Opinion ID: 362301
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Determinations

Text: 90 Midwestern and Michigan Wisconsin claim that if Canadian gas reserves dwindle in the near future, the Canadian NEB may well be reluctant to issue export licenses for both Northwest's proposed contracts and existing contracts that will come up for renewal in the late 1980's. Therefore, they argue, because the FERC's conditional authorization allegedly signals to Canada that the United States favors new imports through prebuilt portions of the ANGTS over existing imports, the NEB probably will grant new import applications and deny renewal of existing ones. 91 This alleged injury falls far short of what is required to overcome the Court's interest in denying consideration until the issues are more sharply defined. First, the potential injury is too speculative to warrant immediate review. 106 The challengers' litany of hardships caused by the conditional authorization is explicitly dependent on hypothetical natural gas shortages in Canada, 107 followed by a hypothetical Canadian decision to reduce gas exports by cutting off supplies to the challengers. We agree that there is some support for these speculations, 108 but there is equally as much support for the hypothesis that prebuilding of the ANGTS will assist Canada to continue exporting gas to the United States by providing it with access to MacKenzie Delta reserves. 109 Moreover, the allegations of the parties do not prove or disprove the proposition that the FERC's decisions are a signal to Canada to favor newer export applications related to the ANGTS over existing export applications. Even assuming that the Commission has intended to signal Canada, it is unlikely that Canada's NEB would follow such a signal. The NEB previously has made clear its intention to preserve the integrity of its own proceedings, and we have every reason to believe that our neighbor will continue to make export decisions based on its own national interest. 110 92 Second, if this alleged inquiry is certain, it is still future injury that may not affect the challengers for several years. They have failed to demonstrate that the effect of the conditional authorization has been felt in a concrete way today. 111 The Commission has denied them no rights, nor has it imposed any obligations on them. 112 Complainant and petitioners are operating under authorized import contracts that have not been revoked or modified in any way, they have not suggested that they wish to purchase imported gas from Northwest and thus cannot assert they have been or will be precluded should they desire to do so, and renewal of their existing contracts will not be necessary for several years. Even the definitive finding that imports from Alberta are generally in the public interest has not denied them any right, because Northwest's actual importation and sale of the gas has not yet been finally approved. On the other hand, the challengers are not covered by the Commission's order at all, so that they need not act in a manner that would cause injury cognizable by this Court. 113 Northwest is the only company which has an obligation at this time it must submit the remaining information required under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, and prepare its application under section 7 of the same Act. For these reasons, we conclude that the Commission's findings have no immediate and practical impact 114 on the challengers and no direct effect on (their) day-to-day business that the Supreme Court found present in Abbott Laboratories. 115 93 Midwestern and Michigan Wisconsin argue somewhat more persuasively that the Commission's present decisions are the first in an unbreakable chain of events that will progress until final authorization. If complainant and petitioners are forced to wait for the Commission's future final authorization before review, they claim that the Canadian government probably will have acted on Pan-Alberta's export application, and a reversal of the Commission's decision at that time allegedly will not affect the Canadian commitment. Thus, judicial review will be meaningless. 94 We agree that the Commission's conditional authorization is an important first step in a chain of events which undoubtedly will, as the FERC hopes, generate the salutary effect of stimulating the expeditious processing of the numerous government authorizations both in this country and in Canada. 116 We disagree, however, with the claim that the chain of events is unbreakable. First, it is pure speculation to claim that once Canada approves Pan-Alberta's export application, it will not reverse its decision if the FERC fails to grant final authorization to Northwest's import application, or if its final authorization is reversed by this Court or the Supreme Court. The Canadian government is just as likely to reconsider or vacate its prior approval, if to do so is in its national interest. Second, the present relationship of the parties is likely to change in the next few years, and the Commission may interrupt the chain of events by modifying or reversing aspects of its present decision. Canadian policy regarding natural gas exports may also change, prompting reevaluation of energy policy in this country. 95 Even if we assume that the weight of each agency approval makes reconsideration or reversal of prior approvals less likely, this assumption does not mean that the challengers can no longer participate in the administrative proceedings. They will certainly be able to participate in the FERC's proceeding on certification under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 117 which proceeding treats many of the same types of issues raised today. 118 They also will be able to participate in the Canadian government's consideration of the Northwest-Pan-Alberta export application. 119 96 In sum, there is very little, if any, hardship to the challengers by denying immediate review of their substantive challenges to the FERC's orders. The orders have no direct impact on the day-to-day business of the challengers, the future harmful impact of the orders is speculative at best, the Commission may reconsider several of its present findings, and the challengers will have opportunities to participate in hearings in this country and in Canada prior to final authorization of the import application.