Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01100/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BP Energy Company
Intervenor for Respondent
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC
Intervenor for Respondent
Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP
Intervenor for Respondent
Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Intervenor for Respondent
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Respondent
Shell NA LNG LLC
Intervenor for Respondent
Statoil Natural Gas, LLC
Intervenor for Respondent
Washington Gas Light Company
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 11, 2010 Decided April 27, 2010 

No. 09-1100 

WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY, 

PETITIONER

v. 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, 

RESPONDENT

DOMINION TRANSMISSION, INC., DOMINION COVE POINT LNG,

LP, STATOIL NATURAL GAS, LLC, SHELL NA LNG LLC, BP

ENERGY COMPANY, AND COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION,

LLC, 

INTERVENORS

On Petition for Review of Orders 

of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Adam S. Caldwell argued the cause for petitioner. With 

him on the briefs were Barbara S. Jost, Lisa B. Zycherman, 

Beverly J. Burke, Bernice K. McIntyre, and Rose T. Lennon. 

Judith A. Albert argued the cause for respondent. With 

her on the brief were Thomas R. Sheets, General Counsel, and 

Robert H. Solomon, Solicitor. 

USCA Case #09-1100 Document #1241805 Filed: 04/27/2010 Page 1 of 4
2 

Christopher T. Handman argued the cause for intervenors 

Dominion Transmission, Inc., et al. With him on the brief 

were J. Patrick Nevins, Georgia B. Carter, Janna R. Chesno, 

Charles H. Shoneman, Kirstin E. Gibbs, David L. Wochner, 

William A. Williams, and Frederic J. George. 

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GARLAND and 

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge

KAVANAUGH. 

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Dominion Cove Point 

operates a large facility adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay in 

Maryland, where it receives imported liquefied natural gas by 

ship from foreign countries. Dominion Transmission is an 

interstate gas transmission and storage company that transmits 

natural gas from facilities such as Dominion Cove Point to 

local distributors. Washington Gas Light Company is a local 

natural gas distributor that provides service to residential and 

commercial customers in and around Washington, D.C. 

In 2005, Dominion Cove Point and Dominion 

Transmission sought to launch a construction project (known 

as “the Expansion”) that would allow them to import greater 

quantities of liquefied natural gas and distribute it in gaseous 

form. Under § 3 and § 7 of the Natural Gas Act, the proposed 

Expansion required approval from the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 717b(a), 

717f(c)(1)(A). Section 3 provides that FERC “shall” approve 

an application to import natural gas “unless, after opportunity 

for hearing, it finds that the proposed . . . importation will not 

be consistent with the public interest.” Id. § 717b(a). Section 

7 states that FERC “shall” approve a natural gas construction 

USCA Case #09-1100 Document #1241805 Filed: 04/27/2010 Page 2 of 4
3 

project like the Expansion so long as it “is or will be required 

by the present or future public convenience and necessity.” 

Id. § 717f(e). 

In 2006, FERC approved the proposed project. 

Washington Gas then sued in this Court, arguing that FERC’s 

approval was not in the public interest and thus unlawful. 

Washington Gas claimed that higher volumes of regasified 

liquefied natural gas would pass through its piping system as 

a result of the Expansion, which in turn would pose an 

increased risk of unsafe natural gas leakage. (Regasified 

liquefied natural gas is natural gas that is liquefied to facilitate 

transportation and storage and then returned to gaseous form 

for distribution.) 

This Court concluded that FERC had not adequately 

explained its analysis of the safety concerns associated with 

the Expansion. See Washington Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 532 

F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2008). After reviewing FERC’s approval 

of the Expansion under the § 3 and § 7 criteria, we stated that 

“FERC failed to carry out its obligation of ensuring the 

Expansion can go forward consistent with the public interest.” 

Id. at 933. In reaching that conclusion, we recognized that 

allowing more regasified liquefied natural gas to flow through 

Washington Gas’s piping system could result in an increased 

risk of unsafe natural gas leakage. Id. at 931. Our remand 

order left FERC with a narrow task: to “more fully address 

whether the Expansion can go forward without causing unsafe 

leakage.” Id. at 933. 

On remand, FERC explained that the Expansion could 

not be said to cause any unsafe leakage if the amount of 

regasified liquefied natural gas that could be delivered postExpansion was identical to the amount that could be delivered 

USCA Case #09-1100 Document #1241805 Filed: 04/27/2010 Page 3 of 4
4 

pre-Expansion. FERC found that the relevant pre-Expansion 

contracts authorized the delivery of 530,000 Dekatherms per 

day of regasified liquefied natural gas. And FERC then 

limited the relevant post-Expansion regasified liquefied 

natural gas delivery levels to that same amount of 530,000 

Dekatherms per day. By doing so, FERC ensured that the 

Expansion could not be said to increase the risk of unsafe 

natural gas leakage; after all, the same amount of regasified 

liquefied natural gas could have been delivered even if the 

Expansion had never occurred. 

By imposing a post-Expansion limit that matches the preExpansion limit, FERC has satisfactorily ensured that the 

Expansion will not result in an increased risk of unsafe natural 

gas leakage. We have considered Washington Gas’s other 

arguments and find them without merit. FERC has satisfied 

our remand order, and we deny Washington Gas Light 

Company’s petition for review. 

So ordered. 

USCA Case #09-1100 Document #1241805 Filed: 04/27/2010 Page 4 of 4