# Presentation: 204679

## The Pre-Filing Process:Working with theFederal Family

- Richard R. Hoffmann, Director
- Division of Gas – Environment & Engineering

- Managing Major Rights-of-Way
- November 15, 2004

## Quiz Question #1

- Does FERC regulate all types of pipelines?
*	**No, only natural gas pipelines in interstate commerce. *

## 2004 - Who’s Who in DG2E

**Notes:**
For those of you that are not that familiar with FERC, a little FERC trivia:
 created in 1920 as the Federal Power Commission, became FERC in 1977
1274 employees total in Wash and regional offices in Atlanta, San Francisco, NY, Chicago, Portland.  
Of the total only 48 people, all in DC, are responsible for NEPA review of pipelines

Our Division has been busy this year!  The creation of a new branch, 7 promotions, and 10 new hires.

The recent flood of LNG work has driven the need to expand our general staff, to concentrate expertise, and to do it fast.

in March, I named my Deputy Director and created the LNG Engineering Branch.

In early May the new 3 Branch Chiefs were named and the 3 new Senior Technical Experts were selected at the end of May.

## Newly Created Positions

- Senior Technical Experts:
- Alisa Lykens, Outreach		 202-502-8766
- Rich McGuire, Compliance	 202-502-6177
- Medha Kochhar, T&E Species	 202-502-8964

**Notes:**
Alisa – taking a more active role within the Gas Outreach team; monitoring interagency consultations on the major projects; and participating in Interagency Agreement Working Group meetings.

Rich – responsible for ensuring consistency in inspections amongst staff and contractors, providing guidance to staff and industry on Plan and Procedures, and other construction related issues, and tracking compliance across projects.

Medha – monitoring sensitive T/E issues, keeping up with changes to species lists and mitigation strategies, ensuring consistency in the treatment of resources, and helping to coordinate with the Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies.

Please feel free to contact them directly if you have issues or questions related to their areas of expertise.

## NEPA Pre-Filing Guidelines

- Applicant must:
- File a written request
- Explain reasons and timing considerations
- Verify other major state and federal agencies support the process
- Describe consultations completed to date

**Notes:**
The Pre-filing process originated from our efforts to streamline the review process and was recognized in the “Interagency Agreement” between FERC and nine other Federal Agencies.  
The pre-filing NEPA process will begin with a written request from an applicant for involvement by the staff.  The written request must be 7 to 8 months prior to filing an application.

## Applicant must:
Propose options for third-party contractor
Agree to file complete application 
Preliminary route maps (if possible)
Prepare a Public Participation Plan

- Propose options for third-party contractor
- Agree to file complete application
- Preliminary route maps (if possible)
- Prepare a Public Participation Plan

- NEPA Pre-Filing Guidelines

## Assign a PF docket number
Issue a scoping notice
Examine alternatives
Attend site visits and meetings
Initiate preparation of NEPA document
Review draft Resource Reports

- Issue a scoping notice
- Examine alternatives
- Attend site visits and meetings
- Initiate preparation of NEPA document
- Review draft Resource Reports

- FERC Activities in Pre-Filing

## Identify affected parties
Landowners
Agencies
Others
Facilitate:
Issue identification
Study needs
Issue resolution

- Landowners
- Agencies
- Others
- Facilitate:
- Issue identification
- Study needs
- Issue resolution

- FERC Activities in Pre-Filing

**Notes:**
These are some of the activities that FERC staff and the third-party contractor may be involved with if the written request is accepted by the Office of Energy Projects.

## FERC Timelines:Traditional vs. NEPA Pre-Filing Process

- Announce
- Open
- Season

- Announce
- Open
- Season

- Develop
- Study
- Corridor

- Develop
- Study
- Corridor

- Conduct
- Scoping

- Conduct
- Scoping

- 0  1   2   3   4   5   6   7    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28

-  Review Draft
- Resource Reports
- & Prepare DEIS

- Issue
- Draft
- EIS

- Issue
- Draft
- EIS

- File
- At
- FERC

- Issue
- Order

- Issue
- Order

- File
- At
- FERC

- Prepare Resource
- Reports

- Prepare Resource
- Reports

- Issue
- Final
- EIS

- Issue
- Final
- EIS

- (months)

**Traditional - Applicant**

**Traditional - FERC**

**NEPA Pre-Filing - Applicant**

**NEPA Pre-Filing - FERC**

**Notes:**
The point we’re illustrating is that here both projects start planning at the same time and are following essentially the same path.  They are starting their open seasons at the same time, developing their corridors at the same time. 

It is the Commission’s timeline that shifts.  Note that there is no shortcut in the NEPA process.  

The time savings in the Commission’s decision-making process is reflective of the efforts by all the stakeholders, the applicant, and FERC staff in identifying and resolving issues at the earliest possible point.  We believe this will be a benefit

If the process is successful, the range of issues left for the Commission to address is a small and already well known, with no surprises.  Result --quicker decisions!

## Benefits of NEPA Pre-Filing

- More interactive NEPA process, no shortcuts
- Earlier, more direct involvement by FERC, other agencies, landowners
- Goal of “no surprises”
- Time savings realized only if we are working together with stakeholders
- FERC staff is an advocate of the Process, not the Project!

**Notes:**
We think the benefits are self-explanatory.

We understand the industry is waiting to see if our expectations become reality.  They want a degree of certainty that is difficult to base on the experience of one project.

The majority of applicants with major projects are electing to use the Pre-Filing Process

This will only work is all the players hold up their end of the bargain.  We need a real commitment from to identifying and resolving issues to reach our “no surprises” goal.  This all gets back to best communication practices.

The FERC will not be a project advocate; it is the process that we must keep on track.

## Average CertificateProcessing Time

- Can we do it?

**Notes:**
Chart represented average certificate processing time for projects requiring an EIS.  Report on Government Performance Review standards.  Target for getting out a Certificate on project requiring an EIS is 480 days.  

Here’s why we think the NEPA Pre-Filing Process make sense...

For pending projects, about 60% of projects requiring major EAs or EISs used Pre-Filing Process, resulted in a 5% decrease in processing time.  

With the increased use of NEPA Pre-Filing, may be able to show something more in the range of 300 days.

## Major Pipeline ProjectsOn The Horizon

- 19

**Project Name ****–**** **
**Capacity In MMcf/d & Miles**
**Coronado – 500**
**Kern River Expansion – 500**
**KM Advantage – 330, 411**
**KM West Texas – 300, 196**
**KM Piceance-Cheyenne ****– ****500, 341**
**KM Silver Canyon – 750, 455**
**KM Wheatland Expansion – 80**
**Maritimes Phase IV – 400, 31**
**Northwinds – 500, 215**
**Bison – 240, 315**
**Muncie Lateral – 500, 124**
**Petal Gas Storage Project – 500**
**Western Frontier – 540, 400**
**Freedom Trail – 150, 40**
**Trailblazer Expansion – 100, 87**
**TransColorado Extension - 750, 100**
**Transcontental Gas Pipeline Project -150**
**Sun Devil/Phoenix Lateral - 450, 530**
**Blue Atlantic – 1,000, 750**
**Kern River CA Expansion – 200**
**Chicago Expansion Project III - 130**
**Eastern Expansion/MGT – 120, 30**
**TransColorado Gas Pipeline Project – 300**
**Vector Mainline Expansion - 500**

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

- 6

- 7

- 9

- 10

- 13

- 14

- 15

- 16

- 18

- 8

- 5

- 11

- 12

- 17

- 20

- 21

- 22

- 23

- 24

- November 2004

## Pipeline and LNG Projects in NEPA Pre-Filing

**Weaver’s Cove LNG & Mill River Pipeline:  **800 MMcf/d LNG; 2 pipelines totalling 6.11 miles (CP04-36, et.al.)
**Sound Energy Solutions Long Beach LNG (Mitsubishi):  **700 MMcf/d LNG; 2.3 mile pipeline (CP04-58)
**3.****	****San Juan Expansion (Transwestern):  **375 MMcf/d, 72.6 miles (CP04-104). **Certificate issued 8-5-04, 11 months after NEPA Pre-file initiated**
**4.****	****Golden Pass LNG (ExxonMobil):  **2.0 Bcf/d (CP04-386, et. al.)
**5.****	****Crown Landing LNG (BP):  **1.2 Bcf/d (CP04-411, et.al.)
- 	**Logan Lateral** **(Texas Eastern):**  12 miles PL(CP04-416)
**6.****	****Vista del Sol LNG (ExxonMobil):  **1.1 Bcf/d (CP04-395, et.al.)
**7.  ****	****Southern System Expansion (Questar):**  102 MMcf/d, 18 miles
**8.****	****Entrega Gas Pipeline (EnCana):  **1.5 Bcf/d; 327 miles (CP04-413)
**9.****	****Seafarer US Pipeline System (El Paso):** 41 miles jurisdictional (128 total) PL from High Rock Bahamas LNG
**10.****	****Ingleside Energy Center LNG**
**	**1 Bcf/d;  26 mile pipeline (CP05-13, et. al.)
**11.   ****	****Northwest Pipeline Corporation: **Capacity Replacement Project, 80.7 mi.; 36" PL loop
**12.   ****	****Sempra Energy International: **Port Arthur LNG; 1.5 Bcfd sendout capacity; 2 interconnecting pipelines totaling  73 miles.**       ****	**
**Transcontinental Gas Pipeline:  **3.8  miles of  pipeline loop in NJ. (CP04-396)
**Piceance Basin Expansion Project (El Paso): **143 miles of  pipeline In Colorado & Wyoming; 350 MMcfd capacity
**Hardy Storage Field; Virginia Pipeline Looping Project (Columbia): **37.5 miles of PL loop & development of storage field.
**16.       Dominion Cove Point LNG; Dominion Transmission:  **Increase sendout capacity by 800 MMcfd; additional 149 miles of pipeline in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
**17.****	****Empire State Pipeline:  **Empire Connector Project: 80-mi, 24-inch; 22,000 HP compression adding 250,000 Dth capacity in New York upstream of Millennium.
**Colorado Interstate Gas Co.:  **Raton Basin 2005 Expansion Project, 99-mi. pipeline looping in CO, KS, & OK; added compression in OK**         **
**Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.:  **MGT Eastern  Expansion Project; 30-mi. 120,000 Dth/d

*FERC*

**3**

**7**

**14**

*Office of Energy Projects*

**9**

**10**

**2**

**1**

**5**

**Originally NEPA Pre-filing, now **
**Pending Certificate Proceeding**

**NEPA Pre-filing**

**12**

**11**

**15**

**16**

**4**

**4**

**6**

**13**

**17**

**Began as NEPA Pre-filing;**
**Certificate has been issued **

**8**

**18**

**19**

## Kudos for the Federal Family

- BLM and FS were the first agencies to develop implementing guidance for the Interagency Agreement
- Copies of the guidance documents are in your notebook
- Concerted effort at coordination plays well with industry, the Hill
- Models for other agencies

## What It Means To BLM

- Federal agencies are pulling together from the beginning
- Establishing consistent key agency contacts
- Ability to get consistent and timely information from project sponsors
- Avoiding duplication
- Marshalling resources early
- Better project design, quicker decision process

**Notes:**
We’re all in this together – the agencies are ready to evaluate their roles and participate in the process.

Need to establish relationships with these folks for the long-term.  The company isn’t going away once the project’s built.

Industry needs to be consistent on its end—with contacts and information.  Be timely in providing information, check back to make sure it got into the right hands.

Ensure that each agency’s needs are clearly identified, and mechanisms are in place for review and feedback.  FERC is committed to addressing issues and aiding concurrent decision-making.  Avoid need for supplemental reviews.  

As we saw on the timeline, we’re confident that a project designed with the stakeholders concerns in mind will result in a better design and a faster decision.

## Quiz Question #2

- According to the May 2002 Interagency Agreement on interstate natural gas pipelines, how is the Lead Agency determined?
- 	*FERC will be the lead agency unless, at the request of another Participating Agency (or after FERC’s own review), FERC determines that another agency better meets the CEQ lead agency requirements.*

**Notes:**
To date, we have been the Lead Agency for the majority of projects.  We do have one project (El Paso’s Line 1903 Replacement) where BLM is the Lead.

## Opportunities forInvolvement

- _The FERC Process:_
- Request cooperating agency participation
- Issue Notice of the PF Process or Application
- Issue Notice of Intent to prepare the EA/EIS
- Hold scoping meetings
- Review draft and/or final Resource Reports

- _BLM/FS Input:_
- Confirm cooperating agency status
- Use our notice to fulfill your requirements
- Send initial comments to FERC
- Participate in agency and public scoping meetings
- Review draft and/or final Resource Reports

**Notes:**
Our project manager will be contacting you at the earliest point to establish agency discussions

For Pre-Filings projects, some of these activities will take place more than once or over an extended period.

We want the cooperating agencies to work with the 3rd-party contractor, and believe that the contractor is working for you too.

## Opportunities forInvolvement

- _The FERC Process:_
- Send Preliminary DEIS to cooperating agencies
- Issue DEIS
- Hold public meetings on DEIS
- Send Preliminary FEIS to cooperating agencies
- Issue FEIS
- Issue a Commission Order

- _BLM/FS Input:_
- Send comments, fill in the blanks
- Sit back and relax
- Participate in Public Meetings
- Send comments, fill in the blanks
- Sit back and relax
- Issue Record of Decision

**Notes:**
We want the DEIS to be so inclusive of your requirements that you don’t need to send formal comments on the document.

QUESTION FOR BLM:  Is there some requirement that BLM or Headquarters Interior, or FS or Headquarters Agriculture, send formal comments on a DEIS on which it is cooperating?  We wouldn’t do that!

Airing our differences in a public forum isn’t to anyone’s benefit.

## Expanded Use Of ThePre-Filing Process

- Process works for major EAs
- Option of providing either 3rd-party contractor or applicant prepared draft EA
- If project scope expands, staff may require       3rd-party contractor
- Company open houses may be sufficient for scoping
- Move from draft EA to issued document very quickly
- Can include discussion of non-environmental issues

**Notes:**
Now have several projects where an applicant prepared EA is planned

Before the PF Process was established, the Applicant-prepared draft EAs tended to be of little value, they were most often prepared in a vacuum—didn’t reflect FERC and other agency concerns, public comment

## The Pre-Filing Process –Continuous Learning

- We review draft RFP and _contract_
- Projects must be out of the closet; we don’t like secrets
- Applicants need to be clear and realistic about expectations
- We _ALL_ need to be proactive about solving problems
- Dealing with unrealistic time frames

**Notes:**
Need to see draft RFP (we have templates) and draft contract (no template).  Looking into info custody issues.

Secrets - We have always had certain prospective project developers that have come in to talk to us and they’ve asked that we maintain the discussed info as confidential.  We honor those requests

However, as more projects seek to use the Pre-Filing Process, we are seeing a disconnect between wanting to keep the project confidential and truly engaging stakeholders early in the process.  At some point the cat has to be let out of the bag.  It can’t be at the same time the FERC approves the PF and issues it’s notice.  

Filing Date - In the past shippers and other customers counted on the Filing of the Application as a major step toward seeing the project become a reality.  However, with the advancement of the Pre-Filing Process, we’re seeing that the more significant milestones are the submission of the draft resource reports and the issuance of the EA or draft EIS.  Filing the application when it’s not ready defeats the purpose of Pre-Filing review—to ensure all the relevant issues are addressed and perfected in the filing.

Expectations – While we are clearly advocating the use of Pre-Filing, it doesn’t fit EVERY project.  Applicants need to take critical look at how FERC’s participation is expected to help, how committed they are to being flexible.  Some companies have developed internal guidelines to help in these decisions.

Proactive – On some projects we’re seeing issues identified early that are critical to the forward movement of the project and yet the applicants are unable to make the critical decisions needed.  It may be internal politics or money, or a real uncertainty about how to proceed.  We make sure the applicants know that the burden is on them to resolve issues. 

## NEPA at FERC

- The EA/EIS is the Commission _staff’s_ analysis
- The EA/EIS contains conclusions regarding impacts and make recommendations to the Commission for mitigation
- The EA/EIS is only one part of the record on which the Commission will base its decision
- Our Record of Decision is the Commission’s Order either approving or denying the project

**Notes:**
As an independent Commission, the staff’s job is to make recommendations to the Commissioners.  That’s what the NEPA document represents is the staff’s determination as to the anticipated environmental impacts, not the Commission’s findings.

As a result, mitigation measures generated by the FERC staff are styled as recommendations to the Commission.  We will normally ask the applicant to agree to the proposed measures and to adopt them as part of the proposed action.

With the Commission’s mission to determine whether the approval of a project would be in the Public Convenience and Necessity, the NEPA document is only one part of its record.  Other staff determine appropriate rate treatment, tariff requirements, engineering factors.

When the Commission makes its finding, the NEPA document is normally accepted without modification.  The Commission’s Order includes mitigation as a required part of the Certificate that the applicant must comply with.  Given the complexity and timing associated with of some of the mitigation, the Certificate is considered conditional until the such time as the staff says the project is ready to go.

## NEPA at FERC

- Cultural resources and T/E Species surveys of the proposed route must be completed before an application is submitted to FERC
- The EA/EIS presents a detailed analysis (equal level of analysis, T/E & CR surveys) of only those alternatives likely to be preferable to the proposal

**Notes:**
Timing of survey completion is critical to the submission of an application, part of our minimum filing requirements.  Applications are rejected for not submitting surveys

High level screening of alternatives results in expenditure of time and money only where necessary

T&E, CR surveys very expensive, time consuming; have seasonal/weather restrictions

## NEPA at FERC

- Applicants cannot conduct surveys on private land if landowners object
- Requirements on Federal land will often be different from those on private/state land
- On Federal land, what you folks want, you get!

**Notes:**
Differences - ROW width, ability to obtain extra work area, seeding & restoration, off-site vs. on-site mitigation.  That’s OK as long as there’s a reason.

You give us the information, we’ll include it.  You make calls on what goes on Federal land

## NEPA at FERC

- Cultural Resources
- Survey requirements on private land determined through applicant consultation with SHPO
- Survey requirements on public land based on applicant consultation with the land manager
- FERC makes determinations of eligibility and effect on private land, consults with land manager on Federal/state land
- Native American consultation will be directed by FERC, in consultation with SHPO, land managers
- The need for a Programmatic Agreement will be determined once we determine that the project will adversely affect an eligible cultural resource

**Notes:**
FERC, as lead agency, also has the lead for cultural resource and T/E consultations

Protocols established between other agencies and SHPOs are usually not usable because they don’t include FERC, private land

The applicant is to develop survey methodologies based on discussions  established by the SHPO or land manager
Survey requirements usually worked out without our involvement, per our guidelines

Some discussion regarding the need for Programmatic Agreement for handling cultural resource issues.  ACHP regulations say that PAs are meant reflect the resolution of adverse effects on eligible properties.  So we determine the need for the PA when we are at the point where we know the project will adversely affect a resource.

## NEPA at FERC

- Biological Assessment
- EA will be BA
- Normally DEIS will be BA
- Separate BA at the request of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
- Biological Opinion
- Included in FEIS if possible
- If not included in FEIS, Commission Order will be conditioned on completion of consultation with FWS

## Workload Pressures

- We’ve all got ‘em!
- DG2E staff have a single focus – interstate natural gas facilities
- In FY04, had 22 EISs going simultaneously
- Renewed emphasis on Energy Policy, streamlining efforts?
- We’re all in this together!

**Notes:**
You’ve got small staff in field offices, many are overwhelmed by drilling permits, not to mention non-energy related activities

We’ve got just 48 people handling the entire country, but we’re focused solely on one sector of development

During the course of FY 2004 the Commission staff completed the environmental review of 397 gas pipeline and LNG filings, including 47 environmental assessments (EAs) and 4 environmental impact statements (EISs).  Concurrently, the Commission staff continued work on 17 additional EAs and 18 additional EISs, primarily for new LNG import terminal both onshore and offshore. 

Is there any streamlining left to do?

In everyone’s best interest to continue to present a united Federal front; we’re all in this together

## Working TogetherThen and Now

- FERC and BLM:

**Notes:**
We’ve learned a lot about each other over the years.  This impacts the way we communicate, and our ability to come to a common point.

## Quiz Question #3

- Does FERC establish cost recovery agreements for each project?
*	**No.  The Commission recovers costs through annual charges to the regulated industries; however, these fees do not directly fund project review*

**Notes:**
You’ve been spending much of your time discussing cost recovery agreements.  It might surprise you to know that FERC doesn’t have a similar arrangement with the applicants:  no cost recovery, no project specific MOU

## Us and BLM,We Go Way Back...

- FERC Lead
- Altamont (1991) – Larry Sauter
- Northwest Expansion (1992) – Lauren O’Donnell
- Tuscarora (1995) – Alisa Lykens
- Southern Trails (2000) – Larry Sauter
- North Baja (2001) – Mike Boyle
- Kern River (1987 & 2002) – Larry Sauter, Mike Boyle
- Grasslands (2003) – Rich McGuire
- BLM Lead
- TransColorado (1992) – Mike Boyle
- QWK (2001) – Mike Boyle

**Notes:**
Listed some of the larger projects we’ve worked together on over the last 15 years along with the FERC Project Manager.  You see many of the same names, our senior staff familiar with western issues.  

All these folks are still at FERC.  Not much turnover in staff.  A great advantage for us and for you.  We make connections with BLM staff and often run across the same people on other projects in other offices as they transfer around.

## Common Ground

- We speak the same language: NEPA
- We see the benefit of Pre-Filing involvement
- Responsible to a variety of stakeholder interests
- Desire to avoid duplication of efforts
- We follow projects through from cradle to grave

**Notes:**
For pipelines, we have similar review processes and work under most of the same statutes

BLM and the FS were both very supportive of FERC Pre-Filing Process.  Committed to participating with us.  

Balancing of interests is very important: public use vs. private use, preservation vs. resource development, public good vs. private interests

Staff turn-over is low, allows the project team to follow projects from the pre-filing stage to the completion of right-of-way restoration.

Have same needs for reporting and review during construction.  Coordinate monitoring requirements

3rd party monitoring program is the best way to ensure we are all getting what we need

## Recent Experiences:Issues for Discussion

- Who should the applicant approach first, BLM or FERC?
- How does BLM establish the lead office?
- How do we facilitate survey access for the applicants?
- What lessons have we learned from recent projects?

**Notes:**
It doesn’t really matter as long as we are communicating.  Either way, the contacts should be timed so that neither agency is working in a vacuum or gets too far ahead

## Recent Experience – Success!!

- Picacho Pipeline Project
- Early discussions of how to coordinate the efforts
- Constant communication between the agencies
- Agreement on when to cut our losses
- Applicant not providing timely or consistent information

## Recent Experience – Success!!

- Kern River
- Coordination between FERC Project Manager and BLM nationwide project manager
- BLM’s core review team for EIS
- Valuable early agency scoping
- Sharing of information between various contractors (ours, yours, theirs)
- Need for coordinated review and reporting during construction

## Recent Experience – Success??

- CIG’s Ruby Project
- Early coordination meeting set up by BLM
- Significant delay in Applicant’s ability to gain access from BLM for cultural resource surveys
- Confusion over need for Programmatic Agreement
- False start, project not ripe for processing

**Notes:**

False starts—we know that there will be projects like this.  Not a problem that is predictable.

## Recent Experience – Success!!

-  Transwestern San Juan Expansion
- First use of Pre-Filing Process for an Applicant-prepared draft EA
- Reviewed by us, BLM, Navajo Nation; comments incorporated before filing with FERC
- Issued EA for 30-day comment period < 2 months after filing
- Received 3 comments; no changes made to EA
- Issued Commission Order < 4 months after filing
- Applicant kept changing the project scope

**Notes:**
Consisted of 73 miles of pipeline loop and new compression

PF process started in Nov. 2003

Applicant open-houses, agency meetings and FERC NOI all done before filing; sufficient for scoping.

Application filed beginning of  Apr. 2004

EA issued end of May 2004

Order issued beginning of Aug. 2004

Accomplished goal of having filed EA addressing all identified issues; do a quick review,  change the cover and mail it out.

## Recent Experience –Working Toward Success!!

- Entrega and Piceance Expansion Projects
- High level discussion of potential issues
- Early agreement on how to proceed
- Applicants approached BLM to start work prior to contacting the FERC
- Two projects, two EISs, very similar route, dissimilar timing
- Differing view of connected action/nonjurisdictional facilities

**Notes:**

False starts—we know that there will be projects like this.  Not a problem that is predictable.

## Questions?

- Contact information
- Richard R. Hoffmann	202-502-8066
- Richard.hoffmann@ferc.gov
- FERC website, ferc.gov
- Maps and details of filed and on-the-horizon projects