Staff.  There is a slide presentation that should be made available online soon.  

There was some Q&A, but Staff was particularly eager to hear examples of how some of these ideas have been implemented successfully and if any "best practices" have emerged since the Outreach Team began these discussions.  One worry we have with Staff's preoccupation with best practices is that, at some point, they may want to formalize that idea though the publication of best practices.  They seem to be looking for a vehicle to collect and communicate best practices from pipeline company to pipeline company, and to the public.  Similar to the idea of publishing guidelines which then become de facto requirements, "best practices" can evolve into requirements as well, and such practices vary widely in use and effectiveness across different systems, projects and regions of the country.  Industry may want to protect the importance of variability and customization of approach based on what we know about certain regions and populations.

Some points of interest from the discussion include the emphasis by FERC Staff that pipeline companies appear to be most successful when they get full management support from the top at the very beginning of project development, there is a proactive company-wide philosophy, and the project team includes various parts of the company from the outset (i.e., include public affairs from the beginning as well as engineering, and have them communicate with each other regularly through the team).

NEPA Pre-Filing Process

Attesting to the emerging role of the NEPA Pre-filing Process, there is a new docket prefix, "PF," instituted to allow for public access to information on pre-filed projects.  This process is not an expedited approach that takes less time at FERC, but instead overlays the company's timeline with the FERC NEPA timeline in the development and assessment of the project.  This allows for a certificate sooner for the company in relation to their own project development process.  As an example, a NEPA Pre-Filing process could begin before the exact route has been determined, though the project must be well-defined -- while the company is holding public meetings and choosing the route, FERC could begin the scoping process.  According to OEP's assessment, this could shift the NEPA process back as much as seven months.  Under this scenario, once the company files for its certificate application, a final certificate could be issued in under ten months.

In order to use the pre-filing process, companies must meet certain qualifications.  First, a company should be prepared to fund a third party contractor to help FERC Staff prepare the certificate and NEPA requirements.  Also, there must be a real written commitment to identify and resolve issues.  And the company must be able to demonstrate that the other major NEPA organizations are prepared to cooperate on development of the NEPA assessment.  To qualify to use the NEPA pre-filing, the company files a formal request with the OEP Director answering any concerns FERC Staff may have about the project and the outlook for a successful pre-filing process.  Once accepted, that would trigger the PF docket assignment.  Currently, only the NiSource Greenbriar project is utilizing this process.


Follow-Up Questions from FERC

Along with any comments we may have on the "Ideas" document itself, FERC Staff distributed a set of three questions for consideration and/or comment from industry and the public.  The questions follow  -- note that Staff is particularly eager to collect positive anecdotes on how these ideas are already working on projects:

Part 1: Are we on target?  [Please let us know of any additions, omissions, or editorial changes you recommend for "Ideas for Better Stakeholder Involvement..."]
Part 2:  Ideas for implementation  [Please give us your good ideas about how to put the ideas discussed here today to work.  This can be for projects you are involved with or for other projects of which you are aware.]
Part 3: Examples of successful implementation [Please describe examples of how using these concepts helped make your experience or involvement with a project better.]