The California Energy Commission (CEC) Wednesday vented its frustration with FERC by claiming that federal regulators were barring access to critical safety information that was needed by the state to carry out its review of the joint federal-Port of Long Beach draft environmental impact report (EIR) on a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in the harbor.

The flap drew a major news story in the Los Angeles Times, with a CEC spokesperson charging that FERC had restricted access to key information to assess the safety risks of the proposed LNG project.

For security reasons, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has allowed the use of project safety information documents to officials only if they sign a non-disclosure agreement. The CEC has refused to do that, noting it must share the information with the governor and other parts of state government, such as the California Public Utilities Commission.

The part of the EIR dubbed “Critical Energy Infrastructure Information” (CEII) is at the center of the controversy because it includes specific details on the design of the proposed facility to be built by a partnership of Mitsubishi Corp. and ConocoPhillips called Sound Energy Solutions (SES). The report concludes that a fire at the proposed facility in the harbor would not harm the downtown area or residences within a two- to three-mile radius of the proposed $700 million facility.

Four public meetings on the joint draft EIR were held in the past month and final written comments on the document are due by the end of the day Thursday. The CEC is arguing in news media reports that it can’t adequately complete its review without accessing the nonpublic parts of the draft report.

In a request filed Monday, the CEC asked FERC for a 30-day extension to receive, analyze and file supplemental comments on CEII in connection with the draft environmental review of the proposed Port of Long Beach LNG project. The state agency claims that the nonpublic CEII documents are essential to assessing the safety risks of the LNG project on California and localities.

The CEC said it has been in discussions with FERC staff for a “number of weeks” to obtain the CEII information, but FERC has withheld the data until the CEC agrees to sign a nondisclosure statement in which it promises not to share the information. The CEC contends that signing the document would prevent it from informing the governor or other state agencies of the CEII contents.

The CEC further argued that the FERC’s nondisclosure agreement pre-dated the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which bestowed on states a newly created consultation role with respect to new LNG terminals. FERC had not acted on the CEC’s motion as of Wednesday [CP04-58].

“To say this information is being kept from them [CEC] by FERC…is not true,” said FERC spokesman Bryan Lee. He noted that the CEC simply has refused to comply with the agency’s procedures for obtaining CEII information. After Sept. 11, 2001, all the federal agencies took down information from their websites, particularly information about energy infrastructure, that might be useful to terrorists, he noted. Unlike other agencies, however, FERC offered the public the opportunity to access some CEII, but it required parties to sign nondisclosure agreements.

The California agency said it also is engaged in negotiations with the Port of Long Beach to receive a nonpublic hazards analysis of the project that was prepared by the port’s consultant. The analysis identifies probable worst-case scenarios and is based on the CEII information. “It is expected by both sides to these negotiations that the CEC will soon be able to access this data on mutually satisfactory terms,” the CEC told FERC.

While awaiting the outcome of its CEII request, the CEC intends to file its initial EIR comments with FERC, along with attaching those of various other state agencies, such as the CPUC and state coastal commission, by Thursday, according to David Maul, the CEC’s natural gas program manager, along with the statement that it reserves the right to file additional comments after it reviews the withheld portion of the EIR.

“There will be some zingers in our comments, and the comments from the CPUC and coastal commission,” said Maul, who retires from the CEC on Friday. “There will be some very significant comments, and they will all be posted on our website (www.energy.ca.gov).” The CEC’s portion alone cover 36 pages of comments, Maul said.

The issue is doubly sensitive in California, where the state’s political and energy agency leaders reluctantly gave up a jurisdictional fight with FERC over the Long Beach plant’s siting after the new Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed last August by President Bush. The new law gives FERC exclusive siting authority over onshore LNG plants.

©Copyright 2005Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.