[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43246-43247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20709]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP01-423-000]


Dynegy LNG Production Terminal, LP; Notice of Petition for a 
Declaratory Order

August 13, 2001.
    On August 3, 2001, Dynegy LNG Production Terminal, LP (Dynegy LNG), 
filed a petition for a declaratory order by the Commission disclaiming 
jurisdiction over the siting, construction and operation of the 
Hackberry, Louisiana LNG facility or, alternatively, assert such 
jurisdiction solely to determine that the facility is not inconsistent 
with the public interest, all as more fully set forth in the petition 
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' link, select ``Docket #'' and 
follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Dynegy LNG states that it requests the Commission issue a 
declaratory order disclaiming jurisdiction over the siting, 
construction and operation of the Hackberry LNG facility, in light of 
the Energy Policy Act amendment to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. 
Alternatively, if this primary request for relief is not granted, 
Dynegy LNG states that it requests the Commission issue a declaratory 
order finding that the project is not inconsistent with the public 
interest and should be authorized on that basis without any further 
proceedings or conditions.
    Dynegy LNG states that it would convert an existing LPG terminal to 
an LNG terminal, using the existing dock and ship berthing structure. 
Dynegy LNG states that it would add an LNG tank and necessary 
vaporization facilities and that the new LNG import facility would have 
the capacity to receive and vaporize 750 MMcf/day and that the facility 
will be expandable up to 1.5 Bcf/day. A header pipeline would be 
constructed connecting the terminal to multiple interstate pipelines 
(none of

[[Page 43247]]

which are affiliated with Dynegy LNG).\1\ Dynegy LNG states that the 
target in-service date for this project is fourth quarter 2003 and with 
the granting of this petition, Dynegy LNG would assume 100% of the 
economic risk associated with the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dynegy LNG in this petition is not requesting any ruling wih 
respect to the header pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dynegy LNG states that it requests a Commission determination by 
September 12, 2001, so that Dynegy LNG could begin conversion of the 
terminal to meet a fourth quarter 2003 in-service date, convert the LPG 
tanker under construction to an LNG tanker, and compete in a timely 
manner for additional dedicated LNG tankers for year 2004 delivery.
    Dynegy states that the basis of this petition is that LNG ought to 
be able to compete with other gas supply in meeting the country's 
future energy needs. Dynegy LNG asserts that if LNG labors under unique 
regulatory barriers, dating back to a by-gone age of pervasive gas 
supply regulation, then LNG resources will not develop in a timely and 
natural way to meet market requirements.
    Dynegy LNG claims that historically, the regulation of LNG has not 
worked well. Dynegy LNG believes LNG projects were not built when they 
were needed--instead they were built when they were not needed. 
Consumers paid for this in the form of ``minimum bills'' that 
guaranteed recovery of various project costs to the LNG subsidiaries of 
interstate pipelines. This early form of ``stranded costs'' 
materialized in the early 1980s when LNG imports ceased due to 
delivered prices way above market prices.
    Dynegy LNG asks that history not be repeated. Dynegy LNG believes 
LNG should be treated like any other gas supply--no unique regulatory 
burden and no unique regulatory benefit.
    Dynegy LNG asserts that this relief is, in fact, what Congress 
included in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Importation of LNG is to be 
treated as a ``first sale'' over which the Commission has no 
jurisdiction. The legislative history of this provision shows that 
Congress wants importation of LNG to be deregulated like all other gas 
supply.
    Giving effect to the intent of the Energy Policy Act, Dynegy LNG 
believes will allow LNG to play an appropriate, market-driven role in 
America's energy future. LNG facilities will be efficiently located in 
the United States instead of being built in foreign countries (with 
interconnecting pipelines to the U.S.), or not built at all. And 
consumers will not be at risk for project failure.
    To the extent that the Commission determines that, notwithstanding 
the Energy Policy Act, it retains jurisdiction to impose conditions on 
LNG projects, Dynegy LNG requests, in the alternative, that the 
Commission assert jurisdiction solely to determine that the project is 
not inconsistent with the public interest and grant import authority to 
Dynegy LNG without any further proceedings or conditions.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of 
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by 
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or 
before September 4, 2001, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 
status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary 
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the 
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of 
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant 
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the 
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the 
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have 
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with 
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and 
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. 
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will 
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's 
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project 
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly 
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of 
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments 
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be 
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive 
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings 
associated with the Commission's environmental review process. 
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed 
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will 
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by 
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents 
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court 
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-
environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the 
environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination 
typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its 
economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other 
pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, 
the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to 
exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed 
project and balances that against the non-environmental benefits to be 
provided by the project. Therefore, if a person has comments on 
community and landowner impacts from this proposal, it is important 
either to file comments or to intervene as early in the process as 
possible.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically 
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site under the ``e-Filing'' 
link.
    If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal 
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue 
another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's 
review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a 
certificate will be issued.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-20709 Filed 8-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P