2017 Spire项目证书应用Louis大都市区输油管交付点项目主办人则称管道会提高可靠性和获取天然气新源,消除高需求期间对丙烷“峰值分层”的依赖SpireSTL主要依赖它与Spire密苏里公司达成的先例协议("Spire Missouri"), an affiliate, for approximately 87.5 percent of the Spire Project's capacity as evidence of need for the project.
In FERC's August 2018 order granting Spire STL's certificate application, the 3-2 Commission majority found that Spire Missouri's willingness to sign a binding contract to pay for pipeline service showed need or demand for the Spire Project. The majority rejected protestors' arguments that the precedent agreement was not a sufficient showing of need and that a market study must be undertaken. The majority noted that, since the issuance of the Certificate Policy Statement, FERC has relied on precedent agreements for a substantial amount of a proposed project's capacity as adequate evidence of need, even when the agreements are between affiliates, in the absence of anticompetitive or discriminatory behavior. According to the majority, Spire Missouri's affiliation with Spire STL did not require the Commission to look behind the precedent agreement to evaluate project need, principally relying upon the D.C.电路2014决策Envtl预科安全 v.FERC ,762F3d 97,114Cir市委前委Cheryl LaFleur和RichardGlick对2018证书令表示异议,发现记录没有显示Spire项目的必要性。 双方都认为,鉴于SpireSTL和SpireMeGlick专员(现主席)指出,当各方提出了相当多的可信关切,即先例协议是否可靠显示需要时,推理决策要求委员会做更多工作,而不仅仅是重申其接受表面价值先例协议的政策。2019年11月FERC2-1表决拒绝重审证书令请求Glick专员再次表示异议,辩称证书顺序表示“不合理应用...证书策略语句.电路判定
FERC证书和重听命令提交法院,法院依据SpireSTL申请抗诉者Environment Defe Fund(“EDF's”)提交审查申请,EDF断言FERC授予Spire项目证书的决定是任意和易变的,因为委员会完全依赖SpireSTL-SpireMeroi创举协议查找项目需求,未能充分证明它的结论,即项目福利大于不良效果。EDF认为,先例协议在FERCSireSTL证书应用评估中应只有有限证明价值,因为SpireSTL和SpireMeroy法院指出,FERC得到了有力的论据,说明SpireSTL和SpireMeroi法院补充道,委员会似乎认为单一先例协议是结论性协议,而不是参与这些论点。The court found that nothing in the Certificate Policy Statement endorses this approach.
The court distinguished this case from its opinions upholding prior certificate orders by noting that none of those cases involved precedent agreements with one affiliated shipper, and that FERC can put precedent agreements with affiliates on the same footing as non-affiliate precedent agreements only so long as FERC finds "no evidence of self-dealing." The court found that the Commission ignored record evidence of self-dealing by Spire STL, including that the pipeline was not being built to serve increasing load demand and that there was no indication the new pipeline would lead to cost savings.If it was unnecessary for the Commission to look behind the precedent agreement under these circumstances, the court added, "it is hard to imagine a set of facts for which it would ever be required." In summary, the court said that it found no judicial authority upholding a FERC certificate order when the proposed pipeline was not meant to serve any new load demand, there was no finding that the pipeline would reduce costs, the application was supported by only a single precedent agreement, and the counterparty to such precedent agreement was a corporate affiliate.
On the day the court issued its decision, FERC issued a statement saying that the Commission is considering what action may be appropriate in light of the court's vacatur.FERC发言中引用Glick主席的一段话,即他想重审委员会评估州际天然气管道需求的方法,作为其2月18日
This change in DOE policy should be of interest to gas and LNG export authorization holders and their counterparties in sales contracts, and to proposed export applicants that are now seeking or will seek such authorizations from DOE.
Background
Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), DOE authorizes exports of natural gas and LNG that are consistent with the public interest. Exports to countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement (FTA) are deemed in the public interest by the NGA and must be authorized "without modification or delay." However, for exports to countries without an FTA (non-FTA countries), DOE conducts an informal adjudication and authorizes a proposed export unless it is shown to not be consistent with the public interest.
As discussed in a previous post to this blog, DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Policy Statement in February 2020 proposing to extend the terms of non-FTA export authorizations to December 31, 2050. The 20-year term was based on studies that evaluated the impact of LNG exports on the U.S.economy and energy markets. However, a more recent 2018 LNG export study[1] considered unconstrained (or market-determined) levels of LNG exports through the year 2050 and, according to DOE, supports export terms lasting through December 31, 2050. The notice said authorization holders had indicated that a longer term would better match the operational life of LNG export facilities (designed for 30 to 50 years), provide more security in financing those facilities and maximize the ability to contract for exports.
The new policy
In a Notice of the Final Policy Statement (Policy Statement), DOE adopts a term through December 31, 2050 as the standard export term for long-term non-FTA authorizations. The Policy Statement establishes the following implementation process.
Existing authorization holders may, on a voluntary opt-in basis, request a term extension by filing an application to amend their authorizations to extend the term through December 31, 2050, with an attendant increase in the total export volume over the life of the authorization.
Pending non-FTA applicants may, on a voluntary opt-in basis, amend their application to request an export term through December 31, 2050, with an attendant increase in the total requested export volume over the life of the authorization.
Future long-term non-FTA authorizations will have a standard export term lasting through December 31, 2050, unless a shorter term is requested.
Applications to amend existing non-FTA orders and pending applications will be noticed in the Federal Register, and DOE will conduct a public interest analysis of them. The public interest analysis for existing orders will be limited to the application for the term extension. An intervenor or protestor may challenge the requested extension but not the existing non-FTA order.
For applications to amend existing non-FTA orders and pending non-FTA applications, the policy statement provides suggested application templates to ensure more consistent, streamlined proceedings.
The policy statement does not apply to authorizations to export to FTA countries because DOE is required to grant FTA applications ‘‘without modification or delay'' under the NGA. Applicants for FTA export authorizations were not subject to the standard twenty-year term. The Policy Statement notes, however, that authorization holders typically prefer to align their FTA and non-FTA exports over the same time period for administrative efficiencies. DOE expects non-FTA authorization holders to request comparable termination dates for their FTA authorizations and encourages the use of consolidated FTA and non-FTA extension applications.
DOE found that under the new policy, exports of LNG will generate positive economic benefits in the U.S.2050年全年提高公众兴趣,提供机制提高LNG在整个授权期内出口总量。 DOE拒绝反对拟议政策的评论时说,根据2018LNG输出研究发现的结果,它不认为可信地断言新政策会投放数万亿美元U.S.制造资产和数以百万计的工作风险。此外,DOE没有找到用记录证据支持的国内物价提高的参数 。
DOE政策说明自发布日期起有效 Federal注册 . LNG输出器(2018年6月7日)DE网站The Department of Energy proposes to no longer subject LNG exports to evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to a recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), DOE says that the only source of potential environmental impacts within its authority to review are those associated with transporting natural gas by ship, and those shipments qualify for categorical exclusion from NEPA review.
DOE's proposal is likely to be controversial and if adopted may be subject to litigation. This proposed change in DOE policy will be of interest to proposed LNG export projects that are now seeking or will seek such authorizations from DOE and their counterparties in gas sales contracts.
Background
Under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), DOE authorizes exports of natural gas and LNG unless found to not be consistent with the public interest. Exports to countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement (FTA) are deemed in the public interest by the NGA and must be authorized "without modification or delay." However, for exports to countries without an FTA (non-FTA countries), DOE conducts an informal adjudication, including an evaluation under NEPA and authorizes a proposed export unless it is shown to not be consistent with the public interest. The adjudications for non-FTA authorizations can be contentious, especially with respect to the potential increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the combustion of the exported gas in the destination countries.
DOE does not authorize facilities associated with the export of natural gas. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authorizes the terminals from which LNG is exported as well as the pipelines that feed natural gas to the export terminals. FERC undertakes NEPA reviews with respect to those facility authorizations.
Proposal
The NOPR is directed at reforming DOE's NEPA regulations so that they are consistent with the agency's authority and practices. DOE proposes to revise its regulations consistent with the legal principle that potential environmental effects considered under NEPA do not include effects that the agency has no authority to prevent because they would not have a sufficiently close causal connection to the proposed action.[1] Because DOE's authority is limited to exports of natural gas, DOE says it will focus exclusively on NEPA review of potential environmental impacts resulting from actions occurring at or after the point of export, which DOE has construed in past adjudications as occurring when the LNG is delivered to the flange of the LNG export vessel.
According to the NOPR, the only source of potential environmental impacts associated with DOE's decision authorizing exports are any "associated transportation of natural gas by marine vessel," which DOE has previously determined does not pose the potential for significant environmental impacts.Accordingly, DOE proposes to include such transportation within the scope of a categorical exclusion from NEPA review in its regulations.
With respect to the potential for GHG increased emissions, the NOPR says that "the regasification and ultimate burning of LNG in foreign countries are beyond the scope of DOE's NEPA review." DOE says that two reports that it commissioned in 2014 and 2018 to calculate the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for LNG exported from the United States were used to support its public interest determination regarding a proposed export and were not part of DOE's NEPA review.[2]
Comments on the proposal are due June 1, 2020. Documents supporting the NOPR and comments received are available here.
[1] The NOPR cites Dep't of Transp.vunem/Pub公有性 541U.S.752(2004)SierraClub vFed能源规管通信 827F.3d36Cir市2016年)
/ahref=sftnref2LNG在欧洲和亚洲市场出口电源不会从生命周期角度增加全球温室气体排放量,而与区域燃煤和耗电生产相比。能源局建议将标准20年授权从美国输出天然气和液化天然气的期限延长至2050年12月31日下至48状态According to DOE, the longer term would better match the operational life of LNG export facilities, provide more security in their financing, and maximize the ability to contract for exports. This change in DOE policy will be of interest to gas and LNG export authorization holders and their counterparties in sales contracts, and to proposed export applicants that are now seeking or will seek such authorizations from DOE.
Background
Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), DOE authorizes exports of natural gas and LNG that are consistent with the public interest. Exports to countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement (FTA) are deemed in the public interest by the NGA and must be authorized "without modification or delay." However, for exports to countries without an FTA (non-FTA countries), DOE conducts an informal adjudication and authorizes a proposed export unless it is shown to not be consistent with the public interest. The adjudications for non-FTA authorizations can be contentious, with issues often raised about the environmental and economic impacts of exporting the gas. DOE has limited the term for non-FTA export authorizations to twenty years.
According to a recent Notice of Proposed Policy Statement, DOE says current authorization holders have indicated that a longer term would better match the operational life LNG export facilities (designed for 30 to 50 years), provide more security in financing those facilities and maximize the ability to contract for exports.现有20年学期基于2012年、2014年和2015年研究,这些研究评价LNG出口对美国的影响经济与能源市场 2018 LNG输出研究>_ftnref1#sup>[1] 认为LNG出口到2050年不受约束(或市场确定)水平并据DOE称支持持续至2050年12月31日的出口条件申请FTA出口授权者不受20年标准约束,并可能已经请求更长授权 。
当前非FTA申请者可修改等待申请请求持续至2050年12月31日并发布所有未来非FTA出口授权标准持续至2050年12月31日,除非请求短期 。
非FTA授权是否符合公众利益。
Actorization持有者通常宁可在同一期间调整FTA和非FTA出口DOE期望授权持有者请求现有FTA授权或待批FTA应用相似终止日期。
DOE表示预期委托进行LNG出口影响新经济研究并在今后适当时间审议2050年以后出口期延期问题。
对建议书的评论到期日期为2020年3月12日。
Under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), FERC certificates the construction and operation of pipelines to transport natural gas in interstate commerce if they are "required by the present or future public convenience and necessity." For almost two decades, FERC has used a 1999 policy statement's guidelines to evaluate whether new pipelines meet that statutory standard. The use of natural gas has been steadily growing, and in 2017 FERC certificated over 2,700 miles of new interstate pipelines, the highest annual level in history.
Now FERC is conducting a top-to-bottom review of the 1999 guidelines and issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) requesting public comments on whether and how they should be revised. The outcome of FERC's review could have a significant impact on the development and transportation of shale gas, and the availability of new pipeline capacity to serve increasing demand from gas-fired electricity generators and LNG export facilities.
The 1999 policy statement
The policy statement sets out the analytical steps the Commission takes in evaluating a new pipeline application. If the applicant has existing pipeline customers, the threshold issue is that the project must be able to proceed without subsidies from those customers. This usually means that the project would be incrementally priced.
FERC then conducts what it calls an "economic test" by balancing evidence of the new pipeline's public benefits against its adverse effects. FERC determines whether there are any adverse effects on (1) the existing customers of the pipeline proposing the project, (2) existing pipelines in the market and their captive customers, or (3) landowners and communities affected by the new pipeline's route. If there are, the Commission may identify conditions that it could impose on the certificate that would minimize or eliminate the adverse impacts.
Where there are residual adverse impacts, an applicant must show a project's public benefits that are proportional to the project's adverse impacts. Examples of public benefits are meeting unserved demand, eliminating bottlenecks, access to new supplies, lower costs to consumers, providing new interconnects that improve the interstate grid, providing competitive alternatives, increasing electric reliability, or advancing clean air objectives.
Applying the guidelines to certificate applications over the years, FERC has shown flexibility. For example, the NOI notes that as evidence of unserved demand, applicants have most often presented precedent agreements with prospective customers for long-term firm service, and the Commission has accepted those customer commitments as the principal factor in demonstrating project need.
A pipeline application for certification also triggers environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).FERC审查探讨对各种环境资源的影响,包括地质学、土壤、地下水、地表水、水生资源、植被、野生生物、特殊状态物种、文化资源、土地使用、娱乐、美学、社会经济学、空气质量、气候变化、噪声和可靠性安全性。
因为NEP审查通常比审查拟议项目非环境方面耗时长,FERC经常应申请在预编程阶段启动环境影响研究与需要批准的其他机构协调,确保他们和利益攸关方的关切得到充分解决,可以延长完成NEPA审查过程所需的时间。NOI指出,过去十年中,联邦承认部落、受影响的土地所有者和环境组织参与拟议的天然气项目进程显著增加。他们的关注主要集中在新项目需求、替代物、累积影响以及与天然气生产和消费相关的影响上,尤其是温室气体排放对全球气候变化的推波助澜问题。变化包括:(1)天然气生产技术革命导致生产和生产区剧增(2) 客户在项目编程阶段例行承诺公司服务的长期先例协议增加使用天然气发电(4) 土地所有者和社区可能受拟议项目影响的更多关注和(5) 增加对环境冲击的兴趣。
p>FERC希望评论对确定拟议项目是否需要公共方便和需要的方法的可能修改,并确定了四大审查领域:
三大独立但非完全无关事件在过去数周内发生,每个事件都出自天然气法应用和LNG对美国和国际社会出口日益重要性。
(1)乌克兰危机后,各种政治家和专家持续呼吁增加LNG对欧洲的出口并减少欧洲对俄罗斯天然气出口的依赖国会子委员会特别考虑并推介
(3)能源局有条件地批准了俄勒冈州Coos湾JordanCave能源项目LNG输出应用第七批许可由DoE有条件批准(20多批仍在执行中)。批准条件取决于未来联邦能源管理委员会的批准DoE审查应用以确保向没有自由贸易协定的国家销售符合“公共利益”(根据《天然气法》第3(a)节所列标准)。重要点是,DoE继续强调向盟国提供安全的重要性,作为决策考虑因素之一,
关于美国盟国供应安全说明不是新考虑前多包许可输出LNG使用类似语言(例如见LNG输出研究 .