Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAbout UsContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Does FERC’s Denial of Authority to Construct Jordan Cove Signal a More Rigorous Test for Future LNG Projects?

By Howard L. Nelson & Kenneth M. Minesinger on March 22, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On March 11, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) denied an application by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. (Jordan Cove) for authority under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to site, construct, and operate a facility at Coos Bay, Oregon, for the exportation, principally to Asia, of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In that same order, FERC denied a related application by Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, L.P. (Pacific Connector) for an NGA Section 7 certificate to construct and operate a 232-mile, 36-inch diameter upstream pipeline to supply natural gas to Jordan Cove. As discussed below, the Commission’s denial of a Section 7 certificate for Pacific Connector was a fairly routine application of its Certificate Policy Statement, balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its adverse impacts. Importantly, the denial of the Jordan Cove application extends to Section 3 proposals a similar balancing of benefits and impacts, raising questions as to how the Commission might address future applications for Section 3 authorization to construct LNG facilities that are not supported by contracts for service on the proposed facilities.

The Commission’s Application of the Section 7 Balancing Test

In denying Pacific Connector’s certificate application under Section 7, FERC applied its “Certificate Policy Statement.” Under the Certificate Policy Statement, “the Commission balances the public benefits against the potential adverse consequences.” FERC “will approve an application for a certificate . . . only if the public benefits from a proposed project outweigh any adverse effects.” In this context, FERC indicated it takes a “proportional approach” in balancing “the impact of the proposed project on the relevant interests . . . against the benefits to be gained from the project.” If a project will affect a large number of interests adversely or if it will have a strong adverse effect on a particular interest, a greater showing of need and public benefits will be required for project approval. Continue Reading.

Photo of Howard L. Nelson Howard L. Nelson

Howard L. Nelson has more than 30 years of regulatory and litigation experience, the majority of which has been related to energy matters before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state public utility commissions, and the Court of Appeals. His litigation experience includes…

Howard L. Nelson has more than 30 years of regulatory and litigation experience, the majority of which has been related to energy matters before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), state public utility commissions, and the Court of Appeals. His litigation experience includes representing parties in major interstate natural gas and petroleum pipeline hearings involving complex multiparty major rate cases, and in certificate, LNG licensing, restructuring, tariff, fuel, gas quality, merger, and interconnection proceedings. He also advises clients on virtually all aspects of natural gas, including LNG, and oil pipeline regulation, including project development, the design of transportation and storage services and rates, negotiating and drafting contracts, strategic planning, and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.

Howard has also assisted clients with due diligence investigations concerning acquisitions and financings of electric, solar and wind assets. Finally, Howard has briefed and argued several cases at the D.C. Circuit and 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Read more about Howard L. NelsonEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Kenneth M. Minesinger Kenneth M. Minesinger

Ken focuses on complex energy matters, typically in the oil and gas industry, including major energy regulatory and project development matters. Ken represents clients in the development of their oil and gas resources, on major pipeline and LNG projects, and on a wide…

Ken focuses on complex energy matters, typically in the oil and gas industry, including major energy regulatory and project development matters. Ken represents clients in the development of their oil and gas resources, on major pipeline and LNG projects, and on a wide range of energy regulatory issues. Ken is experienced in commercial and fiscal negotiations relating to major project agreements, and in regulatory proceedings including ratemaking, permitting, market power/competition issues and valuation disputes.

Read more about Kenneth M. MinesingerEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Energy, Environmental
  • Blog:
    E2 Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • Resource Center
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center
  • Blogging 101

New to the Network

  • Tennessee Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Claims & Sustains
  • New Jersey Restraining Order Lawyers
  • New Jersey Gun Lawyers
  • Blog of Reason
Copyright © 2025, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo