Coordinated Processing of NGA Section 3 and 7 Proceedings; Order Delegating Authority, 70801-70802 [05-23139]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices
Hydrogen Program.) The selection team
will consider many criteria, including
and not limited to: (a) Scientific or
technical expertise, knowledge, and
experience; (b) stakeholder
representation as described in the Act;
(c) availability and willingness to serve;
and (d) skills working in committees,
subcommittees and advisory panels.
Structured interviews with some
candidates may also occur.
The selection team will make
recommendations regarding
membership to the Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE). The Assistant Secretary
for EERE will submit a list of
recommended candidates to the
Secretary for review and selection of
Committee members.
Candidates selected by the Secretary
of Energy to serve as SGEs will be
required to fill out the Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Special
Government Employees Serving on
Federal Advisory Committees at the
U.S. Department of Energy and other
forms incidental to Federal
appointment. The confidential financial
disclosure form allows government
officials to determine whether there is a
conflict between the special
Government employee’s public
responsibilities and private interests
and activities, or the appearance of a
lack of impartiality, as defined by
statute and regulation. The form may be
viewed from the following URL address:
https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/
advisory_panels.html.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
17, 2005.
Douglas L. Faulkner,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 05–23174 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. PL06–2–000]
Coordinated Processing of NGA
Section 3 and 7 Proceedings; Order
Delegating Authority
Issued November 17, 2005.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,
Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and
Suedeen G. Kelly.
1. Section 313 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) 1 amends
section 15 of the Natural Gas Act
1 Pub.
L. No. 109–58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Nov 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
(NGA) 2 to provide the Commission with
additional authority to ensure the
expeditious processing of natural gas
project proposals. The Commission
anticipates initiating a rulemaking
proceeding in the near future to
promulgate regulations in response to
the EPAct 2005 amendments. In the
interim, this order delegates to staff the
authority to execute certain of the
responsibilities vested with the
Commission by EPAct 2005 section 313.
Introduction
2. EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1)
directs the Commission to establish a
schedule for all federal permits,
authorizations, certificates, opinions, or
other approvals required for an NGA
section 3 or 7 proposal.3 Section
313(b)(2) then declares that ‘‘[e]ach
Federal and State agency considering an
aspect of an application for Federal
authorization shall cooperate with the
Commission and comply with the
deadlines established by the
Commission.’’ In addition, section
313(b)(1) designates the Commission ‘‘as
the lead agency for the purposes of
coordinating all applicable Federal
authorizations and for the purposes of
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969’’
(NEPA).4
3. Pending issuance of regulations
implementing these provisions of EPAct
2005, the Commission is delegating to
the Director of the Office of Energy
Projects (OEP) the authority to establish
deadlines for all federal authorizations
necessary for NGA section 3 and 7
proposals.
Background
4. Under NGA sections 3 and 7, the
Commission grants or denies
applications for proposed natural gas
projects. The construction or operation
of natural gas projects typically require
additional permits, authorizations,
certificates, opinions, and approvals
issued by other federal agencies and by
state agencies acting pursuant to
delegated federal authority. Approval by
the Commission to proceed with a
proposal is contingent on favorable
findings by these other agencies. EPAct
2005 section 313(c)(1) directs the
Commission to establish a schedule for
all federal authorizations required with
respect to an application under NGA
section 3 or 7.
2 15
U.S.C. 717n (2000).
section 3 applies to projects designed to
import or export natural gas; NGA section 7 applies
to projects designed to transport or sell natural gas
in interstate commerce.
4 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. (2000).
3 NGA
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70801
5. In this role, EPAct 2005 section
313(c)(1)(A) compels the Commission to
‘‘ensure expeditious completion’’ of
NGA section 3 and 7 proceedings, while
section 313(c) (1)(B) directs the
Commission to ‘‘comply with applicable
schedules established by Federal law.’’
Thus, the Commission is responsible for
(1) coordinating the actions of those
federal and state agencies with authority
to issue federal authorizations for an
NGA section 3 or 7 proposal, and (2)
setting deadlines for decisions on
federal authorizations which will
‘‘comply with applicable schedules
established by Federal law.’’
6. Commission authorizations under
NGA sections 3 and 7 normally trigger
NEPA. NEPA aspires to ‘‘utilize a
systematic, interdisciplinary approach
which will insure the integrated use of
the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in planning
and in decisionmaking which may have
an impact on man’s environment.’’ 5
EPAct 2005 section 313(b) clarifies the
Commission’s role in this collective,
multi-agency effort, by designating the
Commission as lead agency for the
purpose of NEPA compliance for NGA
section 3 and 7 proposals.
Commission Response to EPAct 2005
Amendments to NGA Section 15
7. As noted, the Commission
anticipates initiating a rulemaking to
implement the EPAct 2005 section 313
amendments to NGA section 15.
However, the Commission believes that
the processing of section 3 and 7 project
proposals filed prior to the effective date
of a final rule, including proposals filed
prior to the enactment of EPAct 2005,
may benefit by the immediate
application of the additional authority
conferred by EPAct 2005. Therefore, by
this order, the Commission delegates the
authority described below to the
Director of OEP.
8. The Director of OEP is granted the
authority to coordinate with federal and
state agencies for the purpose of
scheduling the completion of the
analyses and decisionmaking necessary
for federal authorization of section 3
and 7 proposals. Deadlines shall be no
shorter than any applicable schedules
established by federal law. For example,
under section 401 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA),6 an applicant for federal
authorization for any activity that may
result in a discharge to navigable waters
must obtain certification from the state
in which the discharge originates that
the discharge will comply with the
CWA. The CWA provides the state up
5 42
6 33
U.S.C. 4332(2)(A) (2000).
U.S.C. 1341 (2000).
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
70802
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Notices
to a year to act on a request for
certification. Consequently, this time
frame will be recognized in any
schedule that the Director of OEP may
set.
9. With respect to the revisions to
NGA section 15, we expect to request
public comments on rules of general
applicability on how best to coordinate
and schedule agencies’ efforts in
processing requests for federal
authorizations. In the meantime, the
Commission expects the Director of OEP
to exercise the authority delegated
herein on a flexible, case-by-case basis,
to section 3 and 7 proposals filed prior
to the effective date of a final rule,
including proposals filed prior to the
enactment of EPAct 2005. The Director
of OEP need not intervene to establish
deadlines for federal authorizations in
every pending proceeding. For example,
the Director of OEP may find it serves
no purpose to establish deadlines in
proceedings that are relatively close to
completion. Agencies or parties to a
proceeding that object to decisions of
the Director of OEP under the authority
delegated herein may request
Commission review of the Director’s
actions.
The Commission orders:
The Commission delegates to the
Director of OEP the authority provided
by EPAct 2005 to establish a schedule
for all federal authorizations necessary
for NGA section 3 and 7 proposals.
By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–23139 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RM05–2–001]
Policy for Selective Discounting by
Natural Gas Pipelines; Order Denying
Rehearing
November 17, 2005.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher,
Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and
Suedeen G. Kelly.
1. On May 31, 2005, the Commission
issued an order (May 31 Order)1 in this
proceeding reaffirming the
Commission’s current policy on
selective discounting. Timely requests
for rehearing of that order were filed by
the Illinois Municipal Gas Agency
(IMGA) and, jointly by Northern
1 111
FERC ¶ 61,309 (2005).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Nov 22, 2005
Jkt 208001
Municipal Distributor Group and the
Midwest Region Gas Agency (Northern
Municipals). For the reasons discussed
below, the requests for rehearing are
denied.
Background
2. The prior orders in this proceeding
set forth the background and
development of the Commission’s
selective discounting policy.2 Generally,
as explained in those orders, the
Commission’s regulations permit
pipelines to discount their rates, on a
nondiscriminatory basis, in order to
meet competition. For example, if a
fuel-switchable shipper were able to
obtain an alternate fuel at a cost less
than the cost of gas including the
transportation rate, the Commission’s
regulations permit the pipeline to
discount its rates to compete with the
alternate fuel, and thus obtain
throughput that would otherwise be lost
to the pipeline. As the Commission has
explained, these discounts benefit all
customers, including customers that do
not receive the discounts, because the
discounts allow the pipeline to
maximize throughput and thus spread
fixed costs across more units of service.
Further, as the Commission has
explained, selective discounting
protects captive customers from rate
increases that would otherwise occur if
pipelines lost volumes through the
inability to respond to competition. The
Commission’s regulations permitting
selective discounting were upheld by
the court in Associated Gas Distributors
v. FERC (AGD I).3
3. The prior orders also explained the
rationale behind the Commission’s
policy of allowing a discount
adjustment and stated that the adoption
of the discount adjustment resulted
from the court’s discussion in AGD I. In
AGD I, the court addressed arguments
raised by pipelines that the selective
discounting regulations might lead to
the pipelines under-recovering their
costs. The court set forth a numerical
example showing that the pipeline
could under-recover its costs, if, in the
next rate case after a pipeline obtained
throughput by giving discounts, the
Commission nevertheless designed the
pipeline’s rates based on the full
amount of the discounted throughput,
without any adjustment.4 However, the
court found no reason to fear that the
Commission would employ this
2 109 FERC ¶ 61,202 at P 2–10; 111 FERC ¶ 61,309
at P3–8.
3 824 F.2d 981, 1010–12 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
4 Id. at 1012.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
‘‘dubious procedure,’’ 5 and accordingly
rejected the pipelines’’ contention.
4. In response to the court’s concern,
the Commission, in the 1989 Rate
Design Policy Statement,6 held that if a
pipeline grants a discount in order to
meet competition, the pipeline is not
required in its next rate case to design
its rates based on the assumption that
the discounted volumes would flow at
the maximum rate, but may reduce the
discounted volumes so that the pipeline
will be able to recover its cost of service.
The Commission explained that if a
pipeline must assume that the
previously discounted service will be
priced at the maximum rate when it
files a new rate case, there may be a
disincentive to pipelines discounting
their services in the future to capture
marginal firm and interruptible
business.
5. Since AGD I and the Rate Design
Policy Statement, the issue of ‘‘gas-ongas’’ competition, i.e., where the
competition for the business is between
pipelines as opposed to competition
between gas and other fuels, has been
raised in several Commission
proceedings.7 In these proceedings,
certain parties have questioned the
Commission’s rationale for permitting
discount adjustments, i.e., that it
benefits captive customers by allowing
fixed costs to be spread over more units
of service. These parties have contended
that, while this may be true where a
discount is given to obtain a customer
who would otherwise use an alternative
fuel and not ship gas at all, it is not true
where discounts are given to meet
competition from other gas pipelines. In
the latter situation, these parties have
argued, gas-on-gas competition permits
a customer who must use gas, but has
access to more than one pipeline, to
obtain a discount. But, if the two
pipelines were prohibited from giving
discounts when competing with one
another, the customer would have to
pay the maximum rate to one of the
pipelines in order to obtain the gas it
needs. This would reduce any discount
5 Id.
6 Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Rate Design, 47
FERC ¶ 61,295, reh’g granted, 48 FERC ¶ 61,122
(1989).
7 IMGA raised this issue in a petition for
rulemaking in Docket No. RM97–7–000. In the NOI,
the Commission stated that it would consider all
comments on this issue in Docket No. RM05–2–000
and terminated the proceeding in Docket No.
RM97–7–000. The Commission explained that the
issues included in Docket No. RM05–2–000 include
all the issues raised in the Docket No. RM97–7–000
proceeding. IMGA did not seek rehearing of the
Commission’s decision to terminate Docket No.
RM97–7–000 proceeding and did not in its
comments object to the procedural forum offered to
it in Docket No. RM05–2–000.
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70801-70802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23139]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. PL06-2-000]
Coordinated Processing of NGA Section 3 and 7 Proceedings; Order
Delegating Authority
Issued November 17, 2005.
Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Nora Mead
Brownell, and Suedeen G. Kelly.
1. Section 313 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) \1\
amends section 15 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \2\ to provide the
Commission with additional authority to ensure the expeditious
processing of natural gas project proposals. The Commission anticipates
initiating a rulemaking proceeding in the near future to promulgate
regulations in response to the EPAct 2005 amendments. In the interim,
this order delegates to staff the authority to execute certain of the
responsibilities vested with the Commission by EPAct 2005 section 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 717n (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
2. EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1) directs the Commission to establish
a schedule for all federal permits, authorizations, certificates,
opinions, or other approvals required for an NGA section 3 or 7
proposal.\3\ Section 313(b)(2) then declares that ``[e]ach Federal and
State agency considering an aspect of an application for Federal
authorization shall cooperate with the Commission and comply with the
deadlines established by the Commission.'' In addition, section
313(b)(1) designates the Commission ``as the lead agency for the
purposes of coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and for
the purposes of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969'' (NEPA).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NGA section 3 applies to projects designed to import or
export natural gas; NGA section 7 applies to projects designed to
transport or sell natural gas in interstate commerce.
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Pending issuance of regulations implementing these provisions of
EPAct 2005, the Commission is delegating to the Director of the Office
of Energy Projects (OEP) the authority to establish deadlines for all
federal authorizations necessary for NGA section 3 and 7 proposals.
Background
4. Under NGA sections 3 and 7, the Commission grants or denies
applications for proposed natural gas projects. The construction or
operation of natural gas projects typically require additional permits,
authorizations, certificates, opinions, and approvals issued by other
federal agencies and by state agencies acting pursuant to delegated
federal authority. Approval by the Commission to proceed with a
proposal is contingent on favorable findings by these other agencies.
EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1) directs the Commission to establish a
schedule for all federal authorizations required with respect to an
application under NGA section 3 or 7.
5. In this role, EPAct 2005 section 313(c)(1)(A) compels the
Commission to ``ensure expeditious completion'' of NGA section 3 and 7
proceedings, while section 313(c) (1)(B) directs the Commission to
``comply with applicable schedules established by Federal law.'' Thus,
the Commission is responsible for (1) coordinating the actions of those
federal and state agencies with authority to issue federal
authorizations for an NGA section 3 or 7 proposal, and (2) setting
deadlines for decisions on federal authorizations which will ``comply
with applicable schedules established by Federal law.''
6. Commission authorizations under NGA sections 3 and 7 normally
trigger NEPA. NEPA aspires to ``utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in
decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environment.'' \5\
EPAct 2005 section 313(b) clarifies the Commission's role in this
collective, multi-agency effort, by designating the Commission as lead
agency for the purpose of NEPA compliance for NGA section 3 and 7
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(A) (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Response to EPAct 2005 Amendments to NGA Section 15
7. As noted, the Commission anticipates initiating a rulemaking to
implement the EPAct 2005 section 313 amendments to NGA section 15.
However, the Commission believes that the processing of section 3 and 7
project proposals filed prior to the effective date of a final rule,
including proposals filed prior to the enactment of EPAct 2005, may
benefit by the immediate application of the additional authority
conferred by EPAct 2005. Therefore, by this order, the Commission
delegates the authority described below to the Director of OEP.
8. The Director of OEP is granted the authority to coordinate with
federal and state agencies for the purpose of scheduling the completion
of the analyses and decisionmaking necessary for federal authorization
of section 3 and 7 proposals. Deadlines shall be no shorter than any
applicable schedules established by federal law. For example, under
section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA),\6\ an applicant for federal
authorization for any activity that may result in a discharge to
navigable waters must obtain certification from the state in which the
discharge originates that the discharge will comply with the CWA. The
CWA provides the state up
[[Page 70802]]
to a year to act on a request for certification. Consequently, this
time frame will be recognized in any schedule that the Director of OEP
may set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 33 U.S.C. 1341 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. With respect to the revisions to NGA section 15, we expect to
request public comments on rules of general applicability on how best
to coordinate and schedule agencies' efforts in processing requests for
federal authorizations. In the meantime, the Commission expects the
Director of OEP to exercise the authority delegated herein on a
flexible, case-by-case basis, to section 3 and 7 proposals filed prior
to the effective date of a final rule, including proposals filed prior
to the enactment of EPAct 2005. The Director of OEP need not intervene
to establish deadlines for federal authorizations in every pending
proceeding. For example, the Director of OEP may find it serves no
purpose to establish deadlines in proceedings that are relatively close
to completion. Agencies or parties to a proceeding that object to
decisions of the Director of OEP under the authority delegated herein
may request Commission review of the Director's actions.
The Commission orders:
The Commission delegates to the Director of OEP the authority
provided by EPAct 2005 to establish a schedule for all federal
authorizations necessary for NGA section 3 and 7 proposals.
By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23139 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
