Transcript Federal Process for Siting Natural Gas Infrastructure

Federal Process for Siting
Natural Gas Infrastructure
17th IPEC Conference
Michael J. McGehee
Director, Division of Pipeline Certificates
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
San Antonio, Texas
September 1, 2010
FERC Organization Chart
Chairman
Jon Wellinghoff
Energy
Projects
Administrative
Litigation
Commissioner
Philip D. Moeller
External
Affairs
Administrative
Law Judges
Commissioner Commissioner
Marc Spitzer
John R. Norris
Enforcement
Energy Market
Regulation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Electric
Reliability
Executive
Director
Commissioner
Cheryl A. LaFleur
General
Counsel
Secretary
Energy Policy &
Innovation
1
How the Commission is Appointed
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is composed of up
to five Commissioners who are appointed by the President of the United States with the
advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioners serve five-year terms, and have an
equal vote on regulatory matters.
To avoid any undue political influence or pressure, no more than three Commissioners
may belong to the same political party. There is no review of FERC decisions by the
President or Congress, maintaining FERC's independence as a regulatory agency, and
providing for fair and unbiased decisions. The Commission is funded through costs
recovered by the fees and annual charges from the industries it regulates.
One member of the Commission is designated by the President to serve as Chair and
FERC's administrative head.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
2
Natural Gas Act
 The Natural Gas Act is the law that sets out
FERC’s areas of responsibilities:
 Section 1 – Identifies projects exempt
from FERC jurisdiction
 Section 3 – Allows FERC to authorize
import / export projects
 Section 7 – Allows FERC to authorize
interstate pipeline projects (including
storage) and grant eminent domain
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
3
Projects Exempt from
FERC Jurisdiction
 Local Distribution Company facilities
(e.g., Baltimore Gas and Electric,
Washington Gas Light, etc.)
 Intrastate pipelines (where gas is
produced, transported and consumed
within a single state)
 Hinshaw pipelines (gas is produced in
one state, but is transported and
consumed within another)
 Gathering facilities
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
4
Gas Pipeline Program
 Evaluate applications for facilities to import,
export, transport, store or exchange natural gas
 Authorize the construction and operation of
facilities for such services
 Approve abandonment of such facilities
 Conduct environmental reviews of proposals
involving construction, modification, or
abandonment
 Implement the “Pre-Filing Process”
 Conduct inspections of LNG facilities and
pipeline construction
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
5
Office of Energy
Projects - Functions

OEP has the engineering and environmental expertise to:
 certificate new gas pipeline projects,
 Authorize LNG import / export projects
 authorize and monitor hydroelectric projects, provide “backstop authority” to site
electric transmission facilities, and
 analyze energy infrastructure needs and policies.

OEP focuses on:
 project siting and development,
 balancing environmental and other concerns,
 ensuring compliance,
 safeguarding the public, and
 providing infrastructure capacity information.

Other FERC Offices
 OGC has corresponding hydro and pipeline legal responsibilities
 Other offices also have input to our products
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
6
Project Evaluation
How Does FERC Evaluate All
Of These Major Projects?
What Are The Criteria Used in
This Evaluation?
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
7
In the United States, there are approximately 217,300 miles
of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline.
Source: Based on data from Ventyx Global Energy Decisions, Inc., Velocity Suite, January 2010, and EIA’s Natural Gas Pipelines.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
8
Balancing Interests
People Like...
But They Also Want...
Due Process
Expedited Process
Smaller Government
Effective Government
Less Regulation
Assurance of Fair Markets
Market-dictated Outcomes
Protection from Market
Dysfunctions, Unexpected Risk,
and Unjust Rates
Protection for the Environment and
Property Interests
Ample Supplies of
Low-cost Energy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
9
Certificate Process Overview
Non-Environmental Review and Analysis
• Engineering – GQI, storage, hydraulic flow
• Tariff – rates, terms & conditions of service
• Policy – precedents, rules, regulations
• Accounting
Application
Filed
Parallel Processing Paths
Order
Issued
Environmental Review and Analysis
• Biological – fish, wildlife, vegetation
• Cultural – historic preservation
• Land use – recreation, aesthetics
• Soils and geologic
• Air and noise – quality, loudness
• Socioeconomic impacts
• System alternatives
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
10
Timeline for Project Review
Applicant’s Activities
Prepare Draft
Resource
Reports
Submit
PF
letter
Start
PF
Review
0
File
At
FERC
1
2
3
4
Issue
Draft
EIS
Determine
Application
Complete
Review Draft
Resource Reports
& Prepare
Preliminary DEIS
Issue
Final
EIS
Issue
Order
FERC’s Activities
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(months)
11
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
11
Certificate Policy Statement
 Goals
─ Foster Competition
─ Consider Captive Customers
─ Avoid Unnecessary Physical Impacts
─ Achieve Optimal Amount of Facilities
─ Encourage Complete Record
─ Expedite Review Time
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
12
Certificate Policy Statement
 Develop Record
 Adverse Impacts on
• Existing Customers and Pipelines
• Landowners
• Communities
 Specific Benefits (meet new demand, eliminate bottlenecks, access new supplies, lower
cost to consumers, new interconnects to improve grid, provide competitive alternatives, increase electric
reliability, clean air objectives, etc)
 Need and Market (precedent agreements, demand projections, etc)
 Condemnation Impact
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
13
FERC Process
 FERC’s process is a model of efficiency
Pre-filing
Application Analysis
Post-authorization
 This process works for all stakeholders
Project sponsors
Federal, state, and local agencies
NGOs
Landowners
Other concerned entities
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
14
Overview of Shale Play Development
 Natural gas production from hydrocarbon rich shale formations is one of
the most rapidly expanding trends in domestic production.
 As traditional sources of natural gas continue to be depleted, new
sources of supply, such as shale gas, must be developed in order to
continue to meet the energy demands.
 Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed previously
unrecoverable sources of gas to be developed in an economical and
environmental safe manner.
 Because it is located in both traditional and non-traditional production
locations, shale gas development presents unique economic
opportunities to maximize each state’s resources in a manner that is
environmentally safe.
 The development of natural resources expands the economy of local
communities by creating jobs and providing residents increased capital
through royalty payments.
 State governments benefit from increased natural gas production through
increased tax revenues.
 Because of its role in alternative energy strategies and reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas use is expedited to continue to
rise.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
15
Future U.S. Gas Supply
Alaska
LNG Imports
Net Pipeline Imports
Gas Shales
Coalbed Methane
Conventional
Offshore
Source: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2010 and EIA spreadsheets.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
16
The growing importance of shale gas is substantiated by the fact that, of the 1,836
Tcf of total potential resources, shale gas accounts for 616 Tcf (33%).
PGC Resource Assessments, 1990-2008
Total Potential Gas Resources (mean values)
Source: Report of the Potential Gas Committee (December 31, 2008) “Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States” June 18, 2009
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
17
Regional Resource Assessment
Traditional
Coalbed
Total U.S.
1,673.4 Tcf
163.0 Tcf
1,836.4 Tcf
374.4
51.9
51.3
2.6
24.0
16.6
274.9
7.5
193.8
57.0
353.5
17.3
455.2
3.4
Source: Report of the Potential Gas Committee (December 31, 2008) “Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States” June 18, 2009
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18
United States Shale Basins
Maximum Reported Gas-in-Place (in Tcf)
Bakken
Shale
(15)
Niobrara
Shale (13)
Baxter/Lewis/Mowry
Shale (265)
Monterrey/McClure
Shale
Total Shale Gas
3,700 Tcf
Antrim Shale(76)
Devonian Shale (244)
Caney
Woodford Shale
Shale (101)
Cane Creek
Shale
Lewis Shale
(61)
New
Albany
Shale
(160)
Huron Shale
Palo Duro
Shale
(42)
Barnett and Woodford
Shale (265)
Marcellus
Shale
(1,500)
Fayetteville
Shale (52)
Barnett
Shale
(168)
Floyd/Chattanooga
Shale (22)
Haynesville
Shale
(717)
Pearsall Shale
Note: While some shale basins have been
identified with reserve estimates, others
have no reserve data available.
Source: Energy Velocity and Navigant Consulting’s North American Natural Gas Supply Assessment – July 4, 2008
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
19
Shale Gas Estimates
Shale Gas Production In Bcf/d
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2005
Woodford
2010
Barnett
2015
Fayetteville
2020
2025
2030
Haynesville
Marcellus
Eagle Ford
Source: ICF International Data Base and Compass Report April 2010
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
20
Summary of FERC Related Projects and
Potential Projects Impacting the Shale Basins
Source: FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
21
Major Projects to move shale gas out of East
Texas and Arkansas.
Fayetteville
Shale
Woodford
Shale
MarkWest
638 MMcf/d
** Approved
*** Pending/
Pre-filing
Kinder Morgan Energy
Fayetteville Express
2,000 MMcf/d**
Barnett
Shale
Boardwalk
Gulf Crossing
1,732 MMcf/d
Midcontinent
1,500 MMcf/d & 300 MMcf/d
Haynesville
Shale
Tiger Pipeline
1,250 MMcf/d ** & 400
MMcf/d***
Texas Gas Transmission
Fayetteville/Greenville & Compression
1,609 MMcf/d & 2,300 MMcf/d
CenterPoint
Carthage to Perryville
1,237 MMcf/d & 280 MMcf/d & 274 MMcf/d
LaCrosse (Enbridge)
(1,800 MMcf/d) ***
Gulf South Pipeline
Haynesville/Perryville Expansion
556 MMcf/d**
Trunkline Gas
North Texas Expansion
510 MMcf/d**
Southeast Supply Header
1,140 MMcf/d & 175 MMcf/d & 360 MMcf/d**
Source: Based on data from Ventyx Velocity Suite, July 2010 & FERC applications
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
22
Summary of Natural Gas Facilities Impacting the Barnett,
Woodford, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shale Basins
Source: FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
23
Marcellus Shale Projects
Corning
Marcellus Shale Projects
Tennessee’s
Station 219
Leidy
Rivervale
Linden
Oakford
Lambertville
Appalachian
Basin
Clarington
Princeton
Transco’s
Comp Sta 195
Source: FERC
Source: FERC
Approved or Pending Projects
Appalachain Expansion (NiSource)
Line 300 Exp (Tennessee)
NiSource/MarkWest & NiSource
N Bridge, TIME 3, TEMAX (TETCO)
Appalachian Gateway (Dominion)
Line N, R & I Project (NFG)
Tioga County Extension (Empire)
Low Pressure East-West (Equitrans)
East-West – Overbeck to Leidy (NFG)
NJ-NY Project (TETCO & Algonquin)
Sunrise Project (Equitrans)
Potential Projects
TEAM 2012 Project (TETCO)
Northeast Upgrade (Tennessee)
West to East Connector (NFG)
NYMarc (Iroquois)
New Penn (NiSource)
Marcellus to Manhattan (Millennium)
Northern Access (NFG)
NSD Project (Tennessee)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Appalachia to Market
Expansion & TEAM 2013 (TETCO)
Keystone (Dominion/Williams)
Marc I Hub Line (Inergy)
Northeast Supply Link (Transco)
Northeast Supply (Williams)*
* Combined Transco’s Rockaway Lateral and
Northeast Connector Projects
24
Summary of Natural Gas Facilities
Impacting the Marcellus Shale Basin
Source: FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
25
Major Pipeline Projects Certificated (MMcf/d)
1. Algonquin (285, 131)
2. Islander East (285)
3. Iroquois (230,85, 100, 200)
4. Columbia (135,270)
5. Algonquin (140)
6. Transcontinental (105)
7. Transcontinental (130)
8. Transcontinental (100,142, 250)
9. Columbia (94)
10. Maritimes (80,360,418)
11. Algonquin (301)
12. Tennessee (500)
13. Mill River (800)
14. Tennessee (136)
15. Texas Eastern (900)
16. Algonquin (325)
17. Algonquin (800)
18. Broadwater (1,000)
19. Mid-Atlantic (1,500)
20. Algonquin (140, 281)
21. Tennessee (350)
January 2000 to July 2010
Northwest (162,113)
NorthernStar (1,300)
Northwest
(224)
Pacific
Connector
(1,000)
Tuscarora (96)
22. CIG (282,92)
23. CIG (85,133,118,105,899,130)
24. TransColorado (125,300,250)
25. WIC (120,116,675,350,556,330,230,285)
26. El Paso (140)
27. Rendezvous (300)
28. Entrega (1,500)
29. Northwest (450)
30. Rockies Express West (1,800)
31. White River Hub (2,565)
32. Northwest (582)
33. Rockies Express (200)
34. Sundance Trail (Northwest) (150)
35. Diamond Mountain (WIC) (180)
WBI
(80)
GTN
(207) Northwest(191)
Ruby Pipeline
(1,456)
Questar Overthrust
(550, 750, 300)
27 34 25
28
32
8
24
622
29
Kern River (282)
Kern River
(135,886,145)
El Paso
(502)
North
Baja
(500, 81
2,700)
Trailblazer
(324)
31
23
26
Trunkline (510)
El Paso (230,320,620,150)
Center Point (1,237, 280, 274)
Discovery (200) Tiger (2,000)
Natural (200,300)
Oasis Pipeline
Port Arthur (3,000)
(600)
Trunkline (200)
Point Comfort (1,000)
Dominion South (200)
San Patricio (1,000)
112.54 BCF/D Total
16,021 Miles
TETCO
(250)
Rockies Express East (1,800)
Cheyenne
Equitrans
Midwestern
Plains (560,170)
(130)
(120)
MarkWest (638)
Center
Southern Trails (120)
Point (113,132)
Midcontinent (1500, 300)
Transwestern (150,375,500)
Sonora (1,000)
Tennessee (320)
Vista del Sol (1,100)
16
Millennium (525)
NFS/DTI (150)
TETCO (150, 150, 455)
33
30
35
Questar (272,102,175)
Dominion (700)
14
Empire(250)
East Tenn. (86)
Cameron
(1,500,850)
12
9
10
20 13 17
1
11
5
8
18
721
32
6 15
19
4
Columbia Transco (165)
(172, 100)
East Tenn. (225)
East Tenn. (276)
East Tenn. (170)
Transco (204,236,323,309)
Southern/Magolia (82)
Southern (336,330, 375)
Florida Gas (239,270,100, 820)
Gulf LNG (1,500)
Tennessee (400,200,100)
Calypso (832)
Cheniere Creole Trail (2,000)
Ocean Express(842)
Trunkline(1,500)
Port Dolphin
Kinder Morgan (3,395)
(1,200)
Gulfstream
Golden Pass (2,500)
(1,130, 345, 155)
Cheniere Corpus Christi (2,600)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
26
All Storage Projects
(Capacity in Bcf)
ANR Pipeline (14.7)
ANR Pipeline
(17.0)
Bluewater (29.2)
NFG (8.5)
UGI (14.7)
Dominion (4.4)
Dominion (9.4)
Columbia (5.7)
SemGas (5.5)
Arlington Storage (7.0,1.4)
Central NY (13.0)
Dominion (0.1)
Dominion (18.0)
Steckman Ridge (12.0)
UGI LNG (0.2, 1.0)
Chestnut Ridge (25.0)
Texas Eastern (3.0)
Tenasda (17.5)
Northern Natural
SourceGas (10.4)
(8.5, 2.1, 2.0)
Ryckman Creek (25.0)
Leader One (7.5)
Magnum Gas (11.2)
CIG (1.0)
Natural (10.0)
Magnum Gas(42.0)
Blue Sky (4.4)
ANR Pipeline (70.0)
East Cheyenne (18.9)
Columbia (6.7)
Unocal Windy Hill (6.0)
CIG (7.0) KM (1.0)
Columbia (12.4)
Southern Star (2.6,1.4)Texas Gas (8.2, 4.1)
Texas
Gas
(11.3)
Northern Natural (6.0)
Mississippi Hub (3.0) Orbit (5.0)
Texas Gas (8.25)
Tricor Ten 22.4)
Mississippi Hub (12.0, 15.0)
Natural (10.0)
Arizona Natural Gas (3.5)
ANGS/El Paso (20.0)
Multifuels (8.0)
Sawgrass (25.0)
CenterPoint (3.0)
Bobcat (12.0,1.5, 24.0)
Atmos (15.0)
Bobcat (2.1, 9.3)
(16.4)
Enstor-Waha Storage (7.2) Turtle Bayou Cadeville
(12.0)
AGL (16.0)
Enstor (30.0)
Spectra Energy (6.5)
Natural (10.0)
Certificated Since 1/1/2005
Currently Pending
Pre-Filing
On The Horizon
Tres Palacios (36.0)
Enterprise (10.0)
Starks (19.2)
Liberty (17.6, 18.9)
Pine Prairie (24.0)
Egan Hub (8.0)
PetroLogistics (6.0, 5.3, 4.6)
Perryville (15.0)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Monroe Gas (12.0)
Four Mile Creek (8.0)
Tarpon Whitetail (8.6)
Freebird (6.1)
County Line (6.0)
Caledonia (11.7, 5.2)
Southeast Gas Storage (24.7)
Sempra Energy (2.5)
Falcon MoBay (50.0, 9.6)
SG Resources (12.0)
SG Resources (16.0)
Petal (5.0)
Copiah (12.2)
EnergySouth (12.0)
Floridian Natural (8.0)
BCR (15.0)
Petal (10.0)
Petal (4.0)
Petal (2.8)
Leaf River Energy (32.0)
Black Bayou (15.0)
27
North American LNG Import Terminals
Existing
M
A F
B, I
C, L
O
H,K D
G J
E
Canada
M. Saint John, NB: 1.0 Bcfd, (Repsol/Fort Reliance Canaport LNG)
N
US Jurisdiction
As of August 3, 2010
*
28
Expansion of an existing facility
U.S.
A. Everett, MA : 1.035 Bcfd (GDF SUEZ - DOMAC)
B. Cove Point, MD : 1.0 Bcfd (Dominion - Cove Point
LNG)
C. Elba Island, GA : 1.2 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern
LNG)
D. Lake Charles, LA : 2.1 Bcfd (Southern Union Trunkline LNG)
E. Gulf of Mexico: 0.5 Bcfd, (Excelerate Energy - Gulf
Gateway Energy Bridge)
F. Offshore Boston: 0.8 Bcfd, (Excelerate Energy –
Northeast Gateway)
G. Freeport, TX: 1.5 Bcfd, (Cheniere/Freeport LNG
Dev.)
H. Sabine, LA: 2.6 Bcfd (Cheniere/Sabine Pass LNG)
I. Cove Point, MD : 0.8 Bcfd (Dominion – Cove
Point LNG - Expansion)*
J. Hackberry, LA: 1.8 Bcfd (Sempra - Cameron LNG)
K. Sabine, LA: 1.4 Bcfd (Cheniere/Sabine Pass LNG –
Expansion)*
L. Elba Island, GA: 0.4 Bcfd (El Paso – Southern LNG
–Phase A Expansion)*
FERC
MARAD/USCG
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Mexico
N. Altamira, Tamulipas: 0.7 Bcfd,
(Shell/Total/Mitsui – Altamira LNG)
O. Baja California, MX: 1.0 Bcfd, (Sempra – Energia
Costa Azul)
28
North American LNG
Import Terminals
Approved
APPROVED - UNDER CONSTRUCTION
U.S.
1. Sabine, TX: 2.0 Bcfd (ExxonMobil - Golden Pass)
2. Elba Island, GA: 0.5 Bcfd (El Paso - Southern LNG Expansion)*
3. Pascagoula, MS: 1.5 Bcfd (El Paso/Crest/Sonangol - Gulf LNG
Energy LLC)
4. Offshore Boston, MA: 0.4 Bcfd (GDF SUEZ- Neptune LNG)
APPROVED - UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Mexico
5. Manzanillo, MX: 0.5 Bcfd (KMS GNL de Manzanillo)
21
22
4
16
9
18
11
17
2
23
3
10
12 1 1314
7 8
6 15
19
20
US Jurisdiction
5
As of August 3, 2010
*
29
FERC
MARAD/USCG
Expansion of an existing facility
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
APPROVED - NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
U.S. - FERC
6. Corpus Christi, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Occidental Energy Ventures –
Ingleside Energy)
7. Corpus Christi, TX: 2.6 Bcfd, (Cheniere – Corpus Christi LNG)
8. Corpus Christi, TX : 1.1 Bcfd (4Gas - Vista Del Sol)
9. Fall River, MA : 0.8 Bcfd, (Hess LNG/Weaver's Cove Energy)
10. Port Arthur, TX: 3.0 Bcfd (Sempra)
11. Logan Township, NJ : 1.2 Bcfd (Hess LNG - Crown Landing
LNG)
12. Cameron, LA: 3.3 Bcfd (Cheniere - Creole Trail LNG)
13. Freeport, TX: 2.5 Bcfd (Cheniere/Freeport LNG Dev. Expansion)*
14. Hackberry, LA: 0.85 Bcfd (Sempra - Cameron LNG Expansion)*
15. Port Lavaca, TX: 1.0 Bcfd (Gulf Coast LNG Partners – Calhoun
LNG)
16. Bradwood, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Northern Star Natural Gas LLC –
Northern Star LNG)
17. Baltimore, MD: 1.5 Bcfd (AES Corporation – AES Sparrows
Point)
18. Coos Bay, OR: 1.0 Bcfd (Jordan Cove Energy Project)
U.S. - MARAD/Coast Guard
19. Gulf of Mexico: 1.0 Bcfd (Main Pass McMoRan Exp.)
20. Offshore Florida: 1.2 Bcfd (Port Dolphin Energy - Hoëgh LNG)
Canada
21. Rivière-du- Loup, QC: 0.5 Bcfd (Cacouna Energy TransCanada/PetroCanada)
22. Quebec City, QC : 0.5 Bcfd (Project Rabaska - Enbridge/Gaz
Met/Gaz de France)
Mexico
23. Baja California, MX : 1.5 Bcfd (Sempra - Energia Costa Azul Expansion)
29
North American LNG Import Terminals
Proposed
3
1
2
PROPOSED TO FERC
1. Robbinston, ME: 0.5 Bcfd (Kestrel Energy - Downeast LNG)
2. Astoria, OR: 1.5 Bcfd (Oregon LNG)
3. Calais, ME: 1.2 Bcfd (BP Consulting LLC)
PROPOSED TO MARAD/COAST GUARD
4. Gulf of Mexico: 1.4 Bcfd (TORP Technology - Bienville LNG)
5. Offshore Florida: 1.9 Bcfd (GDF SUEZ - Calypso LNG)
4
5
US Jurisdiction
FERC
MARAD/USCG
As of August 3, 2010
30
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
30
Market Knows Best
 FERC is not the market
 FERC will present a “menu” of infrastructure solutions
that are:
In the public interest
Will cause the least environmental impact
Will be safe
 The market is in the best position to select the
infrastructure projects that get built
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
31
Conclusions
 The Commission process has benefited all stakeholders
in natural gas projects
 More needs to be done
 Turn opposition into understanding
 Continue to refine the siting process
 More infrastructure is coming
 Alaska
 Pipes from non-traditional sources
 Hydrokinetics
 Electric transmission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
32
Contact Info:
Michael J. McGehee
Director, Division of Pipeline
Certificates
Office of Energy Projects
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[email protected]
202-502-8962
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
33