federal energy regulatory commission
DESCRIPTION
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. EPAct of 2005 Effect on Review of LNG Facilities & Working with FERC CSO Annual meeting October 18, 2005. Authorities Given to FERC. Regulations issued October 7, 2005 Requires applicant to use PRE-FILING Exclusive siting authority. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
EPAct of 2005 Effect on Review of LNG Facilities
& Working with FERC
CSO Annual meetingOctober 18, 2005
2
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
• Regulations issued October 7, 2005
• Requires applicant to use PRE-FILING
• Exclusive siting authority
Authorities Given to FERC
3
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
• Lead agency• Setting schedule for Federal
authorizations• Agencies shall comply with the
schedule
Authorities Given to FERC(cont’d)
4
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
Authorities Given to FERC
(cont’d)
• FERC maintains a consolidated record
• Agencies must help create this record
• Record is for appeals of CZMA or judicial review of agency actions
5
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
FERC Coordination with States
• Governor appoints an agency to consult
• FERC must consult with this agency
• State agency files a safety advisory report
6
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
FERC Coordination with States (cont’d)
• FERC response to the safety advisory report
• Emergency Response Plan
7
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
FERC Coordination with States (cont’d)
• State safety inspections of LNG facilities
• State may notify FERC of safety violations
• FERC notifies the state of its actions
8
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
FERC Coordination with Dept. of Defense
• FERC/DOD MOU on LNG facilities which may affect an active military installation
• Concurrence of DOD required
9
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
Importance of Cooperating Agency Relationship
• State CZM Agencies should accept invitations to be cooperating agencies
• Help construct the single federal record
• Provide review and comment on advanced draft documents
• Open communication throughout the review process
10
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
Maintaining Options
• Cooperating status does not limit State’s ability to develop conclusions different from FERCs
• Basis of any disagreements may be addressed in the EIS
11
FERC
Office of Energy Projects
Proactive vs. Reactive
• Input and feedback is continual rather than episodic
• Flexible relationship – expectations tailored to meet agencies capabilities
• No surprises