Save Passamaquoddy Bay
Alliance to Protect the Quoddy Region
US
Canada
Passamaquoddy
|
Loading
|
"For much of the state of Maine, the environment is the economy" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FERC eLibrary
Downeast LNG Export Proposal
Pre-filing Comments List
2015 March
Docket Number PF14-19
| 2016 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2015 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2014 | | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
Listed here in Ascending Date Order by Date Posted to FERC eLibrary.
NOTE: The Docket List on the FERC website is in Date Order by Date Filed, rather than by Date Posted.
| Color Key: | Project Developer, Contractors & Supporters Project Opponents Project Neutral Unknown, non-public comments |
Pre-filing
2015 March
Listed here in Ascending Date Order by Posted Date, rather than by Filed Date to FERC eLibrary.
NOTE: The Docket List on the FERC website is in Date Order by Date Filed, rather than by Date Posted.
| Mar 2 | Filed By: Save Passamaquoddy Bay Summary: SPB points out that Downeast LNG's attorney Matthew Manahan of Pierce Atwood LLP has filed a self-contradicting comment. Downeast LNG argues that the Passamaquoddy Tribe has no fishing rights in the marine waterway proposed for use by Downeast LNG, and so the Tribe has no authority to deny LNG ship transits to and from the proposed terminal; however, in the same paragraph, Downeast LNG admits that the Passamaquoddy Tribe does have fishing rights in the same waterway proposed for use by Downeast LNG. Additionally, the Passamaquoddy Tribe has clamming rights in the Mill Cove intertidal zone that would be affected by the proposed terminal, potentially restricting or eliminating clamming there. Downeast LNG's attorney has patently contradicted himself, and has actually demonstrated that the Passamaquoddy Tribe actually does have rights in the marine waterway. The US Coast Guard, not the Tribe, is denying LNG transits. The Coast Guard requires Downeast LNG to obtain consent from the Passamaquoddy Tribe for shared use of the waterway. Downeast LNG has continued for six (6) years to defy the Coast Guard requirement; thus, has no right for LNG ships to transit to and from the terminal. This is in addition to Government of Canada prohibition of LNG transits in the waterway. |
| Mar 3 | Issued By: OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL [FERC] Summary: FERC General Counsel claims that Save Passamaquoddy Bay's courtesy copy of our March 2 docket comment to him was a prohibited ex parte communication. Nonsense! We have confirmed with FERC that pre-filing communications, as with Downeast LNG's export proposal (Docket PF14-19) — and a communication about a suspended docket, as is the case with Downeast LNG's import proposal (Dockets CP07-52, et al.) — have no ex parte prohibitions. Filed By: Save Passamaquoddy Bay Summary: SPB informs FERC General Counsel that our email to him containing comments about our previous docket filing (to both the Pre-Filing and Formal Filing dockets) cannot be considered ex parte, since ex parte rules do not apply to Pre-Filing dockets. Communications that are clearly not ex parte on one docket cannot simultaneously be ex parte on another docket, especially when Formal Filing has been suspended. |
| Mar 4 | Issued By: ENERGY PROJECTS, OFFICE OF [FERC] Summary: Downeast LNG indicates it had filed a response to Passamaquoddy Pleasant Point Chief Fred Moore's docket filing objecting to the project. Also, FERC indicates that a project update will be issued "in the near future." (FERC had previously indicated that the update would be issued by the end of February.) |
| Mar 11 | Issued By: ENERGY PROJECTS, OFFICE OF [FERC] Issued By: GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF [FERC] Summary: FERC General Counsel David Morenoff claims that communications regarding Downeast LNG's Pre-Filing, for which ex parte prohibitions do not apply (thus anyone can communicate anything with FERC staff; it is guaranteed free speech) are prohibited when that same communication refers to anything that is on both the Pre-Filing and Formal Filing dockets. General Counsel's interpretation would thus mean that, due to Downeast LNG's poor business decisionmaking in the FERC process (modifying the project at the last minute), even mentioning the proposed terminal would be prohibited since the terminal is included on both dockets. Such a prohibition essentially prohibits any off-docket Pre-Filing communications in contradiction to the principle of free speech and to FERC Pre-Filing rules. Save Passamaquoddy Bay will be challenging General Counsel's flawed, prejudicial logic. |
| Mar 12 | Filed By: Downeast Liquefaction, LLC Downeast LNG, Inc. Downeast Pipeline, LLC Summary: Pre-Filing Montly Status Report #7. Preliminary site layout has been finalized. Filed By: Save Passamaquoddy Bay Summary: Save Passamaquoddy Bay challenges FERC General Counsel's opinion that off-the-record Pre-Filing communications with FERC staff violate ex parte rules when the exact same issues exist on a current Formal Filing docket. SPB contends that since off-the-record Pre-Filing communications with FERC staff are allowed, then such communications are Constitutionally guaranteed free speech, and cannot be abridged simply because the exact same issues apply to an existing Formal Filing docket. FERC cannot abridge Constitutionally guaranteed free speech. |
| Mar 16 | Issued By: ENERGY PROJECTS, OFFICE OF [FERC] Summary: The 13 Draft Resource Reports are expected to be filed in late March. Once they are completed, Downeast LNG will file its formal application to export. Issued By: ENERGY PROJECTS, OFFICE OF [FERC] Summary:
|
