Here comes natural gas.

DON FELSINGER, new chief executive officer of Sempra Energy, the $12 billion a year San Diego-based energy company, says Americans will likely accept more energy infrastructure projects to help contain prices. Here are excerpts from an interview, originally conducted for The New York Times:

Q: is it a problem that the U.S. is so dependent on other countries for energy?

We've become more and more of an importer of energy over time. There is nothing on the horizon that is going to lessen that.

Q: More specifically, is it a concern that we're dependent on certain countries for petroleum that don't seem very stable?

Yes, it was recognized by the president in his State of the Union address that we need to lessen our appetite for foreign oil.

Q: Is natural gas part of the solution?

Natural gas is going to follow in the ways of oil. In North America, we have been able to satisfy our own demands for natural gas from internal production. What we haven't been able to produce in the United States, we've imported from Canada.

But we're at a point of time in our history that it's becoming apparent that we are consuming more gas. That's why prices have gone from $2 to $3 per million BTUs over 20 years and now are in the range of $7 to $15.

We saw that coming about five years ago. We're building natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants. The only power generation this country has built in the past 10 to 20 years has been this type of plant.

Q: How can you keep prices from shooting up further?

We came to the conclusion that there was plenty of gas around the world. That imported natural gas could be priced to compete against domestic supply.

Q: Is natural gas in the same countries that have oil?

It's some of the same countries, but also different countries. You see a lot of the South American countries like Bolivia that have gas. We have stranded natural gas up in Alaska. We have natural gas in Australia. It's all over the world. It's in more places than oil is.

Q: Of America's total energy consumption, what percentage does natural gas account for?

The latest figures show that it's about one-quarter of the total.

Q: If we import more liquefied natural gas (LNG), would that ease our dependence on oil?

It would lessen it somewhat because oil and natural gas get substituted for each other. But it's naive of us as a country to think we're going to become energy independent. If we were to launch a program like that, it would take many, many years. I'm not sure it would be achievable.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Q: Are there other forces at work that could ease U.S. dependence on imported energy?

We have been struggling as a country for a number of years to have a defined energy policy that would set certain goals to achieve by certain dates. I think the country would benefit by having a more focused energy policy that set goals and objectives we're trying to achieve. But I'm not concerned that we have oil or natural gas coming in from other parts of the world. As global economy develops and as countries become more dependent on the revenue from selling natural resources, the world becomes a more civilized place.

Q: You're bringing more LNG into the New Orleans area. What is the significance of that?

We are building, in Mexico, the first LNG receipt facility on the west coast of North America. That facility will service northern Mexico and the western United States, and will be in operation in 2008. The coast of Louisiana is interesting because production of offshore gas in the Gulf of Mexico is declining. That means fixed assets, like pipelines that take that gas to Chicago or New York, are not being utilized. By siting LNG plants in the Gulf area, we can use the existing infrastructure more fully.

Q: And you're building a pipeline across the Rocky Mountains?

Yes. The Rockies are one of the few areas in the United States that has growth potential. There is more gas that can be found there, but it is constrained from a pipeline standpoint. If producers can get their gas to market, they would be motivated to drill new wells and develop new supplies that exist there. So we are working to build an express pipeline that would take that gas all the way to Ohio.

Q: After decades in which very few energy projects were built because of resistance, are American attitudes beginning to shift?

It's just like the electric transmission grid, which is a point of focus right now from a reliability standpoint. Companies are trying to upgrade it and improve its reliability, driven by the blackout that impacted New York. Our natural gas infrastructure is going through a similar change. It has to be modified to accept the receipt of LNG, and pipelines have to be built to more efficiently move that gas to the marketplace.

Q: Politicians and environmentalists are not blocking your projects?

Anytime you're building large infrastructure projects, there are people who oppose them. It's a matter of picking a location for your facility that has the most public support and making sure you work with the community.

Q: Overall, will there be a growing acceptance for energy-related projects?

I think there will be. I think we have to do a lot more to educate the public. Today, I looked at the prices our customers were paying for natural gas and they were spiking up, and we've seen the struggles they were having paying their heating bills this winter.

Q: You recently settled a class action law suit alleging you withheld energy during the California energy crunch. What happened?

California had a bad experience with deregulation. The way they went about it set the stage for massive problems because there was a lack of infrastructure to serve the state's energy needs. As a result of that, nearly every company that did business in California got sued. We were one of those. We decided to settle and move on with our business.

Q: But did you withhold energy?

The plaintiffs manufactured a claim that our utilities withheld gas. It was a totally fictitious claim that we denied. But at the end of the day, it got certified for a jury trial of people who suffered during the California energy crisis. Even though I believe the jury would have vindicated us, they were asking for damages of $23 billion or $24 billion, which is about twice what we're worth as a company. We decided to settle rather than put the company in jeopardy.