The motion argues that Blue Planet Foundation should be allowed to intervene because: 1) Their participation is in the public interest as they work on energy issues like reducing fossil fuel dependence; 2) The application is deficient because it seeks approval of a long-term liquefied natural gas plan without providing enough details; and 3) The liquefied natural gas plan would continue Hawaii's reliance on imported fossil fuels which goes against state energy policies of transitioning to renewable energy.

1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Gas Company, LLC Docket No. CP12-498-000
BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
AND
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
SCHLACK ITO
A Limited Liability Law Company
Douglas A. Codiga, Esq.
Topa Financial Center
745 Fort Street, Suite 1500
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel. (808) 523-6047
Attorney for Movant
Blue Planet Foundation

2. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Gas Company, LLC Docket No. CP12-498-000
BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Blue Planet Foundation (“Blue Planet”), by and through its attorneys Schlack Ito,
A Limited Liability Law Company, and pursuant to Rules 212 and 214 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC” or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 the
Commission’s “Notice of Application” dated September 28, 2012 (“FERC Notice”), and 18
C.F.R. § 157.10, hereby respectfully submits its Motion to Intervene (“Motion”) in the above-
captioned proceeding concerning the “Application of The Gas Company, LLC for Authorization
Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act” filed August 9, 2012 (“Application”) by The Gas
Company, LLC (“TGC” or “Company”), as follows.2
After decades of dependency, Hawaii has embarked on a major transition from the
use of imported fossil fuels to the use of renewable energy for electricity production. The
hallmark of this transition is widespread recognition that imported fossil fuels not only pose
economic burdens and energy security risks that are no longer acceptable, but also that moving
away from fossil fuels presents a singular opportunity to achieve substantial economic and
environmental benefits. Moving decisively and irreversibly away from imported fossil fuels, as
1
See 18 C.F.R. § 385.212 (“Rule 212”) and 18 C.F.R. § 385.214 (“Rule 214”).
2
Blue Planet’s Motion is timely filed. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.210(b) (Notice will establish dates for filing
interventions); FERC Notice at 1-2 (Motions to intervene shall be filed on or before the comment date of October 19,
2012).
2

3. the signatories to the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative recognized, holds the promise of delivering
major benefits to Hawaii through energy independence.
Although the transition away from fossil fuels is well underway, through its
Application TGC now seeks Commission approval to import substantial quantities of liquefied
natural gas (“LNG”) – a fossil fuel – in a manner that will continue and deepen Hawaii’s
dependence on imported fossil fuels. Specifically, the Application seeks approval of what it
terms “Phase 1 Facilities” as part of and in conjunction with a “comprehensive, multi-phase
strategic plan” designed to replace the use of oil with the use of LNG as fuel in utility electricity
generation units for up to 400 megawatts (“MW”) of electricity. Application at 2.
Blue Planet respectfully opposes the Application for a number of reasons,
including but not limited to the following:
 The Application is deficient insofar as it seeks Commission approval of a
comprehensive LNG plan yet does not discuss all aspects of that plan in
sufficient detail to allow the Commission to approve such a plan at this time;
 LNG is an imported fossil fuel and the proposed comprehensive LNG plan
will continue and deepen Hawaii’s dependence on imported fossil fuels in a
manner that is contrary to established State of Hawaii energy law and policy;
 The Application fails to establish that the alleged benefits of the
comprehensive LNG plan (e.g., reduced cost of electricity, reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, improving the electric system’s ability to
accommodate variable generation from renewable sources) outweigh
established State energy law and policy and the anticipated further economic
3

4. and environmental benefits from Hawaii’s ongoing transition to renewable
energy for electricity generation; and
 The Application proposes approval of a comprehensive LNG plan with limited
public review of environmental and safety issues.
In support of its Motion to intervene in this proceeding, Blue Planet further
submits that its participation in this proceeding is in the public interest and is therefore authorized
under the Commission’s rules. Blue Planet has extensive involvement, on behalf of the public, in
regulatory, legislative, and outreach and education matters concerning Hawaii’s overdependence
on imported petroleum, transitioning Hawaii from imported petroleum to renewable energy and
energy efficiency to achieve the objectives of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, and reducing
energy costs for Hawaii’s consumers. As the Application establishes, those issues are directly at
issue in this proceeding.
I. ARGUMENT
A. Standard for Grant of Intervention
Pursuant to Rule 214, any person seeking to intervene to become a party must file
a motion to intervene. 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(a)(3). The motion must state the position of the
movant, to the extent known, and the basis in fact and law for the position. Id. § 385.212(b)(1).
It must also state the movant’s interest in sufficient factual detail to demonstrate (i) that the
movant has a right to participate which is expressly conferred by statute or by Commission rule,
order or other action, (ii) the movant has or represents an interest which may be directly affected
by the outcome of the proceeding, such as a consumer, customer or competitor, or (iii) the
movant’s participation is in the public interest. Id. § 385.212(b)(2)(i)-(iii). Pursuant to 18 C.F.R.
§ 157.10, any person filing a petition to intervene shall state specifically whether a formal
4

5. hearing on the application is sought. Id. at § 157.10(a)(1). No hearing is sought on the
Application.
B. Blue Planet’s Participation Is In the Public Interest.
Blue Planet’s participation in this proceeding is in the public interest and is
therefore authorized pursuant to Rule 214. See 18 C.F.R. § 385.212(b)(2)(iii)(intervention
authorized where movant’s participation is in the public interest). Blue Planet’s participation in
this proceeding is in the public interest because it is a public interest organization focused on
energy-related issues that are essentially identical to the energy-related issues raised by the
Application. These issues identified in the Application for Commission consideration include
Hawaii’s overdependence on imported petroleum, transitioning Hawaii from imported fossil fuels
to renewable energy, achieving the clean energy objectives of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative,
reducing energy costs for Hawaii’s consumers, and the fuel supply for electricity generation,
including potentially replacing the use of low sulfur fuel oil in Hawaii’s electricity generation
units with LNG. See Application at 2-3, 11-16, 35-36.
Each of the issues raised by the Application falls squarely within Blue Planet’s
mission. Blue Planet is a Hawaii public interest organization, with over 10,000 registered
“Friends of Blue Planet,” dedicated to promoting Hawaii’s swift transition to a clean energy
economy through the rapid adoption of renewable energy and increased energy efficiency. As its
mission statement indicates, Blue Planet is:
committed to ending Hawaii’s dependency on oil, creating a model
of energy self-sufficiency for ending the use fossil fuels on Earth.
By switching to local, clean, renewable sources of energy, we can
achieve energy security, economic growth, job creation,
environmental protection, and a better quality of life for Hawaii
residents. Through educational outreach, advancing bold policy,
and developing programs that connect island communities with
effective solutions, Blue Planet Foundation is moving Hawaii
beyond oil—toward a future powered by clean energy.
5

6. Blue Planet Foundation, “Our Goal.”3
Consistent with its mission, Blue Planet is actively engaged in regulatory
proceedings, legislative efforts and public outreach and education concerning renewable energy
and energy efficiency. For example, since 2008, the State of Hawaii Public Utilities Commission
has granted Blue Planet’s motions to intervene, in the public interest, in a number of regulatory
proceedings concerning renewable energy and energy policy. Blue Planet has successfully
intervened in the feed-in tariff (Docket No. 2008-0273), decoupling (Docket No. 2008-0274), PV
Host program (Docket No. 2009-0098), Integrated Resources Planning Framework (Docket No.
2009-0108), Rule 14H (Docket No. 2010-0015), Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (Docket
No. 2010-0037), On-Bill Financing (Docket No. 2011-0186), Reliability Standards Working
Group (Docket No. 2011-0206), and Integrated Resource Planning (Docket No. 2012-0036)
dockets.
Blue Planet has also been instrumental in passing key clean energy legislation in
the public interest. In addition to recent legislation establishing the Hawaii Electricity Reliability
Administrator, Act 155 (Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards), and Act 204 (on-bill financing),
Blue Planet’s legislative efforts include assisting with obtaining over $200,000 in federal funding
to support Hawaii’s rural businesses for clean energy projects; successfully lobbying for passage
of a first-in-the-nation carbon tax to provide millions annually for clean energy programs; and
hosting public events and rallies at the State Capitol featuring prominent government speakers
and involvement from local schools.4
3
Available at http://blueplanetfoundation.org/.
4
In addition to its involvement in energy-related regulatory and legislative matters, Blue Planet is extensively
involved in efforts to promote energy efficiency in Hawaii. For example, and as further explained on its website,
Blue Planet has replaced a total of 300,000 incandescent light bulbs statewide. Blue Planet has also worked with
partners to facilitate the installation of over 110 solar water heaters in Hawaii. Blue Planet has also successfully
6

7. The foregoing demonstrates that Blue Planet’s participation in this proceeding is
in the public interest. Blue Planet has extensive involvement, on behalf of the public, in
regulatory, legislative, and outreach and education matters concerning Hawaii’s overdependence
on imported fossil fuel, transitioning Hawaii from imported fossil fuel to renewable energy and
energy efficiency toward achieving HCEI objectives, and reducing energy costs for Hawaii’s
consumers. As the Application establishes, those issues are directly at issue in this proceeding.
developed a “Conserve-Fundraise-Learn!” or C.F.L. program, with educational and fundraising components for local
schools, in conjunction with the Hawaii Energy, the KIUC Foundation, State of Hawaii Department of Business
Economic Development and Tourism, the City and County of Honolulu, and other partners. Blue Planet has
organized a “100,000 Better Bulbs Blitz,” as part of National Energy Awareness Month. Similarly, Blue Planet and
Hawaii Energy have implemented a CFL exchange for condos, apartments and nonprofits.
Blue Planet played an instrumental role in the community-based project and partnership with SustAINAble
Molokai, 21st Century Community Learning Center, Molokai private and public schools, and the citizens of Molokai
promoting CFLs. The program has replaced 36,000 incandescent light bulbs on Molokai with CFLs. The program,
which generated local media coverage, features trade-in locations throughout the island, an in-school campaign, and
broad community outreach. It was estimated that an average household will save over $200 per bulb and that
Molokai residents together will save over $6.5 million total throughout the life of the CFLs. Based on successful
implementation of the Molokai program, Blue Planet has implemented Hui Up Lanai, a community-based program
in partnership with Laulima Kuha’o, Hawaii Energy, the State of Hawaii Department of Business Economic
Development and Tourism, and other partners to provide an opportunity for residents of Lanai to become more
energy-efficient through an Energy Star appliance trade-in.
Blue Planet was awarded a $100,000 grant from the Hawaii Community Foundation’s Island Innovation Fund
for its “Hawaii Energy Tracker Phase II – Show Me the Power” program. This program will increase energy
awareness and encourage action through its “Show Me the Power” and “The Island Pulse” innovations. “Show Me
the Power,” a new web application, will encourage households to change their energy habits by enabling users to see
their real-time energy usage and allowing them to select from different scenarios (e.g., upgrading their refrigerator to
an Energy Star appliance) that will show cost and energy savings. “The Island Pulse” is targeted to create energy
consumption awareness in communities, businesses, and groups through an energy use public display in high-traffic
locations (e.g., shopping malls and restaurants).
Blue Planet has produced and aired a one-hour television show, “Hawaii Home Energy Makeover,” which
follows two Oahu families as they transform their homes with energy-efficient technology, from simple, cool-roof
improvements to the installation of the latest in photovoltaic systems. The show is intended to “inspire all of us to be
part of the island’s clean energy future.” Blue Planet has given hundreds of presentations and related outreach and
education activities including hosting rallies at the Hawaii State Capitol generating a significant student presence;
sending University of Hawaii students to Washington, D.C. for Powershift and successfully engaging them as
volunteers and advocates; giving dozens of presentations to Hawaii schools; hosting Clean Energy Day at University
of Hawaii; organizing school and community events statewide and making dozens of presentations to educate
thousands about clean energy; and conducting a Department of Energy Technical Assistance Program-sponsored
webinar presentation for state and local officials. Finally, Blue Planet’s website contains several web pages of
detailed practical information to educate and encourage consumers about energy efficiency, including self-audits,
professional home energy audits, energy efficient appliances, the Energy Star program, solar water heating, use of
daylights, LEDs, energy habits and conservation tips, roof and attic insulation and ventilation, radiant barriers,
energy efficient windows.
7

8. Blue Planet’s participation in this proceeding as an intervenor party is therefore appropriate and
justified under Rule 214.5
C. The Application Fails to Discuss the Comprehensive LNG Plan in Sufficient
Detail to Support Commission Approval at This Time.
Blue Planet opposes the Application because it is deficient insofar as it seeks
Commission approval of a comprehensive LNG plan yet does not discuss all aspects of that plan
in sufficient detail for the Commission to approve the plan at this time. The Application seeks
Commission authorization, pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended6 (“NGA”),
to operate facilities it alleges fall within the definition of “LNG terminal” in NGA § 2(11).
Application at 1. TGC seeks to obtain, install and “ISO containers, storage facilities, mobile
vaporization/regasification units and related facilities” as part of (“Phase 1 Facilities”).
Application at 2.
As noted above, the Application seeks Commission approval of a “comprehensive,
multi-phase strategic plan” (“comprehensive LNG plan”) in addition to the Phase 1 Facilities. Id.
at 2. TGC asserts throughout the Application that it seeks Commission approval only of the
Phase 1 Facilities. See, e.g., Application at 3, 17 (authorization sought solely for operation of
Phase 1 Facilities); id. at 22 (Phases 2 and 3 “are not the subject of this Application”) (emphasis
in original). These assertions are contradicted by the Application itself, which plainly
demonstrates that TGC seeks Commission approval of its comprehensive LNG plan as part of
and in conjunction with approval of the Phase 1 Facilities.
5
These same reasons establish that Blue Planet has an interest, as a “consumer” and/or utility “customer,” which
may be directly affected by the outcome of the proceeding within the meaning of 18 C.F.R. § 325.214(b)(2)(ii)(A),
(B). Blue Planet’s right to participate is conferred by Rule 214, which allows for any person seeking to intervene to
become a party to file a motion to intervene. 18 C.F.R. § 325.214(a)(3).
6
15 U.S.C. §717(b)(a) (2006).
8

9. For example, the Application repeatedly states that it involves Commission
approval of a comprehensive LNG plan. The Application states that TGC has developed:
a comprehensive, multi-phased LNG strategic plan. When
implemented, gas from LNG will be used to meet up to 75% of the
Company’s customers’ requirements. It also will provide fuel for
up to 400 MW of existing and new conventional and/or combined
cycle power generation facilities, as well as for industrial and other
commercial applications in the State. In addition, implementation
of the Company’s LNG strategy will help the State achieve the
“Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative” goal of replacing up to 70% of
the energy sourced from oil with energy produced from renewable
sources or saved through energy efficiency programs, an initiative
that was adopted to reduce the State’s heavy dependence on
petroleum.”
Application at 2-3 (emphasis added). The Application further states that Phase 1 is directly tied
to Commission approval of subsequent phases of TGC’s comprehensive LNG Plan. For
example, the Application argues that the Phase 1 Facilities are the:
initial phase of, and an integral component of, the Company’s
longer-term, comprehensive LNG supply and distribution strategy.
The overall objective of this comprehensive LNG strategy is to
ultimately develop the facilities necessary to (i) supply gas for up
to 75% of its customers’ requirements, and (ii) provide fuel for up
to 400 MW of power generation facilities and for industrial and
other commercial applications. The implementation of this strategy
will include, in Phases 2 and 3, the installation of permanent
storage and permanent vaporization facilities.”
Application at 4 (emphasis added); see also Application at 34-35 (Phase 1 Facilities are a
“critical component” of TGC’s comprehensive LNG plan). TGC’s characterization of the Phase
1 Facilities as an “integral component” and “critical component” of its comprehensive LNG plan
reinforce the conclusion that the Application seeks approval not only of the Phase 1 Facilities but
also TGC’s comprehensive LNG plan.
9

10. Moreover, through its Application, TGC ties Phase 1 directly to achievement of
Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (“HCEI”)7 objectives, further establishing that the Application
essentially seeks Commission approval of a comprehensive LNG plan at this time:
The Phase 1 Facilities not only will help ensure reliability and
diversity of supply for the Company’s customers, but will also
assist the State in meeting the aggressive renewable energy and
efficiency goals of the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, which are
critical to assisting the State in reducing its heavy dependence on
petroleum. Introducing LNG into the State will also reduce costs
for Hawaii’s energy consumers, which are currently the highest in
the country.
Application at 6; see also Application at 35-36 (“The Phase 1 Facilities Further the Goals of the
Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative.”).
The Application further states that all phases of its comprehensive LNG plan are
to occur at around the same time, rather than sequentially. See, e.g., Application at 3 (TGC will
implement its “strategic LNG plan in three, mostly parallel, phases”); id. at 17.
The application does not discuss the comprehensive LNG plan in sufficient detail,
however, upon which the Commission may approve such a plan at this time. Specifically, the
Application requests Commission authorization to implement a plan that will allow it to (i) use
imported LNG to meet up to 75% of TGC’s customers’ requirements, and (ii) provide fuel for up
to 400 MW of existing and new conventional and/or combined cycle power generation facilities.
Blue Planet submits that the Application fails to discuss these two aspects of the proposed plan,
as well as other aspects, in sufficient detail. Blue Planet therefore opposes the Application on
this additional basis.
7
On January 31, 2008, the State and the U.S. Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
establish the HCEI. See “Memorandum of Understanding Between the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of
Energy”at 1, available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/pdfs/hawaii_mou.pdf. On October 20, 2008, the Energy
Agreement was signed by the State and the Hawaiian Electric Companies. See “Energy Agreement Among the State
of Hawaii, Division of Consumer Advocacy of the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and the
Hawaiian Electric Companies” dated Oct. 20, 2008 (“Energy Agreement”), available at
http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/energy/agreement/signed2008oct20.pdf.
10

11. D. The Comprehensive LNG Plan Will Continue Hawaii’s Dependence on
Imported Fossil Fuels, Contrary to Hawaii Energy Law and Policy.
LNG is an imported fossil fuel. None of the distinctions drawn in the Application
can overcome this simple fact. As such, the effect of the comprehensive LNG plan will be to
continue and deepen Hawaii’s dependence on imported fossil fuels in a manner that is contrary to
established State of Hawaii energy law and policy. This is another reason Blue Planet must
oppose the Application. In this regard, Blue Planet agrees with HECO in its 2008 Integrated
Resource Plan, which concluded that imported LNG may hamper Hawaii’s transition to
renewable energy:
Although LNG offers potential for fuel diversity and some reduction in GHG
emission, it would require tremendous fuel infrastructure improvements that
would likely preclude the transition to renewable energy. More importantly, LNG
is still a fossil fuel and its use would merely transfer dependence from one
imported fossil fuel to another. For these reasons, LNG was not considered
further in HECO's IRP-4. It is clear that creating an LNG system on Oahu would
have far reaching impacts to the state energy situation that go beyond that of the
electric utility including impacts to the local communities.
See Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., Integrated Resource Plan 2009-2028 dated Sept. 30, 2008
at § 6.2.4 (Docket No. 2007-0084) (emphasis added).
The plan will not aid Hawaii in achieving HCEI objectives. LNG imported into
Hawaii pursuant to the proposed plan is not a “clean energy” within the meaning of HCEI.8 In
addition, the Application appears to misstate the goal of HCEI and the Energy Agreement. The
Energy Agreement states throughout that the objective of the HCEI is to reduce Hawaii’s
dependence on imported fossil fuels. See id. at 1 (“the future of Hawaii requires that we move
8
In this regard, Blue Planet respectfully questions the appropriateness of TGC holding itself out to the public as
“The Clean Energy Company.” See http://www.hawaiigas.com/ (Identifying TGC as “Hawaii Gas: Hawaii’s Clean
Energy Company”). Although TGC’s website states that it is “committed to making 50% of our gas from renewable
and sustainable sources by 2015,” it appears that during approximately this same time period TGC also seeks to
import LNG to meet up to 75% of TGC’s customers’ requirements and to provide fuel for up to 400 MW of existing
and new conventional and/or combined cycle power generation facilities. See http://www.hawaiigas.com/who-we-
are.aspx (50% of gas from renewable resources by 2015).
11

12. more decisively and irreversibly away from imported fossil fuels . . . ratepayer benefits [are to be
determined relative to] using imported fossil fuels[.]”) (emphasis added); id. at 2 (Energy
Agreement signatories commit to “monitor our progress in reducing our use of imported fossil
fuel”) (emphasis added); id. at 7 (HECO Companies shall not add any new “fossil-based
generation” over 2 MW beyond those already approved by the Commission or under construction
without equivalent megawatt hour retirements); id. at 9 (Energy Agreement parties are committed
to the “integration of non-fossil fuel[.]”) (emphasis added); id. at 21 (Energy Agreement § 11,
“Displacement of Fossil Fuel Energy and ‘Retirements’) (emphasis added); id. at 22 (Energy
efficiency programs “shall not provide incentives to encourage customers to switch to other fossil
fuels”) (emphasis added); id. at 26 (noting military services programs to “reduce dependence on
fossil fuels”) (emphasis added).
Despite the Energy Agreement’s overriding emphasis on reducing fossil fuel
dependency, the Application asserts that the goal of HCEI is to replace “energy sourced from
oil.” Id. at 13, 35; see also id. at 15 (arguing LNG supports HCEI because it can “significantly
reduce the State’s dependence on oil.”). This misstates the goal of the HCEI. The goal is to
reduce the State’s dependence on fossil fuels. The term “fossil fuel” includes LNG. Thus,
TGC’s comprehensive LNG plan will not achieve HCEI objectives and Blue Planet submits that
the achievement of HCEI objectives provides no basis for the Commission approval of the
Application.
This conclusion is reinforced by the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standards
(“RPS”) law, which codifies the HCEI objective of obtaining 40% renewable energy by 2030.
See Haw. Rev. § 269-92(a)(4) (establishing electric utility renewable portfolio standard of 40%
by 2030). It is axiomatic that an electric utility must rely solely upon renewable energy, and not
12

13. fossil fuel, to achieve compliance with the RPS law. Indeed, the definition of “renewable
energy” in the Hawaii RPS law enumerates nine types of renewable energy, none of which
encompass imported LNG. For the same reasons LNG cannot aid Hawaii in achieving the goals
of the HCEI, LNG also cannot aid Hawaii’s electric utilities in demonstrating compliance with
the RPS law, including the requirement of 40% renewable energy by 2030 shared by both HCEI
and the RPS law.
E. The Reasons Advanced In Support of the Comprehensive LNG Plan Are Not
Persuasive.
The Application fails to establish that the alleged benefits of the comprehensive
LNG plan outweigh the established State energy law and policy and the anticipated further
economic and environmental benefits from Hawaii’s ongoing transition to renewable energy for
electricity generation.
For example, the Application suggests the comprehensive LNG plan will
ultimately reduce the cost of electricity. Projected reductions in the cost of electricity from the
use of LNG pursuant to the comprehensive plan are based upon projected fuel prices. Fuel prices
for LNG may increase based on increased environmental compliance costs associated with
stricter government regulation of the hydraulic fracturing (or, “fracking”) natural gas extraction
process, increased competition from Asian consumers, and other similar reasons. It is unclear at
this time whether substantial monetary investments in infrastructure improvements (such as
harbor modifications), replacement or retrofitting of electricity generation units, and related
major costs necessary to implement the proposed comprehensive LNG plan will allow the
projected electricity cost reductions. It is noted also that any beneficial impact of the
comprehensive LNG plan on Hawaii’s local economy is unclear insofar as TGC is owned by a
13

14. multinational corporation. See Application at 7 (TGC is “wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of
Macquarie Infrastructure Company[.]”).
It is equally unclear whether LNG is a “cleaner” fossil fuel insofar as several
published analyses have concluded that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with
LNG “fracking,” transport, and energy generation are greater than those associated with other
fossil fuels – even coal.9
The Application also alleges the comprehensive LNG plan will improve the
electric system’s ability to accommodate variable generation from renewable sources. See
Application at 36 (alleging that “as demonstrated elsewhere in the U.S., improve the efficiency of
wind and solar power generating resources.”). Based upon the information provided in the
Application, Blue Planet is unable to properly evaluate this assertion and, in any event, views the
anticipated economic and environmental benefits from Hawaii’s ongoing transition to renewable
energy as outweighing any such purported electric system improvements. For these and other
related reasons, Blue Planet does not view the Application as establishing clearly convincing
reasons in support of the plan that outweigh other more compelling considerations at this time.
F. The Application Proposes Approval of a Comprehensive LNG Plan with
Limited Public Review of Environmental and Safety Issues.
Blue Planet further opposes the Application insofar as it does not comply with the
Commission’s administrative rules concerning environmental review. TGC filed the Application
pursuant to 18 C.F.R Part 153. Application at 1. Under 18 C.F.R. § 153.8(a)(7)(i), an application
9
See, e.g., Howarth et al., “Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Systems,” National
Climate Assessment (Feb. 2012), available at http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al.%20--
%20National%20Climate%20Assessment.pdf (surveying various estimates of lifecycle GHG emissions
associated with LNG); see also Alvarez et al., “Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas
infrastructure,” Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. (April 24, 2012), available at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3340093/ (“given limited current evidence, it is likely that
leakage at individual natural gas well sites is high enough, when combined with leakage from
downstream operations, to make the total leakage exceed the 3.2% threshold beyond which gas becomes
worse for the climate than coal for at least some period of time”).
14

15. such as this must include an “environmental report as specified in § 380.3 and §380.12 of this
chapter.” Id. Under 18 C.F.R. § 380.12(a)(i), the applicant must submit an “environmental
report with any application that proposes the construction, operation or abandonment of any
facility identified in § 380.3(c)(2)(i).” Id.
Although the Application includes an environmental report attached as Exhibit F
to the Application, the environmental report does not assess the comprehensive LNG plan but
instead limits review to the Phase 1 Facilities – despite the fact that the Application seeks
approval of both Phase 1 and the comprehensive plan. The Application therefore does not
comply with these environmental regulations and the Exhibit F environmental report appears to
constitute an impermissible segmentation of TGC’s assessment of the environmental impacts of
the comprehensives LNG plan.
Blue Planet also opposes the Application insofar as the Exhibit F environmental
report is deficient or incomplete. For example, for areas “within a designated coastal zone
management area, a consistency determination or evidence that the owner has requested a
consistency determination from the state’s coastal zone management program” is required. 18
C.F.R. § 380.12(c)(2)(F); see also 15 C.F.R. § 930.53 (Federally-licensed activities must be
consistent with approved State coastal zone management programs). The Application does not
reference such a consistency determination.
Finally, Blue Planet opposes the Application insofar as it seeks to establish the
Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction over the proposed Phase 1 Facilities and comprehensive
LNG plan in a manner that may limit local community involvement in the environmental and
safety review process. The Application asserts that the Phase 1 Facilities and comprehensive
LNG plan constitute an “LNG terminal” within the meaning of NGA § 2(11) and that under NGA
15

16. § 3(e) the Commission has exclusive authority and jurisdiction over such an “LNG terminal.”
See Application at 23-33. The Application therefore raises questions concerning TGC’s duty to
comply with Hawaii environmental review and public participation requirements. See id. at 30-
34 (arguing Hinshaw exemption to NGA § 3(e), allowing states to retain jurisdiction over LNG
terminal environmental and safety issues, does not apply). Similarly, the Application seeks
Commission approval to forego compliance with the six-month National Environmental Policy
Act pre-filing process, which approval Blue Planet does not support. Application at 38-40.
Exclusive federal jurisdiction that has the effect of limiting involvement of the local community
on critical environmental and safety issues is a further basis upon which Blue Planet, as a Hawaii
clean energy public interest organization, must oppose the Application.
II. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, Blue Planet respectfully requests the Commission
to grant its Motion to intervene in this proceeding concerning the Application and for Blue Planet
to be made a full party to the proceeding, with all attendant rights and duties, and accordingly to
have notice of and appear at any and all hearings or proceedings, to produce evidence, to be
heard through counsel, to be served copies of all pleadings, motions, applications, notices, and
filings, and for such other participation and relief as may be appropriate under the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure and as the Commission may deem just and proper.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 18, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Douglas A. Codiga
DOUGLAS A. CODIGA
Attorney for Movant
BLUE PLANET FOUNDATION
16

17. BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
STATE OF HAWAII
The Gas Company, LLC Docket No. CP12-498-000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date a copy of the foregoing document was
duly served upon the following individuals by placing a copy of same in the United States Mail,
postage prepaid, and/or by electronic service, as follows:
NATHAN NELSON Electronic Service
GENERAL COUNSEL
THE GAS COMPANY
Topa Financial Center 18th Floor
745 Fort Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
nnelson@hawaii.gas.com
SUEDEEN G. KELLY Electronic Service
GEORGE D. (CHIP) CANNON, JR.
CYNTHIA A. MARLETTE
G. SCOTT BINNINGS
PATTON BOGGS LLP
2550 M. Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
skelly@pattonboggs.com
ccannon@pattonboggs.com
cmarlette@pattonboggs.com
sbinnings@pattonboggs.com

18. JEFFREY M. KISSEL Electronic Service
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
THE GAS COMPANY
Topa Financial Center 18th Floor
745 Fort Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
jkissel@hawaii.gas.com
CATHERINE P. AWAKUNI Electronic Service
CHIEF COUNSEL
KAIULANI K. SHINSATO
COMMISSION COUNSEL
MICHAEL M. COLON
COMMISSION COUNSEL
HAWAII PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
465 South King St., Room 103
Honolulu, HI 96813
Catherine.P.Awakuni@hawaii.gov
Michael.M.Colon@hawaii.gov
Kaiulani.K.Shinsato@hawaii.gov
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 18, 2012.
/s/Douglas A. Codiga
DOUGLAS A. CODIGA
Attorney for Blue Planet Foundation
2