U.S. Rep. Robert Filner of California has called on FERC to rescind a Presidential Permit and Section 3 NGA Authorization for the U.S. leg of the proposed North Baja Pipeline while the agency re-opens its environmental review of the project to address the potential cross-border pollution from Mexican power plants that would be served by the natural gas line.

The Commission’s environmental impact statement (EIS) “considers only impacts associated with construction of the natural gas pipeline proposed by North Baja Pipeline LLC and ignores the aspect of the project that involves delivery of gas to power plants three miles across the [U.S.-Mexico] border that will not use standard pollution control technology, and that will transmit power — and pollution — back into California,” said Filner in a motion to intervene out-of-time in the case [CP01-25-003]. Filner claims that both the air and water quality in his congressional district — which borders Mexico and includes the southern half of San Diego — would be directly affected by the project.

If FERC on rehearing should uphold its prior decision approving the North Baja Pipeline based on the current EIS, the California Democrat asked the agency to at least condition its approval of the project on the use of the best available control technology (BACT) by the Mexican power plants served by the line. The Commission’s authority, however, does not extend to power plants in general, and facilities in Mexico specifically.

Filner argued that an examination of the potential pollution effects of the power plants should have been included in the EIS on the North Baja line, given the proposed facilities are facets of the same project. The three companies involved — North Baja Pipeline LLC, Sempra Energy International and InterGen Services — have their hands in “all aspects” of the wider project, which includes new transmission lines as well as power generation facilities and the gas pipeline. For example, Sempra Energy, which will build the Mexican leg of the North Baja Pipeline, also is sponsoring cross-border transmission lines and a 600 MW plant, which will be served by the pipeline, he said.

“While it may be possible that the three actions (pipeline, power plant and transmission line construction) could proceed independently, they are not in fact proceeding independently,” Filner told FERC.

Consequently, “the Commission cannot rely on an EIS/EIR that divides the pipeline portion of the project from the other related components of the overall project in such a way that prevents disclosure, analysis and mitigation of significant environmental impacts,” he said. FERC “should not approve a project of such transborder significance until the EIS/EIR is rewritten to address these concerns.”

FERC in January gave the green light for construction of the U.S. leg of the proposed North Baja gas pipeline, which will deliver 500 MMcf/d from a connection with El Paso Natural Gas near Ehrenberg, AZ, to gas distribution systems and new power plants in northern Mexico and southern California.

The U.S. portion of the line, which will be built by PG&E Corp.’s National Energy Group, will extend 80 miles to border-crossing facilities near Yuma, AZ. It is expected to cost about $146 million. The Mexican government already has issued a transportation permit to Sempra Energy International to build the 135-mile Mexican portion of the line, Gasoducto Baja Norte, to Mexicali, Baja California. It will serve two new power plants at Mexicali.

©Copyright 2002 Intelligence Press Inc. Allrights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republishedor redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without priorwritten consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.