Interstate pipelines and industrial gas customers said theywould be opposed to any FERC proposal requiring pipes to notifyaffected landowners of proposed projects prior to filing theirapplications at the Commission, saying this would only furthersnarl the certification process. In late September, FERC indicatedin a notice of technical conference that it was leaning toward sucha proposal in order to involve landowners earlier on in thecertification process.

In comments filed this week in advance of a scheduled Dec. 9thtechnical conference on the issue, the majority of pipelines andindustrials instead indicated their preference for an alternativemeasure proposed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association ofAmerica (INGAA). It would require pipelines to notify thelandowners of record by certified mail on the day after a pipelineproject is filed at the Commission.

Environmentalist Anne Marie Mueser, chairman of the GASPCoalition, did not endorse either route, but she did say thattimely notification of potentially affected landowners was an”important ingredient.” She stressed that notification would beonly the first step. “Letting landowners know in advance what isplanned for their land by a large corporation and regulatoryagencies is not sufficient to ensure fairness. The process must beaccessible to potential landowner victims at a cost that is notunduly burdensome.”

Industrials questioned the need for any changes to the existinglandowner-notification process. “At the outset, it is not clearthat any new procedures are needed since the Commission itselfalready sends to landowners notice of any anticipated environmentalassessment process, in addition to publicizing notices of allapplications and environmental assessments in the Federal Register.Likewise, pipelines routinely contact landowners from an earlystage in order to seek rights-of-way,” said the Process GasConsumers (PGC) Group, the American Iron and Steel Institute andthe Georgia Industrial Group [RM98-17].

But if forced to choose between a FERC or INGAA proposal, theindustrials said they would endorse the pipeline group plan becauseit would provide a “proper balance” between notifying affectedlandowners and “the need to shape procedures that will not undulyburden or delay certificate applications and pipeline projects.”

The El Paso Energy interstate pipelines agreed with INGAA thatlandowners should be notified after a project application is filed,but they think requiring notification one day after filing wouldimpose a “significant administrative burden” on pipelines due tothe sheer number of landowners usually involved in “greenfield”projects and expansions. A large pipeline expansion, for example,could easily involve notification of 1,000 to 1,500 landowners,they noted.

A “more reasonable” requirement, the El Paso pipelines said, isto require pipelines to notify landowners within five business daysafter filing a certificate application provided the docket numberis available on the same day that the certificate application isfiled. “Because the Commission generally does not noticecertificate applications until one to two weeks after they arefiled and because the landowner notification will include theCommission docket number and the procedures for intervening inCommission proceedings, landowners will have sufficient time tointervene in the expansion [or greenfield] project proceeding.”

Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P. also supported the gist of theINGAA proposal, but added that it opposed the means of landownernotification – certified mail. It said many landowners affected bya pipeline project aren’t “physically present” on the property,which precludes them from receiving certified mail. Although mostcan pick up the mail at their local post offices, some landowners”may live out of state during part of the year,” and would beunaware of any certified mail sent to them.

“The drawbacks to certified mail are overcome by using regularU.S. mail. First, the item would be delivered to nearly alllandowners, including those off-site landowners who forward theirmail service to their present or temporary residence,” Great Lakessaid. Moreover, the additional costs to pipelines of certified mailwould be avoided.

The El Paso pipelines don’t believe pipes should have to submitto formal notification procedures – i.e. INGAA’s proposed certifiedmailings – in certain replacement project cases, however. “Forexample, if a pipeline discovers additional damaged pipeline whileundertaking a replacement project required by Department ofTransportation regulations, and if such pipe was not includedwithin the scope of the project, the pipeline should not berequired to wait a certain number of days until it can replace suchpipe,” they said.

Or in cases “where a pipeline has deteriorated to the point ofbeing potentially unsafe – without rising to an emergency standard- public safety and the need to provide natural gas service on anuninterrupted basis mandate that the deteriorated facilities bereplaced promptly. Under these circumstances, any delay associatedwith a Commission-imposed notice period would be untenable,” the ElPaso interstates contend.

The pipelines and industrials further said they would object toany move by FERC to classify residential areas as sensitiveenvironmental areas, and to weigh project impact on these areas inthe same manner as the more traditional natural resource areas,such as endangered species habitats, historical places, wetlandsand designated wilderness areas.

Such a proposal would raise “numerous problems, which may delayand unnecessarily hinder needed pipeline project construction,”said the industrial gas consumers. Just defining what constitutes a”residential area” could be time consuming, they noted. “It wouldbe a profound mistake implicitly to elevate NIMBY to a legalprinciple, particularly since utility lines (water, gas) areroutinely built across private property with minimal impact onlandowners, apart from the temporary construction phase of theproject.”

©Copyright 1998 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. Thepreceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, inwhole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.