U.S. DOE Disclaims Jurisdiction Over Canadian Gas and Authorizes LNG Exports to Non-FTA Nations from Bear Head LNG Project – April 1, 2016
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
Description
APRIL 2016
VOL. 16-4
PRATT’S ENERGY LAW REPORT
PRATT’S
ENERGY LAW
REPORT
EDITOR’S NOTE: CLIMATE CHANGE
Victoria Prussen Spears
THE CLEAN POWER PLAN: U.S. EPA SETS
FIRST-EVER NATIONAL POWER PLANT
CARBON STANDARDS TO ADDRESS
CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXPECTS
NATIONWIDE TRADING TO EMERGE
Richard M. Saines and
Marisa Martin Lewandowski
APRIL 2016
THE PARIS AGREEMENT: LEADING THE
PATHWAY TO A LOW CARBON ECONOMY
Peter Zaman, Jennifer A.
Smokelin, Nicholas Rock, and Adam Hedley U.S. DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION OVER CANADIAN GAS AND AUTHORIZES LNG EXPORTS TO NON-FTA NATIONS FROM BEAR HEAD LNG PROJECT Tania Perez and Lamiya Rahman U.S. GOVERNMENT REPEALS CRUDE OIL EXPORT BAN Jeffrey Orenstein IN THE COURTS Steven A.
Meyerowitz VOL.16-4 . 0001 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] (Beg Group) Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 0 Pratt’s Energy Law Report VOLUME 16 NUMBER 4 Editor’s Note: Climate Change Victoria Prussen Spears APRIL 2016 129 The Clean Power Plan: U.S. EPA Sets First-Ever National Power Plant Carbon Standards to Address Climate Change and Expects Nationwide Trading to Emerge Richard M. Saines and Marisa Martin Lewandowski 131 The Paris Agreement: Leading the Pathway to a Low Carbon Economy Peter Zaman, Jennifer A. Smokelin, Nicholas Rock, and Adam Hedley 138 U.S.
DOE Disclaims Jurisdiction Over Canadian Gas and Authorizes LNG Exports to Non-FTA Nations from Bear Head LNG Project Tania Perez and Lamiya Rahman 150 U.S. Government Repeals Crude Oil Export Ban Jeffrey Orenstein 158 In the Courts Steven A. Meyerowitz 161 .
0002 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 43 QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION? For questions about the Editorial Content appearing in these volumes or reprint permission, please email: Jacqueline M. Morris at ........................................................................................................ Email: ............................................................................... jacqueline.m.morris@lexisnexis.com For assistance with replacement pages, shipments, billing or other customer service matters, please call: Customer Services Department at . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. (800) 833-9844 Outside the United States and Canada, please call . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . (518) 487-3000 Fax Number .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
(518) 487-3584 Customer Service Web site . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. http://www.lexisnexis.com/custserv/ For information on other Matthew Bender publications, please call Your account manager or . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
(800) 223-1940 Outside the United States and Canada, please call . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . (518) 487-3000 ISBN: 978-1-6328-0836-3 (print) ISBN: 978-1-6328-0837-0 (ebook) ISSN: 2374-3395 (print) ISSN: 2374-3409 (online) Cite this publication as: [author name], [article title], [vol.
no.] PRATT’S ENERGY LAW REPORT [page number] (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt); Ian Coles, Rare Earth Elements: Deep Sea Mining and the Law of the Sea, 14 PRATT’S ENERGY LAW REPORT 4 (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt) This publication is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. A.S. Pratt is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license. Copyright © 2016 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright is claimed by LexisNexis, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., or Reed Elsevier Properties SA, in the text of statutes, regulations, and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this work.
Permission to copy material may be licensed for a fee from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone (978) 750-8400. An A.S. Pratt® Publication Editorial Ofï¬ce 630 Central Ave., New Providence, NJ 07974 (908) 464-6800 www.lexisnexis.com (2016–Pub.1898) .
0003 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 36 Editor-in-Chief, Editor & Board of Editors EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEVEN A. MEYEROWITZ President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. EDITOR VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS Senior Vice President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. BOARD OF EDITORS SAMUEL B. BOXERMAN Partner, Sidley Austin LLP ANDREW CALDER Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP M. SETH GINTHER Partner, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C. R.
TODD JOHNSON Partner, Jones Day BARCLAY NICHOLSON Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright BRADLEY A. WALKER Counsel, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC ELAINE M. WALSH Partner, Baker Botts L.L.P. SEAN T.
WHEELER Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP WANDA B. WHIGHAM Senior Counsel, Holland & Knight LLP Hydraulic Fracturing Developments ERIC ROTHENBERG Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP iii . 0004 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 22 Pratt’s Energy Law Report is published 10 times a year by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Washington, D.C., and at additional mailing ofï¬ces. Copyright 2016 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form—by microï¬lm, xerography, or otherwise—or incorporated into any information retrieval system without the written permission of the copyright owner. For customer support, please contact LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 1275 Broadway, Albany, NY 12204 or e-mail Customer.Support@lexisnexis.com.
Direct any editorial inquires and send any material for publication to Steven A. Meyerowitz, Editor-in-Chief, Meyerowitz Communications Inc., 26910 Grand Central Parkway Suite 18R, Floral Park, New York 11005, smeyerowitz@meyerowitzcommunications.com, 347.235.0882. Material for publication is welcomed—articles, decisions, or other items of interest to lawyers and law ï¬rms, in-house energy counsel, government lawyers, senior business executives, and anyone interested in energy-related environmental preservation, the laws governing cutting-edge alternative energy technologies, and legal developments affecting traditional and new energy providers.
This publication is designed to be accurate and authoritative, but neither the publisher nor the authors are rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services in this publication. If legal or other expert advice is desired, retain the services of an appropriate professional. The articles and columns reflect only the present considerations and views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ï¬rms or organizations with which they are afï¬liated, any of the former or present clients of the authors or their ï¬rms or organizations, or the editors or publisher. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Pratt’s Energy Law Report, LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 121 Chanlon Road, North Building, New Providence, NJ 07974. iv .
0022 Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT U.S. DOE Disclaims Jurisdiction Over Canadian Gas and Authorizes LNG Exports to Non-FTA Nations from Bear Head LNG Project By Tania Perez and Lamiya Rahman* The authors of this article discuss two orders issued to Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Ofï¬ce of Fossil Energy announcing its comprehensive policy for considering applications involving liqueï¬ed natural gas exports from Eastern Canada to global markets. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Ofï¬ce of Fossil Energy (“DOE/FE”) recently issued two orders to Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC (together, “Bear Head LNG”),1 formally announcing DOE’s comprehensive policy for considering applications involving liqueï¬ed natural gas (“LNG”) exports from Eastern Canada to global markets. • In Order 3769 (“In-Transit Order”), DOE/FE determined that it lacks jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (the “NGA”) over Bear Head LNG’s proposed imports of Canadian natural gas travelling by pipeline through the United States on its way back to Canada (i.e., in-transit shipments).2 In this regard, DOE/FE dismissed Bear Head LNG’s application seeking authorization to access Western and Central Canadian natural gas supplies that necessarily must cross the U.S.Canada border (due to transportation pipeline conï¬gurations), en route to the proposed Bear Head LNG project. * Tania Perez is a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, focusing her practice on the development of U.S.
and international energy infrastructure projects, including LNG regasiï¬cation and liquefaction terminals, and natural gas and oil/liquids storage and pipeline facilities. Lamiya Rahman is an associate at the ï¬rm representing energy and commodity companies, ï¬nancial institutions, and trade associations in a variety of transactional, regulatory, compliance, and litigation matters. The authors may be reached at tania.perez@cwt.com and lamiya.rahman@cwt.com, respectively.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP serves as Bear Head LNG’s U.S. energy regulatory counsel. Special thanks to Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, FaegreBD Consulting and Boundary Stone Partners for their participation in the journey. 1 Bear Head LNG is developing the proposed natural gas liquefaction terminal to be located on the Strait of Canso in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2 Bear Head LNG Corporation & Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, DOE/FE Order No.
3769, FE Docket No. 15-14-NG (Feb. 5, 2016), available at http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ï¬les/ 2016/02/f29/ord3769.pdf. 150 .
0023 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION • In Order 3770 (the “Non-FTA Order”), DOE/FE granted Bear Head LNG long-term, multi-contract authorization under Section 3(a) of the NGA to export U.S. natural gas by pipeline to Canada for subsequent liquefaction and export (i.e., re-export) to nations with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (“FTA”) requiring the national treatment of natural gas (“non-FTA nations”).3 The Bear Head LNG proceedings presented legal issues of ï¬rst impression4 and “an unusual factual circumstance,”5 as DOE/FE stated. Certainly, as discussed below, DOE/FE’s legal determinations in the Bear Head LNG proceedings were signiï¬cant.6 However, the legal signiï¬cance of the Bear Head LNG Orders is dwarfed by the political implications of DOE/FE’s announced policies of (i) adopting a laissez-faire approach to applications for Canadian gas in-transit through the United States, and (ii) giving the green light to natural gas exports of U.S. natural gas to Canada for liquefaction and export to non-FTA nations. THE LEGAL STANDARD: FTA OR NON-FTA Speciï¬cally, DOE/FE was called upon to determine which of the two legal standards found in Section 3 of the NGA (i.e., FTA or non-FTA) properly applied to Bear Head LNG’s applications ï¬led for the purpose of securing gas 3 Bear Head LNG Corporation & Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, DOE/FE Order No.
3770, FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG (Feb. 5, 2016), available at http://www.energy.gov/fe/downloads/ order-3770-bear-head-lng-corporation-and-bear-head-lng-usa-llc.
DOE/FE previously granted Bear Head LNG authorization under Section 3(c) of the NGA to export U.S. natural gas by pipeline to Canada for subsequent liquefaction and export to FTA nations. See Bear Head LNG Corporation & Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, DOE/FE Order No.
3681, FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG (Jul. 17, 2015) (the “FTA Order”), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/ï¬les/ 2015/07/f24/ord3681.pdf. 4 See Non-FTA Order at 155. DOE/FE stated, “[t]his is among the ï¬rst two proceedings in which DOE/FE has been asked to review an application to export U.S.-sourced natural gas by pipeline to Canada for liquefaction in Canada, for subsequent re-export of that natural gas in the form of LNG to non-FTA countries” (emphasis added).
Concurrent with Bear Head LNG’s Non-FTA and In-Transit Orders, DOE/FE issued an order to Pieridae Energy (USA), Ltd. granting it similar long-term authority for non-FTA exports of U.S. natural gas. See Pieridae Energy (USA) Ltd., DOE/FE Order No.
3768, FE Docket No. 14-179-LNG, available at http://www.energy.gov/fe/downloads/order-3768-pieridae-energy-usa-ltd. 5 Non-FTA Order at 155. See also id.
at 156 (“Most applications to DOE/FE for authority to export natural gas to non-FTA countries involve the ready availability of natural gas through an integrated grid of multiple interstate natural gas pipelines. This Application, by contrast, calls for the transportation of U.S.-sourced natural gas through a single interstate natural gas pipeline.”). 6 As U.S. regulatory counsel to Bear Head LNG, we express no view herein on the merits of DOE/FE’s legal determinations. 151 .
0024 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT supply for the Bear Head LNG project. For diversity of supply, Bear Head LNG sought authorizations for in-transit shipments of Canadian natural gas, as well as pipeline exports of U.S. natural gas to Canada. As described in Bear Head LNG’s applications, LNG produced at the project is intended for export to FTA and non-FTA nations. In addressing this issue, DOE/FE opted to apply the discretionary, non-FTA standard (i.e., the NGA Section 3(a) public interest standard), inasmuch as LNG produced at the Bear Head LNG project is intended for delivery and end-use in non-FTA nations.
In the Non-FTA Order, DOE/FE reiterated the rationale supporting its determination, previously unveiled in the FTA Order. It explained that its decision is rooted in Congressional intent that all exports destined for non-FTA nations be reviewed for their consistency with the U.S. public interest. To do otherwise, DOE/FE reasoned, would permit potential exporters to evade the non-FTA public interest analysis simply by transiting natural gas and LNG through an FTA nation.7 BALANCING NGA MANDATES WITH U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE OBLIGATIONS Undoubtedly, Bear Head LNG’s proceedings presented DOE/FE with the challenge of discharging its statutory mandate under the NGA, without violating U.S.
obligations under NAFTA or aggravating an already strained U.S.-Canada energy relationship suffering from the highly politicized discord over the Keystone XL Pipeline.8 As a starting point, consider that DOE/FE’s decision to exercise its NGA 7 Signiï¬cantly, the transiting concept is not ingrained in NGA jurisprudence, but it does arise in the context of marking rules and country of origin rules under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), and in U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations, as referenced below. Unlike the U.S.
legal framework, the Canadian National Energy Board Act and its implementing regulations speciï¬cally address gas that is in transit. But even in instances involving National Energy Board (“NEB”) “in transit” orders, the recently issued corresponding DOE/FE orders have been silent on the “in transit” concept. See, e.g., Terasen Gas Inc., Order Authorizing the Exportation of Gas for Subsequent Import, NEB Order GOL-07-2010, File OF-EI-Gas-GOLT101 01 (Jun.
7, 2010) and corresponding Terasen Gas Inc., Order Granting Blanket Authorization to Import and Export Natural Gas from and to Canada, DOE/FE Order 2619, FE Docket No. 09-11-NG (Feb. 19, 2009). 8 See Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., Order Amending Presidential Permit and Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 128 FERC ¶ 61,070, P10 (Jul.
21, 2009) (stating that approving exports in addition to imports on the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline would “promote national economic policy by reducing barriers to foreign trade and stimulating the flow of goods and services between the United States and Canada, both of which are signatories to the North American Free Trade Agreement, providing for fewer restrictions on natural gas imports and exports.”). 152 . 0025 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION Section 3(a) jurisdiction in effect extends beyond the U.S.-Canada border (where the export of U.S. natural gas by pipeline will occur) and follows the gas into Canada (where the export of LNG by vessel will occur). Accordingly, the Non-FTA Order arguably is an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by DOE/FE—which is not to say it is impermissible.9 To further complicate matters, prior to DOE/FE’s issuance of the In-Transit Order, there was uncertainty regarding which NGA Section 3 standard DOE/FE would apply to in-transit shipments of Canadian gas; and whether DOE/FE would be legally consistent in exercising its NGA Section 3 jurisdiction when Canadian gas was in question, as opposed to U.S. gas.10 As discussed below, DOE/FE opted to dismiss the in-transit application for lack of jurisdiction under NGA Section 3. Then consider that the NEB has authorized (without restriction) the export of Canadian gas intended for liquefaction and export from U.S.
West Coast projects.11 With the lawsuits stemming from U.S. decision to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline as a backdrop, and a newly elected Canadian government looking for a fresh start with the Obama Administration, particularly in energy and climate change, DOE/FE’s favorable determinations in the Bear Head LNG proceedings mark a positive step in strengthening ties between the two nations. THE NEPA CHALLENGE A secondary, but very signiï¬cant legal issue, arose under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which requires DOE/FE to consider the environmental impacts of its decisions on applications seeking authorization to 9 While there is an extensive body of domestic and international law instructive on this issue, our discussion herein—like DOE/FE’s analysis in the Non-FTA Order—is controlled by the NGA. 10 See Notice of Application, Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Import Natural Gas From, for Subsequent Export to, Canada for a 25-year Term, 80 Fed. Reg.
20,484 (Apr. 16, 2015), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/ï¬les/2015/08/f25/published%20FR%20Notice%2015_14_ LNG_0.pdf. In an unprecedented move, DOE/FE requested comments on whether Section 3(c) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C.
§ 717b(c), or Section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(a), provides the appropriate standard for review of Bear Head LNG’s in-transit application. 11 See Jordan Cove LNG L.P., DOE/FE Order No. 3412, FE Docket No.
13-141-NG (Mar. 18, 2014) (granting long-term, multi-contract authorization to import natural gas from Canada); Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., DOE/FE Order No. 3413, FE Docket No. 12-32-LNG (Mar. 24, 2014) (granting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to non-FTA nations); LNG Development Company LLC (d/b/a Oregon LNG), DOE/FE Order No.
3465, FE Docket No 12-77-LNG (Jul. 31, 2014) (granting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to non-FTA nations). 153 . 0026 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT export natural gas. In the past, DOE/FE could meet its NEPA obligations as a cooperating agency in the NEPA review process led by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) for U.S. LNG terminal facilities.12 In the case of the Bear Head LNG project, the environmental and safety review would be conducted by Canadian federal, provincial, and local authorities. At the time Bear Head LNG ï¬led its applications, relevant DOE/FE non-FTA precedent could be summarized in a single bullet:13 • Applications involving the construction of new, or the modiï¬cation of existing, LNG facilities subject to FERC jurisdiction: DOE/FE acts as cooperating agency in the NEPA review process led by FERC. DOE/FE then adopts the NEPA documentation prepared by FERC (be it an environmental assessment (“EA”) or environmental impact statement (“EIS”)), provided DOE/FE has conducted an independent review of such NEPA documentation and determined its comments and suggestions have been satisï¬ed. In those instances that an EA is prepared, DOE/FE issues a ï¬nding of no signiï¬cant impact (“FONSI”).
In other instances that an EIS is prepared, DOE/FE issues a record of decision. Since then, relevant DOE/FE non-FTA precedent has evolved as follows, culminating with the most recent decisions issued on February 5, 2016: • Applications involving existing LNG facilities not subject to FERC jurisdiction: DOE/FE grants categorical exclusion under its regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B5. • Application involving the construction of new CNG facilities not subject to FERC jurisdiction: DOE conducts NEPA review process and prepares NEPA documentation.14 • Applications involving the construction of new LNG facilities in Canada (i.e., not subject to FERC jurisdiction): DOE/FE grants categorical exclusion in accordance with its regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 1021, 12 While DOE/FE authorizes the export of LNG pursuant to NGA Section 3, under the same section, FERC exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and construction of LNG terminal facilities (to be located onshore or in state waters).
Under the NGA, FERC also serves as the lead federal agency for conducting NEPA analysis for LNG terminal facilities. 13 In reviewing potential environmental impacts of a proposal to export natural gas, DOE/FE considers both its obligations under NEPA and NGA Section 3(a). 14 To date, DOE (through its National Energy Technology Laboratory) has issued only one EA. The ï¬nal EA, FONSI and order granting export authorization were issued contemporaneously. 154 . 0027 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION Subpart D, Appendix B5, with authorized export volume in proportion with level of existing U.S. pipeline capacity.15 NEW RULES FOR IN-TRANSIT CANADIAN GAS SHIPMENTS DOE/FE dismissed Bear Head LNG’s in-transit application on the grounds that in-transit shipments returning to the country of origin are not “imports” or “exports” within the meaning of NGA Section 3, such that they fall outside of DOE/FE’s NGA Section 3 jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, DOE/FE noted Congress’ likely intention that the terms “import” and “export” apply only to those categories of shipments that, by their nature, could have a material effect on the U.S. public interest.
Shipments of Canadian-sourced natural gas between Canadian points, according to DOE/FE, are “categorically unlikely” to have a material impact on the U.S. public interest and are, therefore, outside of DOE/FE’s NGA Section 3 purview. In further support of its jurisdictional determination, DOE/FE cited a 1977 agreement—the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning Transit Pipelines—which espouses a laissez-faire policy for in-transit shipments of hydrocarbons between the two countries. Deï¬nition of “In-Transit Shipment Returning to the Country of Origin” DOE/FE explained these are shipments of natural gas through the U.S. between points of a single foreign nation that are physical and direct. “Physical” means transportation between two cross-border points, and excludes “exchanges by backhaul, displacement or other virtual shipments.” “Direct” means that the natural gas travels a commercially reasonable path between foreign points consistent with an intention merely to transit through the U.S.
without being diverted for another purpose. Lastly, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations, DOE/FE noted that the natural gas must enter and exit the U.S.
within a 30-day period to qualify as “in-transit.” Filing and Recordkeeping Requirements Despite dismissing the application and disclaiming Section 3 jurisdiction, DOE/FE drew on its authority under Section 16 of the NGA to direct Bear 15 In denying a motion ï¬led by Pieridae Energy (USA) Ltd., DOE/FE afï¬rmed wellestablished NEPA precedent. DOE/FE stated, “[W]e must deny Pieridae US’s Motion to Lodge because the Goldboro Project, to be located in Nova Scotia, Canada, is outside the scope of our environmental review under NEPA in this proceeding, which necessarily focuses on potential environmental impacts within the United States.” See Pieridae Energy (USA) Ltd., DOE/FE Order No. 3768 at 190. 155 .
0028 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:38 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT Head LNG to ï¬le monthly reports. When in-transit shipments occur, Bear Head LNG is to report: (1) the volumes of natural gas delivered into the U.S.; (2) the entity that has title to the natural gas on ï¬rst entry into the U.S.; (3) the points of entry into the U.S.; (4) the name of the U.S. pipelines used at the points of entry to and exit from the U.S.; (5) the points of exit from the U.S.; (6) the entity that has title to the natural gas at the point of exit from the U.S.; and, (7) the volumes of natural gas delivered to the points of exit. Lastly, in the event of any discrepancy in volumes, Bear Head LNG must show that no deliveries into U.S. commercial markets occurred. The In-Transit Order further directs Bear Head LNG to maintain “records of the pipelines used for each in-transit shipment for a period of one year after completion of each in-transit shipment.” These records are to be provided to DOE/FE upon request. IN CONCLUSION DOE/FE rendered Bear Head LNG’s Non-FTA Order in under 12 months. Certainly, that processing time very likely would have been cut by more than half had DOE/FE applied the FTA standard.
Nonetheless, given the complexity of the legal issues and the political implications affecting the Bear Head LNG proceedings, having the beneï¬t of a thoughtful and deliberate analysis carries many tangible beneï¬ts. As to intangible beneï¬ts, considering that Bear Head LNG was the second applicant raising issues of ï¬rst impression before DOE/FE, its chances of achieving timely resolution were not very high.16 Recognizing this, Bear Head LNG pulled together an experienced team of advisors to forge and implement a permitting strategy to improve its odds.17 In the end, whether by fortune, miracle, or design, Bear Head LNG managed to walk by the awakened snake without getting bitten, and it did so in record time. 16 By way of illustration, consider the two-year gap (minus three days) between the issuance of the ï¬rst Non-FTA LNG export authorization from the Lower-48 and the second one. Applications for the two projects were ï¬led three months and 10 days apart. 17 Bear Head LNG did not suffer the deluge of public comments that most proponents of LNG exports experience. 156 . 0029 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:38 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION DOE/FE also is to be commended for resolving Bear Head LNG’s applications in a manner that preserves each sovereign’s interests in its natural resources, but also is consistent with international principles of free trade, reciprocity and comity. To the extent the Bear Head LNG Orders may be viewed as bringing North American LNG a step closer to serving global demand, consider the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Accomplishment will prove to be a journey, not a destination.” 157 .
Smokelin, Nicholas Rock, and Adam Hedley U.S. DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION OVER CANADIAN GAS AND AUTHORIZES LNG EXPORTS TO NON-FTA NATIONS FROM BEAR HEAD LNG PROJECT Tania Perez and Lamiya Rahman U.S. GOVERNMENT REPEALS CRUDE OIL EXPORT BAN Jeffrey Orenstein IN THE COURTS Steven A.
Meyerowitz VOL.16-4 . 0001 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] (Beg Group) Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 0 Pratt’s Energy Law Report VOLUME 16 NUMBER 4 Editor’s Note: Climate Change Victoria Prussen Spears APRIL 2016 129 The Clean Power Plan: U.S. EPA Sets First-Ever National Power Plant Carbon Standards to Address Climate Change and Expects Nationwide Trading to Emerge Richard M. Saines and Marisa Martin Lewandowski 131 The Paris Agreement: Leading the Pathway to a Low Carbon Economy Peter Zaman, Jennifer A. Smokelin, Nicholas Rock, and Adam Hedley 138 U.S.
DOE Disclaims Jurisdiction Over Canadian Gas and Authorizes LNG Exports to Non-FTA Nations from Bear Head LNG Project Tania Perez and Lamiya Rahman 150 U.S. Government Repeals Crude Oil Export Ban Jeffrey Orenstein 158 In the Courts Steven A. Meyerowitz 161 .
0002 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 43 QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION? For questions about the Editorial Content appearing in these volumes or reprint permission, please email: Jacqueline M. Morris at ........................................................................................................ Email: ............................................................................... jacqueline.m.morris@lexisnexis.com For assistance with replacement pages, shipments, billing or other customer service matters, please call: Customer Services Department at . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. (800) 833-9844 Outside the United States and Canada, please call . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . (518) 487-3000 Fax Number .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
(518) 487-3584 Customer Service Web site . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. http://www.lexisnexis.com/custserv/ For information on other Matthew Bender publications, please call Your account manager or . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
(800) 223-1940 Outside the United States and Canada, please call . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . (518) 487-3000 ISBN: 978-1-6328-0836-3 (print) ISBN: 978-1-6328-0837-0 (ebook) ISSN: 2374-3395 (print) ISSN: 2374-3409 (online) Cite this publication as: [author name], [article title], [vol.
no.] PRATT’S ENERGY LAW REPORT [page number] (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt); Ian Coles, Rare Earth Elements: Deep Sea Mining and the Law of the Sea, 14 PRATT’S ENERGY LAW REPORT 4 (LexisNexis A.S. Pratt) This publication is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. A.S. Pratt is a registered trademark of Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license. Copyright © 2016 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright is claimed by LexisNexis, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., or Reed Elsevier Properties SA, in the text of statutes, regulations, and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this work.
Permission to copy material may be licensed for a fee from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, telephone (978) 750-8400. An A.S. Pratt® Publication Editorial Ofï¬ce 630 Central Ave., New Providence, NJ 07974 (908) 464-6800 www.lexisnexis.com (2016–Pub.1898) .
0003 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 36 Editor-in-Chief, Editor & Board of Editors EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEVEN A. MEYEROWITZ President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. EDITOR VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS Senior Vice President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. BOARD OF EDITORS SAMUEL B. BOXERMAN Partner, Sidley Austin LLP ANDREW CALDER Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP M. SETH GINTHER Partner, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C. R.
TODD JOHNSON Partner, Jones Day BARCLAY NICHOLSON Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright BRADLEY A. WALKER Counsel, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC ELAINE M. WALSH Partner, Baker Botts L.L.P. SEAN T.
WHEELER Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP WANDA B. WHIGHAM Senior Counsel, Holland & Knight LLP Hydraulic Fracturing Developments ERIC ROTHENBERG Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP iii . 0004 [ST: 1] [ED: m] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Fri Mar 25 08:43:47 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 FM000150 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [FM000150-Local:09 Sep 14 16:11][MX-SECNDARY: 24 Mar 16 08:49][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-fmvol016] 22 Pratt’s Energy Law Report is published 10 times a year by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Washington, D.C., and at additional mailing ofï¬ces. Copyright 2016 Reed Elsevier Properties SA, used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form—by microï¬lm, xerography, or otherwise—or incorporated into any information retrieval system without the written permission of the copyright owner. For customer support, please contact LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 1275 Broadway, Albany, NY 12204 or e-mail Customer.Support@lexisnexis.com.
Direct any editorial inquires and send any material for publication to Steven A. Meyerowitz, Editor-in-Chief, Meyerowitz Communications Inc., 26910 Grand Central Parkway Suite 18R, Floral Park, New York 11005, smeyerowitz@meyerowitzcommunications.com, 347.235.0882. Material for publication is welcomed—articles, decisions, or other items of interest to lawyers and law ï¬rms, in-house energy counsel, government lawyers, senior business executives, and anyone interested in energy-related environmental preservation, the laws governing cutting-edge alternative energy technologies, and legal developments affecting traditional and new energy providers.
This publication is designed to be accurate and authoritative, but neither the publisher nor the authors are rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services in this publication. If legal or other expert advice is desired, retain the services of an appropriate professional. The articles and columns reflect only the present considerations and views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ï¬rms or organizations with which they are afï¬liated, any of the former or present clients of the authors or their ï¬rms or organizations, or the editors or publisher. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Pratt’s Energy Law Report, LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 121 Chanlon Road, North Building, New Providence, NJ 07974. iv .
0022 Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT U.S. DOE Disclaims Jurisdiction Over Canadian Gas and Authorizes LNG Exports to Non-FTA Nations from Bear Head LNG Project By Tania Perez and Lamiya Rahman* The authors of this article discuss two orders issued to Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Ofï¬ce of Fossil Energy announcing its comprehensive policy for considering applications involving liqueï¬ed natural gas exports from Eastern Canada to global markets. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Ofï¬ce of Fossil Energy (“DOE/FE”) recently issued two orders to Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC (together, “Bear Head LNG”),1 formally announcing DOE’s comprehensive policy for considering applications involving liqueï¬ed natural gas (“LNG”) exports from Eastern Canada to global markets. • In Order 3769 (“In-Transit Order”), DOE/FE determined that it lacks jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (the “NGA”) over Bear Head LNG’s proposed imports of Canadian natural gas travelling by pipeline through the United States on its way back to Canada (i.e., in-transit shipments).2 In this regard, DOE/FE dismissed Bear Head LNG’s application seeking authorization to access Western and Central Canadian natural gas supplies that necessarily must cross the U.S.Canada border (due to transportation pipeline conï¬gurations), en route to the proposed Bear Head LNG project. * Tania Perez is a partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, focusing her practice on the development of U.S.
and international energy infrastructure projects, including LNG regasiï¬cation and liquefaction terminals, and natural gas and oil/liquids storage and pipeline facilities. Lamiya Rahman is an associate at the ï¬rm representing energy and commodity companies, ï¬nancial institutions, and trade associations in a variety of transactional, regulatory, compliance, and litigation matters. The authors may be reached at tania.perez@cwt.com and lamiya.rahman@cwt.com, respectively.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP serves as Bear Head LNG’s U.S. energy regulatory counsel. Special thanks to Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, FaegreBD Consulting and Boundary Stone Partners for their participation in the journey. 1 Bear Head LNG is developing the proposed natural gas liquefaction terminal to be located on the Strait of Canso in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada. 2 Bear Head LNG Corporation & Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, DOE/FE Order No.
3769, FE Docket No. 15-14-NG (Feb. 5, 2016), available at http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ï¬les/ 2016/02/f29/ord3769.pdf. 150 .
0023 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION • In Order 3770 (the “Non-FTA Order”), DOE/FE granted Bear Head LNG long-term, multi-contract authorization under Section 3(a) of the NGA to export U.S. natural gas by pipeline to Canada for subsequent liquefaction and export (i.e., re-export) to nations with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (“FTA”) requiring the national treatment of natural gas (“non-FTA nations”).3 The Bear Head LNG proceedings presented legal issues of ï¬rst impression4 and “an unusual factual circumstance,”5 as DOE/FE stated. Certainly, as discussed below, DOE/FE’s legal determinations in the Bear Head LNG proceedings were signiï¬cant.6 However, the legal signiï¬cance of the Bear Head LNG Orders is dwarfed by the political implications of DOE/FE’s announced policies of (i) adopting a laissez-faire approach to applications for Canadian gas in-transit through the United States, and (ii) giving the green light to natural gas exports of U.S. natural gas to Canada for liquefaction and export to non-FTA nations. THE LEGAL STANDARD: FTA OR NON-FTA Speciï¬cally, DOE/FE was called upon to determine which of the two legal standards found in Section 3 of the NGA (i.e., FTA or non-FTA) properly applied to Bear Head LNG’s applications ï¬led for the purpose of securing gas 3 Bear Head LNG Corporation & Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, DOE/FE Order No.
3770, FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG (Feb. 5, 2016), available at http://www.energy.gov/fe/downloads/ order-3770-bear-head-lng-corporation-and-bear-head-lng-usa-llc.
DOE/FE previously granted Bear Head LNG authorization under Section 3(c) of the NGA to export U.S. natural gas by pipeline to Canada for subsequent liquefaction and export to FTA nations. See Bear Head LNG Corporation & Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC, DOE/FE Order No.
3681, FE Docket No. 15-33-LNG (Jul. 17, 2015) (the “FTA Order”), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/ï¬les/ 2015/07/f24/ord3681.pdf. 4 See Non-FTA Order at 155. DOE/FE stated, “[t]his is among the ï¬rst two proceedings in which DOE/FE has been asked to review an application to export U.S.-sourced natural gas by pipeline to Canada for liquefaction in Canada, for subsequent re-export of that natural gas in the form of LNG to non-FTA countries” (emphasis added).
Concurrent with Bear Head LNG’s Non-FTA and In-Transit Orders, DOE/FE issued an order to Pieridae Energy (USA), Ltd. granting it similar long-term authority for non-FTA exports of U.S. natural gas. See Pieridae Energy (USA) Ltd., DOE/FE Order No.
3768, FE Docket No. 14-179-LNG, available at http://www.energy.gov/fe/downloads/order-3768-pieridae-energy-usa-ltd. 5 Non-FTA Order at 155. See also id.
at 156 (“Most applications to DOE/FE for authority to export natural gas to non-FTA countries involve the ready availability of natural gas through an integrated grid of multiple interstate natural gas pipelines. This Application, by contrast, calls for the transportation of U.S.-sourced natural gas through a single interstate natural gas pipeline.”). 6 As U.S. regulatory counsel to Bear Head LNG, we express no view herein on the merits of DOE/FE’s legal determinations. 151 .
0024 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT supply for the Bear Head LNG project. For diversity of supply, Bear Head LNG sought authorizations for in-transit shipments of Canadian natural gas, as well as pipeline exports of U.S. natural gas to Canada. As described in Bear Head LNG’s applications, LNG produced at the project is intended for export to FTA and non-FTA nations. In addressing this issue, DOE/FE opted to apply the discretionary, non-FTA standard (i.e., the NGA Section 3(a) public interest standard), inasmuch as LNG produced at the Bear Head LNG project is intended for delivery and end-use in non-FTA nations.
In the Non-FTA Order, DOE/FE reiterated the rationale supporting its determination, previously unveiled in the FTA Order. It explained that its decision is rooted in Congressional intent that all exports destined for non-FTA nations be reviewed for their consistency with the U.S. public interest. To do otherwise, DOE/FE reasoned, would permit potential exporters to evade the non-FTA public interest analysis simply by transiting natural gas and LNG through an FTA nation.7 BALANCING NGA MANDATES WITH U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE OBLIGATIONS Undoubtedly, Bear Head LNG’s proceedings presented DOE/FE with the challenge of discharging its statutory mandate under the NGA, without violating U.S.
obligations under NAFTA or aggravating an already strained U.S.-Canada energy relationship suffering from the highly politicized discord over the Keystone XL Pipeline.8 As a starting point, consider that DOE/FE’s decision to exercise its NGA 7 Signiï¬cantly, the transiting concept is not ingrained in NGA jurisprudence, but it does arise in the context of marking rules and country of origin rules under the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), and in U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations, as referenced below. Unlike the U.S.
legal framework, the Canadian National Energy Board Act and its implementing regulations speciï¬cally address gas that is in transit. But even in instances involving National Energy Board (“NEB”) “in transit” orders, the recently issued corresponding DOE/FE orders have been silent on the “in transit” concept. See, e.g., Terasen Gas Inc., Order Authorizing the Exportation of Gas for Subsequent Import, NEB Order GOL-07-2010, File OF-EI-Gas-GOLT101 01 (Jun.
7, 2010) and corresponding Terasen Gas Inc., Order Granting Blanket Authorization to Import and Export Natural Gas from and to Canada, DOE/FE Order 2619, FE Docket No. 09-11-NG (Feb. 19, 2009). 8 See Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., Order Amending Presidential Permit and Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, 128 FERC ¶ 61,070, P10 (Jul.
21, 2009) (stating that approving exports in addition to imports on the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline would “promote national economic policy by reducing barriers to foreign trade and stimulating the flow of goods and services between the United States and Canada, both of which are signatories to the North American Free Trade Agreement, providing for fewer restrictions on natural gas imports and exports.”). 152 . 0025 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION Section 3(a) jurisdiction in effect extends beyond the U.S.-Canada border (where the export of U.S. natural gas by pipeline will occur) and follows the gas into Canada (where the export of LNG by vessel will occur). Accordingly, the Non-FTA Order arguably is an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction by DOE/FE—which is not to say it is impermissible.9 To further complicate matters, prior to DOE/FE’s issuance of the In-Transit Order, there was uncertainty regarding which NGA Section 3 standard DOE/FE would apply to in-transit shipments of Canadian gas; and whether DOE/FE would be legally consistent in exercising its NGA Section 3 jurisdiction when Canadian gas was in question, as opposed to U.S. gas.10 As discussed below, DOE/FE opted to dismiss the in-transit application for lack of jurisdiction under NGA Section 3. Then consider that the NEB has authorized (without restriction) the export of Canadian gas intended for liquefaction and export from U.S.
West Coast projects.11 With the lawsuits stemming from U.S. decision to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline as a backdrop, and a newly elected Canadian government looking for a fresh start with the Obama Administration, particularly in energy and climate change, DOE/FE’s favorable determinations in the Bear Head LNG proceedings mark a positive step in strengthening ties between the two nations. THE NEPA CHALLENGE A secondary, but very signiï¬cant legal issue, arose under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), which requires DOE/FE to consider the environmental impacts of its decisions on applications seeking authorization to 9 While there is an extensive body of domestic and international law instructive on this issue, our discussion herein—like DOE/FE’s analysis in the Non-FTA Order—is controlled by the NGA. 10 See Notice of Application, Bear Head LNG Corporation and Bear Head LNG (USA), LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Import Natural Gas From, for Subsequent Export to, Canada for a 25-year Term, 80 Fed. Reg.
20,484 (Apr. 16, 2015), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/ï¬les/2015/08/f25/published%20FR%20Notice%2015_14_ LNG_0.pdf. In an unprecedented move, DOE/FE requested comments on whether Section 3(c) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C.
§ 717b(c), or Section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(a), provides the appropriate standard for review of Bear Head LNG’s in-transit application. 11 See Jordan Cove LNG L.P., DOE/FE Order No. 3412, FE Docket No.
13-141-NG (Mar. 18, 2014) (granting long-term, multi-contract authorization to import natural gas from Canada); Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., DOE/FE Order No. 3413, FE Docket No. 12-32-LNG (Mar. 24, 2014) (granting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to non-FTA nations); LNG Development Company LLC (d/b/a Oregon LNG), DOE/FE Order No.
3465, FE Docket No 12-77-LNG (Jul. 31, 2014) (granting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to non-FTA nations). 153 . 0026 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT export natural gas. In the past, DOE/FE could meet its NEPA obligations as a cooperating agency in the NEPA review process led by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) for U.S. LNG terminal facilities.12 In the case of the Bear Head LNG project, the environmental and safety review would be conducted by Canadian federal, provincial, and local authorities. At the time Bear Head LNG ï¬led its applications, relevant DOE/FE non-FTA precedent could be summarized in a single bullet:13 • Applications involving the construction of new, or the modiï¬cation of existing, LNG facilities subject to FERC jurisdiction: DOE/FE acts as cooperating agency in the NEPA review process led by FERC. DOE/FE then adopts the NEPA documentation prepared by FERC (be it an environmental assessment (“EA”) or environmental impact statement (“EIS”)), provided DOE/FE has conducted an independent review of such NEPA documentation and determined its comments and suggestions have been satisï¬ed. In those instances that an EA is prepared, DOE/FE issues a ï¬nding of no signiï¬cant impact (“FONSI”).
In other instances that an EIS is prepared, DOE/FE issues a record of decision. Since then, relevant DOE/FE non-FTA precedent has evolved as follows, culminating with the most recent decisions issued on February 5, 2016: • Applications involving existing LNG facilities not subject to FERC jurisdiction: DOE/FE grants categorical exclusion under its regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix B5. • Application involving the construction of new CNG facilities not subject to FERC jurisdiction: DOE conducts NEPA review process and prepares NEPA documentation.14 • Applications involving the construction of new LNG facilities in Canada (i.e., not subject to FERC jurisdiction): DOE/FE grants categorical exclusion in accordance with its regulations at 10 C.F.R. Part 1021, 12 While DOE/FE authorizes the export of LNG pursuant to NGA Section 3, under the same section, FERC exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and construction of LNG terminal facilities (to be located onshore or in state waters).
Under the NGA, FERC also serves as the lead federal agency for conducting NEPA analysis for LNG terminal facilities. 13 In reviewing potential environmental impacts of a proposal to export natural gas, DOE/FE considers both its obligations under NEPA and NGA Section 3(a). 14 To date, DOE (through its National Energy Technology Laboratory) has issued only one EA. The ï¬nal EA, FONSI and order granting export authorization were issued contemporaneously. 154 . 0027 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:37 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION Subpart D, Appendix B5, with authorized export volume in proportion with level of existing U.S. pipeline capacity.15 NEW RULES FOR IN-TRANSIT CANADIAN GAS SHIPMENTS DOE/FE dismissed Bear Head LNG’s in-transit application on the grounds that in-transit shipments returning to the country of origin are not “imports” or “exports” within the meaning of NGA Section 3, such that they fall outside of DOE/FE’s NGA Section 3 jurisdiction. In reaching this conclusion, DOE/FE noted Congress’ likely intention that the terms “import” and “export” apply only to those categories of shipments that, by their nature, could have a material effect on the U.S. public interest.
Shipments of Canadian-sourced natural gas between Canadian points, according to DOE/FE, are “categorically unlikely” to have a material impact on the U.S. public interest and are, therefore, outside of DOE/FE’s NGA Section 3 purview. In further support of its jurisdictional determination, DOE/FE cited a 1977 agreement—the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning Transit Pipelines—which espouses a laissez-faire policy for in-transit shipments of hydrocarbons between the two countries. Deï¬nition of “In-Transit Shipment Returning to the Country of Origin” DOE/FE explained these are shipments of natural gas through the U.S. between points of a single foreign nation that are physical and direct. “Physical” means transportation between two cross-border points, and excludes “exchanges by backhaul, displacement or other virtual shipments.” “Direct” means that the natural gas travels a commercially reasonable path between foreign points consistent with an intention merely to transit through the U.S.
without being diverted for another purpose. Lastly, citing U.S. Customs and Border Protection regulations, DOE/FE noted that the natural gas must enter and exit the U.S.
within a 30-day period to qualify as “in-transit.” Filing and Recordkeeping Requirements Despite dismissing the application and disclaiming Section 3 jurisdiction, DOE/FE drew on its authority under Section 16 of the NGA to direct Bear 15 In denying a motion ï¬led by Pieridae Energy (USA) Ltd., DOE/FE afï¬rmed wellestablished NEPA precedent. DOE/FE stated, “[W]e must deny Pieridae US’s Motion to Lodge because the Goldboro Project, to be located in Nova Scotia, Canada, is outside the scope of our environmental review under NEPA in this proceeding, which necessarily focuses on potential environmental impacts within the United States.” See Pieridae Energy (USA) Ltd., DOE/FE Order No. 3768 at 190. 155 .
0028 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:38 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT Head LNG to ï¬le monthly reports. When in-transit shipments occur, Bear Head LNG is to report: (1) the volumes of natural gas delivered into the U.S.; (2) the entity that has title to the natural gas on ï¬rst entry into the U.S.; (3) the points of entry into the U.S.; (4) the name of the U.S. pipelines used at the points of entry to and exit from the U.S.; (5) the points of exit from the U.S.; (6) the entity that has title to the natural gas at the point of exit from the U.S.; and, (7) the volumes of natural gas delivered to the points of exit. Lastly, in the event of any discrepancy in volumes, Bear Head LNG must show that no deliveries into U.S. commercial markets occurred. The In-Transit Order further directs Bear Head LNG to maintain “records of the pipelines used for each in-transit shipment for a period of one year after completion of each in-transit shipment.” These records are to be provided to DOE/FE upon request. IN CONCLUSION DOE/FE rendered Bear Head LNG’s Non-FTA Order in under 12 months. Certainly, that processing time very likely would have been cut by more than half had DOE/FE applied the FTA standard.
Nonetheless, given the complexity of the legal issues and the political implications affecting the Bear Head LNG proceedings, having the beneï¬t of a thoughtful and deliberate analysis carries many tangible beneï¬ts. As to intangible beneï¬ts, considering that Bear Head LNG was the second applicant raising issues of ï¬rst impression before DOE/FE, its chances of achieving timely resolution were not very high.16 Recognizing this, Bear Head LNG pulled together an experienced team of advisors to forge and implement a permitting strategy to improve its odds.17 In the end, whether by fortune, miracle, or design, Bear Head LNG managed to walk by the awakened snake without getting bitten, and it did so in record time. 16 By way of illustration, consider the two-year gap (minus three days) between the issuance of the ï¬rst Non-FTA LNG export authorization from the Lower-48 and the second one. Applications for the two projects were ï¬led three months and 10 days apart. 17 Bear Head LNG did not suffer the deluge of public comments that most proponents of LNG exports experience. 156 . 0029 [ST: 129] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16_4] Composed: Wed Mar 23 13:32:38 EDT 2016 XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=336pt TD=528pt] VER: [SC_00052-Local:15 Mar 16 17:42][MX-SECNDARY: 17 Mar 16 17:03][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1604] 0 DOE DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION DOE/FE also is to be commended for resolving Bear Head LNG’s applications in a manner that preserves each sovereign’s interests in its natural resources, but also is consistent with international principles of free trade, reciprocity and comity. To the extent the Bear Head LNG Orders may be viewed as bringing North American LNG a step closer to serving global demand, consider the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Accomplishment will prove to be a journey, not a destination.” 157 .
