The issuance of FERC and PHMSA’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) last month potentially signals an improved review and authorization process for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects, but only time will tell how the MOU will work in practice and if it will achieve its stated goal of increasing efficiency and effectiveness of the application review process in a manner that will “reduce expenses for LNG project applicants . . . and the U.S. taxpayer.” Perhaps as an indication of things to come in the FERC/PHMSA partnership under the MOU, FERC issued environmental schedules for twelve pending LNG projects on the very day that the MOU was issued that, according to the Commission, reflect FERC’s “efforts in recent months to streamline its review process for LNG project applications,” including by entering the MOU with PHMSA. Continue Reading FERC and PHMSA MOU Intended to Increase Efficiency and Efficacy of LNG Reviews
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued two decisions concerning the relationship between the Natural Gas Act (NGA) exclusive jurisdiction provision at 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) and the administrative review process for state-issued environmental permits for interstate natural gas pipeline projects. These decisions are briefly described as follows:
- In Delaware Riverkeeper et al. v. Sec PA Dept. Env. Protection, et al. (Sept. 4, 2018), the court held that only “final” state agency actions are reviewable under the NGA’s exclusive jurisdiction provision. The court determined, however, that the state-issued water quality certification at issue was reviewable “final” action even though it was subject to further administrative review because, under the relevant state law, the certification had legal effect as issued and was the final action of the agency that issued it.
- In Township of Bordentown, New Jersey et al. v. FERC et al. (Sept. 5, 2018), the court held that state administrative review of environmental permits issued for natural gas pipeline projects is not preempted by the NGA’s exclusive review provision, as the NGA only eliminates state court review of interstate pipeline-related state agency orders.
Earlier this month, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission announced their intention to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would refine and reduce the permit application review process for proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The announcement’s description of what the MOU will accomplish is consistent with the April 2018 multi-agency MOU: “The MOU will clarify each agency’s respective role in the permitting process for potential LNG projects, and implement procedures into the FERC’s authorization process that will leverage PHMSA’s safety expertise to evaluate potential impact to public safety.”
As we highlighted in our March 2, 2018, post, the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ordered the $750 million Bayou Bridge pipeline to halt construction within the Atchafalaya Basin when it concluded that the US Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental analysis likely violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to the following deficiencies:
- The Corps did not provide sufficient explanation for how the proposed off-site mitigation would compensate for the loss of wetlands impacted by construction; and
- The Corps failed to sufficiently consider and address historical impacts to wetlands from past pipeline projects in the cumulative effects analysis.
On July 10, 2018, in Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected an environmental group’s claim that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s funding mechanism results in unconstitutional bias in favor of the pipeline industry. The court also rebuffed a due process attack on the Commission’s use of “tolling orders” to avoid automatic denial of rehearing requests after 30 days.
The decision is noteworthy as it represents the latest rejection of similar constitutional challenges to FERC’s operations and practices that pipeline opponents have been raising with increasing frequency. The ruling also highlights the difficulty of bypassing the Natural Gas Act’s administrative rehearing and judicial review process through novel broadside attacks on the Commission’s general practices and procedures. Continue Reading DC Circuit Tosses FERC Bias Claim, OKs Use of Tolling Orders
As the Trump Administration is pushing forward on its deregulatory agenda and, in particular, its efforts to improve the Endangered Species Act and its implementation by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, the Supreme Court is poised to hear a landmark case on designation of critical habitat under the ESA that could provide some guideposts for the services’ new regulations.
Last month, in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637 (4th Cir. 2018), a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by citizen environmental groups regarding a 2014 pipeline leak. Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Extends CWA Liability to Cover a Wholly Past Pipeline Spill
Two notable developments in the past few weeks signal potential changes ahead to the policies and timeframes for pipeline approvals, particularly natural gas pipelines under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) oversight. These developments reflect both the increased public scrutiny of the pipeline approval process seen in recent years and the emphasis placed by the current administration on expediting review and approval of major infrastructure projects, two factors that are in some tension with each other. Continue Reading Recent Developments Signal Changes for Content and Timing of Pipeline Reviews
Recent press reports indicate that a cyber-attack disabled the third-party platform used by oil and gas pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners to exchange documents with other customers. Effects from the attack were largely confined because no other systems were impacted, including, most notably, industrial controls for critical infrastructure. However, the attack comes on the heels of a Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) alert warning of Russian attempts to use tactics including spearphishing, watering hole attacks, and credential gathering to target industrial control systems throughout critical infrastructure, as well as an indictment against Iranian nationals who used similar tactics to attack private, education, and government intuitions, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). These incidents are raising questions about cybersecurity across the US pipeline network.
On March 12, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order finding that delays by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) in reviewing Millennium Pipeline Company’s application for water quality certification constituted waiver of NYDEC’s authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). As we detailed in an earlier blog post, FERC found that NYDEC’s delay exceeded the one-year statutory period established by CWA Section 401. The Millennium case is just one of several interstate natural gas pipeline projects that have faced delays associated with the CWA Section 401 permitting process. (See, e.g., Atlantic Bridge Project, Atlantic Sunrise Project, Constitution Pipeline, Northern Access Project, PennEast Pipeline, and Spire STL Pipeline.) The Court’s decision resolves the nearly three-year permitting process for the Millennium Valley Lateral Pipeline and clarifies for other projects (and state agencies reviewing those projects) that the one-year waiver period begins when the state agency receives the initial request for certification. Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Waiver Period for State Water Quality Certification Begins Upon Receipt of Request for Certification