Overview
Title
Federal Consistency Appeal by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The NOAA needs a little more time, 15 extra days, to decide if a big plan to build a special gas terminal and long pipeline on the Pacific Coast will happen, because a group in Oregon said "no" to it. They want to carefully check everything before saying "yes" or "no."
Summary AI
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a part of the Department of Commerce, announced an extension of 15 days for issuing a decision on an appeal related to a proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal and natural gas pipeline project on the Pacific Coast. This extension is due to the need for additional time to review the record and reach a conclusion regarding the appeal, which challenges an objection made by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The new deadline for the decision is now set for February 9, 2021. Relevant appeal materials are accessible online through the specified NOAA docket site.
Abstract
This announcement provides notice that the deadline for issuing a decision has been extended by 15 days in the administrative appeal filed with the Department of Commerce (Department) by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP (collectively, "Appellants") requesting that the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) override an objection by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to a consistency certification for a proposed project to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas export terminal and a 229-mile natural gas pipeline and compressor station off the Pacific Coast.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document at hand is an official notice from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Department of Commerce. It announces a 15-day extension to the deadline for making a decision on an appeal by Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P., and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP. These companies seek to override an objection from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) concerning their consistency certification. This certification is related to their proposed project involving a liquefied natural gas export terminal and a 229-mile natural gas pipeline along the Pacific Coast. The new deadline for NOAA's decision is now set for February 9, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One concern with the document is the lack of detailed explanation regarding the reasons for the delay in decision-making. Although it states that additional time is required to review the record, it does not provide specific reasons or details about what aspects of the record need such scrutiny. Transparency in this process is essential for maintaining public trust.
Furthermore, the document briefly mentions the decision criteria under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) but does not provide an in-depth explanation. This detail would be especially beneficial for those without a legal background to understand the possible implications on the environment and local communities. Without such elaboration, stakeholders may find it challenging to evaluate potential impacts.
Public Impact
The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for the public. If the objection by the DLCD is overridden, it could pave the way for the proposed project, bringing economic benefits like job creation and energy supply improvements. However, it could also raise environmental concerns, given the scale and nature of the infrastructure involved.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the proponents of the project, Jordan Cove Energy Project and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP, the overriding of the objection would mean progress on a substantial infrastructure project that aligns with their business objectives. On the other hand, environmental groups and local communities may view the potential environmental impacts with concern, emphasizing the need for rigorous environmental assessments and mitigation strategies.
Additionally, the document provides contact information for further inquiries but lacks details on the availability of representatives to address these inquiries. Improved communication channels could enhance stakeholder engagement and public confidence in the decision-making process.
In summary, while the document informs the public of procedural extensions, it raises significant questions about transparency, potential environmental impacts, and the balance between national interests and local concerns. Stakeholders on all sides await NOAA's final decision, which will have lasting consequences on regional economic and environmental landscapes.
Issues
• The document does not specify the reasons for the delay in the decision-making process, only stating that additional time is needed to review the record and reach a decision. More transparency could be beneficial.
• The justification for potentially overriding the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's objection relies on specific criteria in the Coastal Zone Management Act, but these criteria are not explained in detail in terms of their potential implications on the environment or local communities.
• There is a lack of detailed information on how the proposed project aligns with 'national interest' or 'national security' and what specific benefits are anticipated.
• The contact information lists an email and a phone number but does not specify the times at which representatives are available to respond to inquiries.
• There is no discussion of potential environmental impacts or mitigation strategies for the proposed liquefied natural gas export terminal and pipeline project.
• The document references legal citations (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. and 15 CFR part 930) without summarizing or explaining their content, which could make the document less accessible to those unfamiliar with these regulations.
• The notice briefly mentions the appeal as an “energy project” within the meaning of the CZMA regulations but does not provide a comprehensive explanation of what qualifies as an 'energy project' under this act.