INTERSTATE PIPELINE FORUM Presented by: Rebecca F. Zachas, Esq.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 PENDING FERC ISSUES RELATING TO THE ALASKA NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Presentation by Karol Lyn Newman Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP November.
Advertisements

SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
Introduction to EIS/EA Managing the Environmental & Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Dept. of Transportation.
NEPA Environmental Procedure Pam Truitt, Grants Management Consultant  September 4, 2014.
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
General Information on Permitting Electric Transmission Projects at the California Public Utilities Commission June 2009 Presentation created by the Transmission.
Conservation Commissions and the Kinder Morgan Proposed Gas Pipeline PRESENTATION TO NORTHEAST MUNICIPAL GAS PIPELINE COALITION SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 MASSACHUSETTS.
1 The National Environmental Policy Act in the Oil & Gas Industry.
LNG USA 2005 IQPC Houston, Texas November 9, 2005 Bruce F. Kiely Baker Botts L.L.P. Washington, D.C.
The FERC Review Process and Interaction with State Authorities Council of State Governments July 27, 2005 Office of Energy Projects Federal Energy Regulatory.
Deborah M. Smith United States Magistrate Judge District of Alaska LAWS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED TO FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Second Asian Judges Symposium.
FOIA and NEPA Federal Highway Administration Environmental Conference June 2006.
Conference on Environmental Assessments in Federations A Montana Perspective September 14, 2009 Tom Livers, Deputy Director Montana Department of Environmental.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GITA Seminar on: New Construction Project Lifecycle JW Marriott Houston, TX September 20, 2004 Lonnie Lister, Chief.
Eric J. Tomasi – Project Manager Division of Gas – Environment & Engineering Office of Energy Projects Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Northeast Energy.
BIOENERGY SYMPOSIUM 2013 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION Regulations Ollie Frazier, P.E., MBA.
The Natural Gas Act & NEPA: How will FERC review the proposed Dominion pipeline? Greg Buppert, Southern Environmental Law Center.
FERC and the Development of an Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Robert J. Cupina, Deputy Director Office of Energy Projects Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Deciding How To Apply NEPA Environmental Assessments Findings of No Significant Impact Environmental Impact Statements.
Module 15 Environmental Considerations Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
POWER & PROTECTION ELECTRICITY, ENVIRONMENT, SITING.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Roles Of Sponsor, Consultant and FAA During NEPA Process L O N G B E.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Experimental Permits COMSTAC Stacey M. Zee October 25, 2006 Federal Aviation Administration.
Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project Public Scoping Meetings November 5, 2014 (Sacramento and Red Bluff) State Water Resources Control Board Division of.
Environmental Assessment in Newfoundland & Labrador Environmental Assessment in Federations: Current Dynamics and Emerging Issues Conference Current Dynamics.
Page CDBG Recipients' Workshop Community Finance Division NEPA Environmental Procedures.
OSU Airport – Overview of Master Plan and Draft Environmental Assessment Purpose of an Airport Environmental Assessment (EA) Identify environmental impacts.
Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Region 10 Regional Response Team Northwest Area Committee Seattle, WA February 12, 2014 EFSEC.
Overview of SAFETEA-LU Sections 6001, 6002, 3005, and 3006 TRB January 13, 2008 Shari Schaftlein FHWA Project Development & Environmental Review Washington,
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
Buckhorn Mountain EIS Project August Buckhorn Mountain Exploration Project Echo Bay Exploration is seeking federal and state authorization for.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
State Permitting Issues for Wind Developments Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Wind Summit 19 September 2005 Jennifer A. DeCesaro Energy Policy Specialist.
Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Jim Luce, EFSEC Chair Port Of Vancouver Presentation Vancouver, WA June 27, 2013 EFSEC These Slides.
Energy, Environmental Impacts, and Sustainable Development Presented by Cat Shrier, Ph.D., P.G. Water Resources Planner (403)
Highway Location Study CE 453 Lecture 4 See also lab 2 and lab 4 instructions, and EIS lecture notes See also 04 DOT development process.doc Refs:
INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 4(f) Presented by Ian Chidister Environmental Program Manager FHWA – Wisconsin Division December 4, 2013.
1 Workshop on the Directive 96/61/EC concerning (IPPC) Integrated pollution prevention and control INFRA Public participation & access to environmental.
ODOE Presentations and EFSC Standards Presented by Max Woods and Sarah Esterson September 18, 2015.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
WIND ENERGY SITING REFORM LEGISLATION Kenneth Kimmell, General Counsel, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N A T I O N A L O C E A N I C A N D A T M O S P H E R I C A D M I N I S T R A T I O N State.
NEPA Environmental Procedure Pam Truitt, Grants Specialist  September 10, 2015.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Pre-Filing Process IRWA/AI January 13-14, 2009 IRWA/AI.
1.What is the standard relicensing process in the U.S. and what is the ALP (Alternative Licensing Process) ? 2.How did we convince FERC to agree to an.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
©2011 Cengage Learning. Chapter 15 ©2011 Cengage Learning REQUIRED GOVERNMENT REPORTS.
Locally Administered Federal-Aid Project Initiation Workshop Prospectus Part 3 and NEPA Requirements Presenter: Howard Postovit; ODOT Region 5 Region Environmental.
1 CDBG and Environmental Review For Local Officials.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY PROGRAM PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW (33 CFR Part 320) August 12, 2005.
Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project Decommissioning FERC Project No. 606 Shasta County Board of Supervisors March 4, 2008.
FERC Office of Energy Projects 1 Richard Hoffmann, Director Division of Gas – Environment & Engineering Office of Energy Projects Policies Affecting.
Cooperating Agency Status Presented by Horst Greczmiel Associate Director, NEPA Oversight Council on Environmental Quality Washington, DC September 14,
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
LBNE Environmental Assessment NEPA Informational Meeting May 23, 2013 Rod Walton, LBNE NEPA Manager.
Delaware County Cooperative Extension May 17, 2012 Constitution Pipeline Project C onstitution Pipeline Company, LLC.
Federal Aviation Administration ARP SOP No SOP for CATEX Determinations Effective Date: Oct. 01, 2014 February 2016.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 1 Overview of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Roland W. Wentworth Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline NCEDA MidWinter Conference March 9, 2016.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline Fayetteville Regional Association of Realtors March 15, 2016.
Integration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) NEPA and NHPA A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and.
CE 360Dr SaMeH1 Environmental Eng. 1 (CE 360) Associate Professor of Environmental Eng. Civil Engineering Department Engineering College Majma’ah University.
Overview What is the CEQA environmental review process?
SEQRA as a Tool to Review Energy Projects
Environmental Requirements and planning grants
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha
Presentation transcript:

INTERSTATE PIPELINE FORUM Presented by: Rebecca F. Zachas, Esq.

AN INTERSTATE PIPELINE IN YOUR TOWN? Federal Law applies over interstate pipelines – NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 15 U.S.C. §717f(c): FERC authority to authorize construction or extension of interstate pipeline projects Certificates of “public convenience and necessity” Eminent domain once certificate is granted – Local regulations preempted  Local officials play an important role (application process, construction and maintenance)

NORTHEAST ENERGY DIRECT Northeast Energy Direct (“NED”) Project proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (“TGP”), a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. High-pressure, 36-inch pipeline with two sections of proposed extension: from Wright, New York to Dracut, Massachusetts from Franklin, Pennsylvania to Wright, New York Estimated cost of $2.75 billion to $3.75 billion Project Status – FERC Pre-filing filed September 15, 2014 – Route change (through NH) filed December 8, 2014 – BRPC Scoping Comments filed on October 15, 2015 – FERC Application (including final ER) filed November 20, 2015 – Notice of Application issued on December 7, 2015 – Town of Schodack Intervention filed December 2015 – TGP Response to Interventions, Comments and Protests filed March 22, 2016 – Proposed Construction Start Date: January 2017 – Estimated Placed in Service Date: November 2018

USEFUL ACRONYMS IN THE PIPELINE PROCESS EA = Environmental Assessment EIS = Environmental Impact Statement DEIS = Draft Environmental Impact Statement FEIS = Final Environmental Impact Statement ER = Environmental Report FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NGA = Natural Gas Act U.S. DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation

PHASES AND TIMING OF PROJECT REVIEW Project development by pipeline FERC Pre-Filing – FERC staff works with applicant – Timeframe: minimum 6 months (NED PF was 14 months) FERC Application Review – No statutory time limits for review – Once an application is filed, the average time for FERC to issue an order is approximately 12 months – Complex, controversial projects may take additional time Post-FERC Order (rehearing; compliance with conditions) and Judicial Review

TOWN PARTICIPATION Pre-Filing Process: – Contact the project sponsor and/or FERC with questions and concerns – Write comments on environmental impact concerns – Attend pipeline-led open houses (route, identify town issues) Application Process: – File intervention (on FERC’s service list to receive all filings in docket) – File comments, impact studies, expert evidence (paper hearings) – Attend FERC-led scoping meetings – Request conditions in FERC Order – Rehearing/post-certificate judicial review Other: – Participate in permitting proceedings – Community Benefit Agreements

PREEMPTION: OCCUPYING THE FIELD FERC has broad authority to grant a certificate for pipelines under NGA – Federal courts have found: NGA and the accompanying federal regulations “occupy the field” with respect to siting, construction, or operation of natural gas facilities – Duplicative state and local permitting processes – such as siting or zoning – are preempted by federal law What is not preempted? – Federally-required state certification programs Section 401 Water Quality Certificate/Federal Water Pollution Control Act the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 the Clean Air Act

PREEMPTION: COOPERATION Despite preemption, FERC encourages cooperation between pipelines and local authorities -Where state or local agencies require environmental permits or propose conditions to protect local resources (e.g., state endangered species), FERC frequently makes compliance with these requirements a condition of the certificate -State agencies and localities may participate in the process State siting Board intervention State and local actions: – must be consistent with the conditions of this certificate – may not prohibit or unreasonably delay the construction and operation of the pipeline facilities

OTHER PERMITS/AUTHORIZATIONS Other state and local permits and authorizations may include: – road opening permit – erosion and sedimentation control – wetlands crossings – Article 97 authorization from the Massachusetts legislature to obtain easement rights on conservation lands owned by the state or a town or city – State EPA filing with FERC FERC regulations require certificate-related final decisions from other agencies no later than 90 days after FERC issues its final environmental document

FERC PROCESS: PRE-FILING Voluntary process for pipelines File for approval to enter pre-filing process Pipeline conducts informational open houses Work collaboratively with FERC staff Identify project issues Determine scope of environmental review (EA/EIS)

FERC REVIEW: APPLICATION Non-Environmental Review – Financially viable project – Market Support/Need – Route/Impact on landowners and communities – Tariff – rates, terms & conditions of service Environmental Review under NEPA – Conducted by FERC (Energy Policy Act of 2005) – Level of impacts: significant - Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) less than significant - Environmental Assessment (“EA”) finding of no significant impact (“FONSIE”)

FERC APPLICATION: STANDARD OF REVIEW Project must be found to be in the “public convenience and necessity.” Threshold question: Is the project financially prepared to stand on its own without subsidies from existing customers? Balancing Test: Do overall public benefits outweigh adverse impacts? – Public Benefits are case specific: meeting unserved demand, eliminating bottlenecks, access to new supplies, lower costs to consumers, competitive alternatives, electric reliability, advancing clean air objectives Is there need? (is the pipeline subscribed? Overbuilding?) – Adverse Impacts (eliminated or mitigated?) : on existing customers of the pipeline (rate increase, service degradation) on existing pipelines in the market and their captive customers (loss of market share, left with unsubscribed capacity) on landowners and communities affected by the route of the new pipeline (acquire necessary ROW by negotiation, eminent domain, environmental)

NEPA Review FERC must integrate environmental values into its decision-making Consider potential impacts of pipeline and reasonable alternatives FERC seeks comments from other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project, the applicant and the public Review includes: Ecology – fish, wildlife, vegetation Water Resources Cultural Resources – historic preservation Land use – recreation, aesthetics Soils and geology Air and noise Socioeconomic Impacts Alternatives Cumulative impact of pipeline projects

FERC APPLICATION: OVERVIEW

FERC APPLICATION OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)

FERC ORDER: CONDITIONS NGA Section 7(e): statutory authority to place conditions on its Order Public may request conditions

EMINENT DOMAIN NGA Section 7(h) Pipeline may use the eminent domain process after FERC’s order issuing its certification Used when pipeline cannot acquire land by contract or agree to compensation with landowner FERC: eminent domain only as a last resort

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS Timing: leverage during FERC process Provisions: – Construction – Environmental Mitigation – Compensation – Compliance with local regulations/process – Private Landowner Protections – Economic Considerations – Maintenance File with FERC to have included in certificate order

STRATEGIC OPTIONS Participation (alone, as part of a group, through BRPC, other) Objectives – avoid, minimize and mitigate Communication of concerns, impacts, mitigation to pipeline and FERC Resource limitations

NEXT STEPS