Order granting authorizations (3.19.21)

Numerous individuals and entities filed protests and adverse comments concerning the following issues: (1) the need for the projects; (2) the use of eminent domain for the Pacific Connector Pipeline; (3) the public benefits derived from the projects; and (4) the potential impact of the projects on domestic natural gas prices. [...] Because the proposed LNG terminal facilities will be used to export natural gas to foreign countries, the siting, construction, and operation of the facilities require Commission approval under section 3 of the NGA.38 Section 3 provides that an application for the exportation or importation of natural gas shall be approved unless the proposal “will not be consistent with the public interest,” and. [...] The Secretary of Energy subsequently delegated to the Commission the authority to approve or disapprove the construction and operation of natural gas import and export facilities and the site at which such facilities shall be located. [...] However, the Secretary has not delegated to the Commission any authority to approve or disapprove the import or export of the commodity itself.50 Nor is there any indication that the Secretary’s delegation authorized the Commission to consider the types of economic issues raised in these proceedings as part of the Commission’s public interest determination, thus duplicating and possibly contradict. [...] Several commenters contend that the Pacific Connector Pipeline cannot be authorized under section 7 of the NGA; these commenters assert that the pipeline may only be authorized under section 3 of the NGA.79 The commenters state that, because the pipeline will serve only the export terminal and because the pipeline is located wholly within the state of Oregon, the facilities will not be used to tra.