Report 

Submitted to the 

United States Congress 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Report to Congress on progress made in licensing 

and constructing the Alaska natural gas pipeline 

 

February 1, 2006
 

Report of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on progress made 

in licensing and constructing the Alaska natural gas pipeline 

I. Executive Summary 

This report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

submitted pursuant to section 1810 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).1

Section 1810 of EPAct 2005 provides that within 180 days of the date of enactment, and 

every 180 days thereafter until the Alaska natural gas pipeline commences operation, the 

Commission shall submit to Congress a report describing the progress made in licensing 

and constructing the Alaska natural gas pipeline and any impediments thereto. 

At present, there are three potential projects being seriously considered for 

bringing Alaskan natural gas from the Alaskan North Slope to lower 48 state markets. 

One of these potential projects is the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System 

(ANGTS) proposed pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 

(ANGTA), Canada’s Northern Pipeline Act and an Agreement between the United States 

and Canada. The Commission granted conditional approval of this project in 1977. A 

second potential project is the Trans-Alaska Gas System (TAGS), a liquified natural gas 

(LNG) export project. The third potential project involves a new pipeline to transport gas 

from the North Slope of Alaska to the Canadian border, which would be authorized 

pursuant to the provisions of section 103 of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act 

(ANGPA)2

 and section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).3 

This report describes the status of the three projects, the progress made in 

advancing each of them, including actions taken by the project sponsors, the 

Commission, and other federal and state entities, and potential impediments to each of 

the projects. As discussed in this report, a successful Alaska natural gas pipeline will 

have to overcome a variety of significant impediments presented by the tremendous size, 

scope, and cost of any such delivery system, the long lead-time needed to develop such a 

project, unique environmental and competitive conditions, and the international scope of 

such a project. These obstacles have all led potential project sponsors to agree that 

several things need to occur before they can move seriously toward developing their 

respective proposals. First, project sponsors require fiscal certainty regarding Alaska 

state tax and royalty payments associated with their respective proposals. Second, certain 

jurisdictional, permitting, and financing issues needed to be addressed through legislation 

and regulatory action, both in the United States and in Canada. Third, the potential 

sponsors require reasonable assurances that over time, the project will be economically 

feasible. In turn, the North Slope producers must be assured that the project’s economic 

 1

 P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). 

2

 P.L. 108-324, 118 Stat. 1220 (2004). 

3

 15 U.S.C 717f. 
 - 2 - 

viability justifies the commercial decision to make a long-term investment in a multibillion dollar transportation system and to enter into long-term commitments to sell their 

gas supplies. 

The impediments are being addressed by legislative initiative and other 

governmental action, both at the federal and state level, involving both industry and 

involved governmental entities. 

II. Background – ANGPA and Related Initiatives 

Recognizing the importance of Alaska natural gas resources in meeting the rapidly 

rising demand for natural gas,4

 Congress enacted ANGPA, which became law on October 

13, 2004. The objective of this Act is to facilitate the timely development of an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project to bring Alaskan natural gas to markets in Alaska and 

the lower 48 states to meet increasing demand. One requirement of ANGPA was that 

within 120 days from enactment of the Act, the Commission must issue regulations 

governing the conduct of open seasons for Alaska natural gas transportation projects, 

including the allocation of capacity. 

The Commission issued Order Nos. 2005, and 2005-A, on February 9, and June 1, 

2005,5

 respectively, establishing the open-season regulations to govern any Alaska 

natural gas pipeline facilities, whether authorized under ANGTA or under the NGA 

pursuant to the provisions of ANGPA. As directed by Congress in ANGPA section 103, 

the open-season regulations specify the criteria for and timing of any open seasons, 

promote competition in the exploration, development, and production of Alaska natural 

gas, and, for any open-season for capacity exceeding the initial capacity, provide for the 

transportation of natural gas other than from Alaska’s North Slope. In addition to 

providing prospective project sponsors with flexibility in the design of their open 

seasons, the open-season rules allow pre-subscriptions of capacity. The rules also 

provide rate certainty for voluntary expansions by specifying that rolled-in rate treatment 

will attach to voluntary expansions. 

III. Alaska Pipeline Status Report 

At present, there are three potential projects being considered to bring natural gas 

from the North Slope of Alaska to markets in the lower 48 states. However, due to the 

 4 See Exhibit A attached to this Report. Exhibit A is a chart that illustrates how 

domestic, Canadian, LNG, and Alaskan natural gas supplies are expected to meet the 

projected natural gas demand through the year 2020. 

5 Regulations Governing the Conduct of Open Seasons for Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Projects, Order No. 2005, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,174, order on reh’g, 

Order No. 2005-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,187 (2005). 
 - 3 - 

tremendous technical, financial, and commercial challenges involved, it is likely that only 

one of the three projects will be developed. 

A. Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) 

The ANGTS, which is currently supported by TransCanada Corporation 

(TransCanada), is the gas pipeline project approved in accordance with ANGTA, 

Canada’s Northern Pipeline Act and an Agreement between the United States and Canada 

on Principles Applicable to a Northern Natural Gas Pipeline. The ANGTS consists of a 

48-inch pipeline that would parallel the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) from 

Prudhoe Bay to Delta Junction, then follow the Alaska Highway to the Alaska-Yukon 

border and continue through Canada to the Alberta hub. In Alberta, the pipeline splits 

into two legs: the eastern leg terminates near Chicago and the western leg terminates 

near Antioch, California. The eastern and western legs of the project were constructed in 

the 1980’s. The pipeline would be buried throughout except at major fault and river 

crossings. 

In 1977, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was completed for the project 

and the Commission issued conditional certificates of public convenience and necessity. 

In 1980, a renewable 30-year grant of right-of-way across federal lands was issued for the 

project by the Secretary of Interior pursuant to ANGTA. A State of Alaska right-of-way 

application was submitted in 1981, but twice suspended. In 2004, the Alaskan Northwest 

Natural Gas Transportation Company and TransCanada Alaska Company, LLM (whollyowned subsidiaries of TransCanada) submitted an updated right-of-way application to the 

state and a final decision on the application and 30-year right-of-way lease have been 

prepared, but not yet signed. Additionally, TransCanada has filed an application to 

negotiate under the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act (SGA); however, there have 

been no active negotiations between the State of Alaska and TransCanada as yet. This 

critical stage in the evolution of a viable project is discussed in more detail below. 

B. Trans-Alaska Gas System (TAGS) 

The TAGS is an LNG export project conceived by the Yukon Pacific Corporation 

in the 1980’s. The proposal calls for a 36-inch pipeline to parallel the TAPS from 

Prudhoe Bay to Anderson Bay near Valdez, Alaska, where an LNG liquifaction plant 

would be built to ship the LNG to worldwide markets. The pipeline would be buried 

throughout except in special design areas. 

In 1988, an initial EIS was completed for the project. In 1995, an EIS was 

completed on the LNG facilities and the Commission issued an order granting Yukon 

Pacific export authorization. A federal 30-year grant of right-of-way was issued for the 

project in 1995 by the Alaska State Director of the Bureau of Land Management. The 

State of Alaska issued a ten-year conditional right-of-way lease in 1988 and renewed the 
 - 4 - 

conditional lease for another ten years in 1998. The state lease is currently held by CSX 

Corporation. The state conditional right-of-way lease is transferable, upon state approval. 

The TAGS project is currently promoted by the Alaska Gas Port Authority 

(AGPA), which has negotiated with CSX Corporation for rights to the federal grant and 

state conditional lease. AGPA proposes a 48-inch gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to 

Anderson Bay and includes a 24-inch “spur” gas pipeline from Glennallen to the greater 

Anchorage Bowl. AGPA has filed an application to negotiate a contract under the SGA; 

however, there have been no active negotiations as yet between the State of Alaska and 

AGPA. 

C. The Producer Group 

The potential project of the Producer Group, comprising BP, ConocoPhillips and 

ExxonMobil, consists of a 52-inch pipeline that would parallel the TAPS from Prudhoe 

Bay to Delta Junction, then follow the Alaska Highway to the Alaska-Yukon border and 

continue through Canada to the Alberta Hub, and ultimately to markets in the lower 48 

states. The pipeline would be buried throughout except at certain river crossings. In 

2000-2001, the Producer Group conducted a $125 million feasibility study, which 

determined that a pipeline through Canada to the lower 48 states has the best chance of 

commercializing Alaska natural gas. 

No right-of-way applications have been submitted to state or federal governments; 

however, members of the Producer Group have met with both state and federal officials 

regarding the proposal. The State of Alaska and the Producer Group have formed a rightof-way group, which meets regularly to discuss issues surrounding the project. The 

Producer Group, too, has filed an application to negotiate a contract under the SGA. At 

present, this is the only prospective sponsor with whom the state is actively negotiating. 

D. Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act Negotiations 

The SGA permits the state to negotiate fiscal terms regarding payments in lieu of 

taxes and royalty adjustments in order to encourage new investment to develop the state’s 

stranded gas resources. Potential investors are seeking to substitute the fiscal certainty of 

contractual payments for the risk of changing state and municipal taxes with respect to 

any proposed natural gas pipeline project. 

The project sponsors have indicated that they will only begin to develop an 

application once they have successfully negotiated for the fiscal certainty under the SGA. 

Consequently, this is the first impediment to the development of an Alaska natural gas 

pipeline project. As noted above, while all three prospective project sponsors have filed 

applications to commence negotiations with the State of Alaska under the SGA, the 

Producer Group is the only sponsor with whom the State of Alaska is negotiating at 
 - 5 - 

present. ConocoPhillips and the State of Alaska announced in October 2005 that they 

had reached an agreement on all terms. While BP and ExxonMobil have not yet reached 

an agreement on certain contract terms with the state, all parties are committed to 

resolving their differences in the very near future, according to a gas pipeline update 

given by Governor Frank Murkowski in a December 16, 2005 press conference. 

Once a contract is negotiated, the SGA requires a 30-day public comment period 

before the governor can submit the agreement to the state legislature for its approval. 

The legislature may not amend the contract; its only option is to approve or reject the 

contract. The legislature started its 121-day session on January 12, 2006 and there is a 

risk that unless the state can process the applications and complete contract negotiations 

quickly, there might not be enough time for the state legislature to consider and act on the 

matter during the regular session. 

Before a sponsor can file an application for a project authorized under ANGPA 

section 103, it must conduct studies and field surveys and prepare resource reports, and, 

as discussed below, the seasonal windows for such studies and surveys are narrow. 

Consequently, a realistic expectation for the development of an application in 2006 is 

dependent on the Producer Group reaching an agreement with the State of Alaska under 

the SGA within the next several weeks. 

E. Environmental Review of an Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

In connection with an Alaska natural gas transportation project authorized under 

the NGA, section 104 of ANGPA provides that the Commission is the lead agency for 

purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 

the preparation of a single, consolidated EIS for all federal agencies. ANGPA establishes 

a streamlined 20-month deadline from the time of the filing of a complete application to 

final certificate authorization, which includes an 18-month deadline for the completion of 

NEPA environmental review. 

In the event a revised ANGTS moves forward, ANGPA provides that the 

Secretary of Energy will determine what updated environmental data and analyses are 

necessary to develop the site-specific terms, conditions and compliance plans required by 

the President’s Decision. Due to the amount of time that has elapsed since ANGTS was 

approved, the Commission staff expects the Secretary to decide either that a new EIS or a 

supplemental EIS is needed ANGTA does not stipulate any specific timeline for the 

Secretary of Energy to complete this process. 

The Commission has been active for the past several years in preparing for its 

official role for its NEPA and certificate application responsibilities. Exhibit B in the 

Appendix to this report lists many of the siting activities associated with an Alaska 

natural gas pipeline in which the Commission staff has participated. Based on its 
 - 6 - 

consultations with industry, Commission staff has estimated the development of the 

application will occur over two field seasons, and take as long as 18 months. Two field 

seasons may be necessary due to the shortened field season in Alaska when route analysis 

and surveying can be accomplished. However, if a project sponsor has significant 

detailed environmental data on its project route, it is possible that this time could be 

shortened. As of January 5, 2006, no project sponsor has committed to work during the 

2006 summer field season. This is significant because mobilization needs to begin early 

in the calendar year to get the personnel and equipment into the field the following 

summer. 

While the application is under development, the Commission staff will begin its 

pre-filing process, which will assure a complete application is developed in the shortest 

amount of time.6

 As part of the pre-filing process, the agency activities will include: 

familiarizing staff with the project area, attending the project sponsor's stakeholder 

outreach meetings, conducting Native Alaskan consultation, viewing the route and 

alternatives, meeting with federal and state agencies and stakeholders, holding NEPA 

scoping meetings, identifying data gaps, and evaluating the application for completeness. 

The project sponsor's pre-filing activities will include: project design and engineering, 

route surveys, infrastructure needs analysis, conducting stakeholder outreach meetings, 

and preparing permit applications. The prospective applicant will use this time to finalize 

the application after the NEPA scoping has identified issues and concerns. Further, at the 

sponsor’s discretion the open season period (also required under ANGPA) can run 

concurrently with the pre-filing and application development process, thus adding no 

additional time to the overall process. 

F. NEPA Memorandum of Understanding Among Involved Federal Agencies

 Numerous federal and state agencies will have permitting and other 

responsibilities for various aspects of an Alaska natural gas transportation project. 

 6

 Under section 311(d) of EPAct 2005, the Commission was directed, within 60 

days of enactment of EPAct 2005, to promulgate mandatory procedures governing the 

Commission’s pre-filing review process for LNG terminals and related facilities. On 

October 7, 2005, the Commission issued a final rule, Order No. 665, which codified the 

optional pre-filing process that the Commission had been using for several years and 

made it mandatory for LNG terminals and other related facilities, while optional for other 

jurisdictional facilities. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage the early 

involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify 

and resolve issues before an application is filed with the Commission. As a result of 

discussions with the several prospective sponsors of an Alaska natural gas transportation 

pipeline project, Commission staff fully expects that whenever any of the prospective 

project sponsors decide to move forward, they will elect to utilize the Commission’s 

formal pre-filing process. 
 - 7 - 

Alignment among these agencies on issues such as project review and implementation 

schedules, information requirements, and mitigation is essential to enable agencies to 

discharge their responsibilities expeditiously. A coordinated project management 

approach will facilitate and maintain this alignment and expedite completion of an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project. Since, by authorizing loan guarantees and other 

financial incentives, the federal government anticipates sharing the financial risk 

associated with this massive privately financed project, it is of added importance that the 

project be completed on time and within budget. 

The federal agencies involved have been working on a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) to establish a project management framework, with guidance from 

the Federal Coordinator and the Commission as the lead NEPA agency, for cooperation 

among the agencies with responsibilities related to aspects of the approval of an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project. 7 The goal of this MOU is to commit federal agencies 

to early coordination and compliance with deadlines and procedures established by 

relevant agencies, especially deadlines established by the Commission for satisfaction of 

applicable NEPA requirements. This effort has resulted in a draft MOU that is now being 

readied for circulation to the participating agencies for signature. 

G. Federal Loan Guarantee

On May 27, 2005 the Department of Energy (DOE) published a Notice of Inquiry 

in the Federal Register seeking public comment on an $18 billion loan guarantee program 

to encourage construction of a pipeline that will bring Alaskan natural gas to the 

continental United States. The Notice requested public comment on the loan guarantee 

program and on specific issues about how the program should be administered. The 

comment period closed on July 26, 2005 and the DOE received several detailed 

comments from project sponsors, investment firms and the State of Alaska. No final 

decision has been made on whether formal DOE regulations to implement the loan 

guarantee program are needed. 

H. Canadian Regulatory Update 

The regulatory framework for the Canadian portion of a potential Alaska Highway 

Gas Pipeline has not yet been determined. On the one hand, Foothills Pipeline insists it 

has an exclusive right to exercise its existing certificates under the Northern Pipeline Act; 

on the other hand, the Alaska natural gas producers argue that they have the right to apply 

 7

 These agencies include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, and Treasury, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Environmental Protection Agency, Council 

on Environmental Quality, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Office of the 

Federal Coordinator for the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project. 
 - 8 - 

for a new certificate under the National Energy Board Act. This issue is only likely to be 

completely resolved after detailed fiscal contracts are finalized in Alaska and commercial 

negotiations between Foothills and the natural gas producers have taken place. The 

Government of Canada is considering the issue and has not taken a public position. The 

Producer Group has long held that one of the key elements in justifying continuation of 

the project is Canadian agency and First Nation regulatory process clarity. 

IV. Progress in the Development of an Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project 

As a consequence of the legislative initiatives included in ANGPA and the related 

tax relief provisions, as well as the issuance of the Commission’s open season rules, 

much has been done to address the concerns of potential project sponsors who wanted 

assurances that the authorization process would be expeditious and streamlined, and that 

financial safeguards and incentives were in place to help absorb the huge financial costs 

and risks of such a project. Moreover, ANGPA clarified the status of the authorizations 

issued under ANGTA. 

Actions are being taken by both the industry and the various state and federal 

governmental agencies with responsibilities in the authorization and permitting process 

for an Alaska natural gas pipeline project. As reported above, the sponsors of all three 

active proposals have filed applications to negotiate under the SGA, and the State of 

Alaska is currently negotiating with the Producer Group in an effort to obtain fiscal 

certainty over state tax and royalty issues. Governor Murkowski is committed to this 

effort. One of the three principals has come to terms, and the two other producers 

continue to negotiate a resolution of the outstanding issues. 

The adjudication process for TransCanada’s updated state right-of-way application 

for the ANGTS has been completed. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources 

Commissioner’s Final Decision and a 30-year, transferrable and renewable, right-of-way 

Lease have been prepared, though yet unsigned. 

The Commission has been actively preparing to meet its responsibilities in the 

authorization process for any Alaska natural gas pipeline project. To this end, the 

Commission’s activities have included: (1) entering into memoranda of agreements with 

the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and the National Energy Board of Canada; (2) 

working on a memorandum of understanding with 13 federal agencies and the Office of 

Federal Coordinator to establish a project management framework that ensures early 

coordination and compliance with the many deadlines and procedures that will attach to 

the process; (3) touring the pipeline routes; and (4) conducting meetings with federal and 
 - 9 - 

Alaska agencies, prospective sponsors, and other Alaskan stakeholders as recently as 

January 2006.8

 

Additionally, the Commission’s new open-season rules governing any Alaska 

natural gas pipeline should be beneficial to the overall development of the project in 

several ways. First, the rules provide the sponsors with important flexibility to design 

open seasons that could help yield firm transportation contracts needed to secure the 

capital to develop and construct the project. Second, the ability to secure the significant 

capital required to develop and construct the project has been enhanced by the rules’ 

allowance of pre-subscriptions of reserved capacity. Third, the regulations provide that a 

presumption of rolled-in rate treatment will attach to voluntary expansions of the Alaska 

gas pipeline. 

Finally, as noted in section G of this Report, DOE is considering comments 

received in response to its May 27, 2005 Notice of Inquiry seeking public comment on an 

$18 billion loan guarantee program. 

V. Impediments to the Project’s Development

The logistical and jurisdictional impediments to the successful development of an 

Alaska natural gas pipeline project are the product of: (1) the tremendous size, scope, and 

cost of any Alaska pipeline, (2) the long lead-time needed to develop the project, (3) 

unique environmental and competitive conditions and (4) its international scope. The 

enactment of ANGPA and ongoing federal agency actions have taken steps toward 

resolving or mitigating the outstanding jurisdictional and financial concerns. 

Nonetheless, as described above, none of the potential projects being considered have 

completed negotiations with the State of Alaska under the SGA. Further, all three 

prospective sponsors of the Producer Group have stated that they will only begin further 

development of their respective projects after they have successfully negotiated with the 

State of Alaska under the SGA. To date, only ConocoPhillips of the Producer Group has 

come to terms, while BP and ExxonMobil continue to negotiate. If negotiations are not 

concluded soon, there is a chance that there will be insufficient time to conduct the 

required studies and field surveys in 2006. In the case of the Producer Group proposal, 

Canadian governmental and regulatory hurdles must be removed before they will commit 

to final project development as well. 

Further delay, in and of itself, could impede the economic and commercial 

feasibility of the project. For example, the cost of the ANGPA section 103 (Producer 

Group) pipeline project has been estimated at $20 billion in 2001 dollars. However, the 

 8 See Exhibit B attached to this Report. Exhibit B illustrates the types of 

Commission staff activities that have occurred in anticipation of and preparation for 

fulfilling its responsibilities in the authorization process of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. 
 - 10 - 

cost of the steel required to build the pipeline has nearly doubled since that estimate was 

developed. In addition, the prospective sponsors are well aware that prior experiences 

with market fluctuations over time led to the earlier suspension of the ANGTS’ 

development, and they are, no doubt, sensitive to the narrow margins of economic 

feasibility presented by this unique, massive undertaking. 

Another uncertainty that threatens to negatively impact an Alaska natural gas 

pipeline involves the Mackenzie Project which is currently being considered by the 

Government of Canada. This major pipeline project consists of over 750 miles of 30-inch 

natural gas transmission pipeline that would transport 1.2 Bcf/d of new Arctic gas to 

market. The capital cost if this project is estimated at over $7 billion, and it is planned to 

be in operation by 2011. Although this project is neither a complement to nor competitor 

of an Alaska natural gas pipeline, its development presents certain problems and risks. 

First, industry reports indicate that there will not be enough pipeline grade steel available 

to construct both projects at the same time. Similarly, there could be a shortage of the 

skilled labor force required to build two technically challenging Arctic projects of such 

magnitude at the same time. 

VI. Conclusion 

The effort to develop an Alaska natural gas pipeline has presented profound policy 

questions spanning almost 30 years and has been the subject of two special acts of 

Congress, a Presidential decision, an international agreement, multiple Commission 

proceedings, and a major state statute (the Alaska Stranded Gas Development Act). 

Nonetheless, the Commission can report that both the industry and governmental 

agencies are pursuing resolution of all issues, jurisdictional, environmental, permitting, 

and financing, raised by the development of an Alaska pipeline. As discussed above, 

many of the impediments are being addressed by legislative initiative and other 

governmental action, both at the federal and state level, involving both industry and 

governmental entities. As explained above, however, further development of their 

respective projects will only occur after the project sponsors have concluded a successful 

negotiation with the State of Alaska under the SGA. 
 
-10

0

102030405060708090

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1

Years (beginning in 2000)

Volume (Bcf per day)

Total Production Canadian ImportNet Imports from Mexico LNG ImportsAlaska (to Lower 48) Demand - US
Commission Staff Preparatory Activity January 2003 to Present: Several agencies participate in periodic teleconferences (FERC, BLM, DOT, M

JPO). Industry representatives participate to present updates on engineering studies and project developAugust 2003: FERC staff and the BLM meet in Anchorage and Fairbanks to discuss the project and esta

relationship. Also meet with representatives of the Tanana Chiefs Conference, AK Federation of NativeAK DNR, JPO, AK State Pipeline Coordinator, AK State Legislators, Mayor of the City of Fairbanks, a

staff tours the pipeline route. April 2004: FERC staff visits Calgary and meets with Canadian agencies to discuss coordinating respect

review and permitting efforts (National Energy Board of Canada (NEB), Northern Pipeline Agency, and 

Environmental Assessment Agency). May 11, 2004: Chairman Wood signs a memorandum of understanding with the NEB to ensure interage

an Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline Project. In 2003, Chairman Wood signs a similar memorandum of undRegulatory Commission of Alaska with respect to coordinating our two agencies’ regulatory activities. May 2004: The staffs of FERC and US DOT meet with the Alaskan producers to discuss their high stren

and discuss streamlining OPS waivers. August 2004: In response to an invitation from FERC staff, a representative of the Tanana Chiefs Confe

the Commission staff’s Native American consultation workshop in Arizona. The FERC staff, in coordin

will hold a similar workshop in Alaska when the specific project is selected. November 2004: Representatives of the AK Department of Natural Resources meet with FERC staff in W

discuss the relationship between the State and FERC in the pending environmental review. 
 - 2 - 

January 2005: BLM AK State Director and DOI meet with FERC staff and Chairman and separately wit

the environmental review and permitting process. February 2005: DOE, FERC, and DOI begin working to develop an MOU for the project. 

May 2005: DOE, FERC, and DOI representatives appear before state legislative committee in Juneau to 

agency roles and interagency coordination efforts. June 2005: The staffs of FERC and DOI meet to continue planning resource and data needs for EIS. 

July 2005: A draft MOU (Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Federal Interagency Memorandum of Understand

FERC, DOE, and DOI is sent to all interested Departments and Agencies for review. August 2005: FERC staff meets in AK with acting OFC, BLM project team, AK DOT and other agencie

the activities that are within the scope of the EIS. August 2005: Commissioner (Brownell) and staff tour routes, meet with Governor, legislators, RCA, Na

and other stakeholders. January 2006: FERC staff meets with Native Alaskan group in AK.