UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC
`Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC
`Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P.
`
` )
` )
` )
` )
` )
`
`
`
`Docket Nos. CP18-512-000
` CP18-513-000
`
`ANSWER IN OPPOSITION
`TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST
`OF PUBLIC CITIZEN AND SIERRA CLUB
`
`Pursuant to Rules 212 and 213 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”
`
`or “Commission”) Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC
`
`(“CCL Stage III”), Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC (“CCL”) and Cheniere Corpus Christi
`
`Pipeline, L.P. (“CCPL” and together with CCL Stage III and CCL, “Corpus Christi”) hereby
`
`request leave to answer the protest contained in the Motion to Intervene and Protest of Public
`
`Citizen and Sierra Club (together, “Protesters”) submitted on December 29, 2021 in the above-
`
`captioned dockets (“December 29 Filing”).2 In addition, Corpus Christi submits this answer in
`
`opposition to both the Motion to Intervene3 and Motion to Intervene Out-of-Time4 made by Sierra
`
`Club in the December 29 Filing.
`
`As discussed below, Sierra Club’s motion to intervene should be denied as it is not a party
`
`to the instant proceeding and thus is not eligible to intervene in the extension proceeding. Its
`
`alternative motion to intervene out-of-time should be denied as Sierra Club has slept on its rights
`
`1 18 C.F.R. § 385.212 and § 385.213 (2021).
`Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC et al., Motion to Intervene and Protest of Public Citizen and Sierra
`2
`Club (December 29, 2021) (“December 29 Filing”).
`Id. at 4 (moving to intervene in the extension proceeding despite being ineligible, due to lack of party status in
`the underlying proceeding).
`Id. at 6 (moving, in the alternative, to intervene out of time in the underlying proceeding should the motion to
`intervene in the extension proceeding be denied).
`
`3
`
`4
`
`

`

`– failing to timely participate in this proceeding – and has not demonstrated good cause for such
`
`delay. Furthermore, the only issue in this proceeding is timing for construction. In this regard,
`
`the comments raised in the December 29 Filing should be disregarded as both (1) an impermissible
`
`collateral attack on the November 2019 Order, as defined below,5 and (2) invalid because (a) there
`
`is ample good cause for the Commission to grant an extension, (b) there are no significant changed
`
`circumstances which call into question the Commission’s prior findings, and (c) the Commission
`
`has determined that it will not consider arguments that re-litigate the issuance of the underlying
`
`order.6
`
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`
`On November 22, 2019, the Commission issued an Order Granting Authorizations Under
`
`Sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) for the construction and operation of an
`
`expansion of the Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project (the “Stage 3 Project” or “Project”).7
`
`Specifically, the November 2019 Order authorized (1) CCL Stage III and CCL to site, construct
`
`and operate seven midscale liquefaction trains with a maximum total production capacity of 11.45
`
`million metric tons per annum (“MTPA”) and one full containment liquefied natural gas (“LNG”)
`
`storage tank (collectively, the “Stage 3 LNG Facilities”); and (2) CCPL to construct and operate
`
`an associated 21-mile-long 42-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenant facilities (the “Stage 3
`
`Pipeline”). The November 2019 Order contemplated that all facilities would be constructed and
`
`made available for service within five years of the date of the order (November 22, 2024).8
`
`5
`
`Infra, note 7.
`6 86 Fed. Reg. 72,230 (December 21, 2021) [hereinafter Notice].
`Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, et al., 169 FERC¶ 61,135 (2019) [hereinafter November 2019 Order].
`7
`Id. at Ordering Paragraphs (B) and (D)(1).
`
`8
`
`2
`
`

`

`On January 10, 2020, CCL Stage III received FERC approval to proceed with early works
`
`within the Stage 3 Project site, which included: pile testing activities, soil stabilization tests, and
`
`testing of dewatering techniques.9 Subsequently, on February 14, 2020, CCL Stage III received
`
`FERC approval to proceed with improvements to the existing interior roads within the authorized
`
`Stage 3 Project site.10 These early works commenced shortly after the approvals were granted by
`
`FERC and then were abruptly suspended in March 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic hit the U.S.,
`
`causing significant disruption across the world.
`
`Additionally, on January 17, 2020, FERC granted CCPL’s request to proceed with
`
`construction of Unit No. 1 at the Sinton Compression Station, which CCPL proposed to construct
`
`and operate independently from, and in advance of, construction of the remaining Stage 3 Project
`
`facilities.11 In that regard, on December 18, 2020, the Commission authorized CCPL to place Unit
`
`1 in service.12
`
`On December 7, 2021, CCL Stage III, CCL, and CCPL filed a request with the Commission
`
`for an extension of time until June 30, 2027, to complete the Stage 3 Project.13 CCL Stage III,
`
`CCL, and CCPL noted therein that the onset and duration of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in
`
`adverse economic, as well as logistical conditions, which not only negatively impacted initial
`
`9
`
`Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, Letter Order Granting Authorization to Proceed with Early Works,
`Docket No. CP18-512-000 (January 10, 2020).
`10 Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, Letter Order Granting Authorization to Proceed with Road
`Improvements for Early Works, Docket No. CP18-512-000 (February 14, 2020).
`11 Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P., Letter Order Granting Authorization to Proceed with Construction of
`Sinton Compression Unit No. 1, Docket No. CP18-513-000 (January 17, 2020).
`12 Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline, L.P., Letter Order Granting Authorization to Commence Service, Docket No.
`CP18-513-000 (December 18, 2020).
`13 Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC & Cheniere Corpus Christi
`Pipeline, L.P., Request for Extension of Time, Docket Nos. CP18-512-000 and CP18-513-000 (December 7,
`2021).
`
`3
`
`

`

`construction progress on the Stage 3 Project,14 but also slowed commercial progress and precluded
`
`making a timely Final Investment Decision (“FID”) as necessary to meet the current permitted
`
`construction timeline. This delay has resulted in the need for additional time to construct and place
`
`the Stage 3 Project in service.
`
`As Corpus Christi noted in its request, while the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant
`
`impact to global markets, global LNG demand and long-term contracting activity experienced
`
`significant growth in 2021. Based on the cumulative LNG capacity covered under long-term
`
`contracts signed by Cheniere and its affiliates, commercialization of the Stage 3 Project is now
`
`substantially complete. Now that this important milestone has been reached, discussions with
`
`global banking institutions are underway in earnest with a target of achieving financial close and
`
`taking a positive FID in 2022.
`
`On December 14, 2021, the Commission issued a Notice of Request for Extension of Time
`
`which set a deadline of December 29, 2021 for interventions and comments.15 Thereafter,
`
`Protesters submitted the December 29 Filing.
`
`II.
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER
`
`While the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure do not permit answers to protests,
`
`the Commission historically has allowed the submission of answers in certain instances for good
`
`cause, where the answer provides FERC with a more complete and accurate record upon which to
`
`base a decision.16 Corpus Christi hereby submits that its answer to the December 29 Filing should
`
`be permitted because it will ensure a more complete and accurate record and will help the
`
`14 The pandemic severely limited, among other things, accessibility to the Stage 3 Project site, the ability to travel
`both domestically and internationally, and caused turmoil in the global financial markets.
`15 Notice.
`See, e.g., Paiute Pipeline Company, 151 FERC ¶ 61,132 (2015).
`16
`
`4
`
`

`

`Commission in reaching its decision with regard to the extension request. In this regard, Corpus
`
`Christi respectfully requests that the Commission accept the answer provided herein, for good
`
`cause shown.
`
`III.
`BOTH SIERRA CLUB’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
`MOTION TO INTERVENE OUT-OF-TIME SHOULD BE DENIED
`
`The Commission expressly stated in the Notice that “[o]nly motions to intervene from
`
`entities that were party to the underlying proceeding will be accepted.”17 In this regard, Sierra
`
`Club’s Motion to Intervene should be denied because Sierra Club is not a party to the underlying
`
`proceeding.
`
`Furthermore, Protesters’ assertion that the Commission should abandon the precedent set
`
`in the Algonquin proceeding is without support. Sierra Club merely states “FERC has offered no
`
`justification for a policy of excluding parties that did not previously intervene,” but offers no
`
`rationale to the contrary.18 FERC’s practice is eminently logical, as only parties who were
`
`concerned with the underlying proceeding would have reason to be concerned with an extension
`
`of time. Sierra Club’s own arguments for intervention (to the extent not generalized and applicable
`
`to any Commission proceeding and having no relation to Corpus Christi’s request) bear this out,
`
`as they primarily turn on whether the underlying project should be constructed at all, rather than
`
`the timing of construction, which is the only issue in the instant proceeding.
`
`Furthermore, as noted in Algonquin, the “Commission is not required to solicit public input
`
`before acting upon a certificate-holder’s request for an extension of time, and nothing in the
`
`17 Notice at fn. 2 (citing Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ¶ 61,144, at P 39 (2020) [hereinafter
`Algonquin]).
`18 December 29 Filing at 3.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Commission’s regulations suggests that an opportunity for notice and comment is required.”19 The
`
`Commission in Algonquin changed its prior practice of not soliciting input on extension requests
`
`and announced a new policy which directed FERC staff to notice extensions of time for NGA
`
`facilities for comment and intervention, but limited this new right to intervene to entities that were
`
`party to the underlying proceeding.20
`
`Sierra Club’s motion in the alternative to intervene out-of-time should also be denied
`
`because Sierra Club has failed to show good cause for the Commission to waive the established
`
`deadline for intervention, and because its participation will unduly delay and disrupt the
`
`proceeding and prejudice Corpus Christi. The Commission requires that parties attempting to
`
`intervene out of time “must . . . show good cause why the time limitation should be waived.”21
`
`Furthermore, the Commission has noted that “[w]hen intervention is sought after the issuance of a
`
`dispositive order, as is the case here, the movant bears a higher burden to show good cause because
`
`the prejudice to other parties and the burden on the Commission of granting late intervention are
`
`substantial…”22
`
`Despite the false assertion that “the arguments Sierra Club seeks to make in this proceeding
`
`specifically concern the request for an extension, and thus could not have been raised until that
`
`19 Algonquin at P 38 (citing Constitution Pipeline Co., LLC, 165 FERC ¶ 61,081, P 23; Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co., 87
`FERC ¶ 61,035 (1999) (grant of extension of time is an administrative matter between Commission and licensee;
`intervention denied and request for rehearing rejected); Wis. Valley Improvement Co., 88 FERC ¶ 61,054 (1999)
`(motion to intervene and request for rehearing in proceeding granting extension of time for post-license
`compliance dismissed; proceeding not type in which intervention and rehearing lie); Felts Mills Energy Partners,
`L.P., 86 FERC ¶ 61,120, reh’g denied, 87 FERC ¶ 61,094 (1999) (motions to intervene and requests for rehearing
`regarding extensions of time generally are not entertained)).
`Id. at 39.
`21 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(b)(3).
`Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC ¶ 61,013, P10 (2018); see also Mountain Valley Pipeline,
`22
`LLC & Equitrans, L.P., 173 FERC ¶ 61,026, P 7 (2020).
`
`20
`
`6
`
`

`

`request was made,” 23 Sierra Club’s rationale as to why it should be granted intervention turn on
`
`(1) generalized interest in any FERC natural gas proceeding and (2) impacts from the Stage 3
`
`Project being built at all, and have no relation to the Stage 3 Project being completed slightly later
`
`in time. Any objections the Sierra Club might have with regard to “expos[ing] Sierra Club
`
`members to air pollution, visual and noise impacts, vessel traffic that interferes with Sierra Club
`
`members’ marine recreation, and other impacts”24 are concerns that were not raised in the
`
`underlying proceeding and are not particularized to the extension request. There are no changes
`
`to the Project specifications, emissions sources, visual, noise or vessel data associated with the
`
`extension request, and accordingly, the impacts of the Stage 3 Project have not changed since it
`
`was approved and are not the subject of the instant proceeding.
`
`Sierra Club should not get another bite at the apple, years late, when it already had multiple
`
`opportunities to intervene in the Stage 3 Project proceeding.25 Sierra Club is a sophisticated party,
`
`with extensive Commission experience regarding LNG and natural gas pipeline facilities, that is
`
`well aware of the FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure—especially with regard to
`
`intervention—and is by its own admission, well aware of the Corpus Christi Liquefaction Project
`
`and related proceedings.26
`
`23 December 29 Filing at 6.
`24 December 29 Filing at 5.
`25 Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC et al., Notice of Application, Docket Nos. CP18-512-000 & CP18-
`513-000 (July 12, 2018); Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC et al., Notice of Availability of the
`Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Stage 3 Project, Docket Nos. CP18-512-000 & CP18-513-000
`(March 29, 2019).
`26 December 29 Filing. Additionally, Sierra Club was even an intervenor in the proceeding for the associated Corpus
`Christi Liquefaction Project (FERC Docket Nos. CP12-507-000 and CP12-508-000), and thus has absolutely no
`grounds to state it was unaware of a potential interest in the Stage 3 Project (CP18-512-000 and CP18-513-000)
`at the time interventions were solicited by the Commission.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Sierra Club was fully capable of intervening during the underlying proceeding if it truly
`
`had concerns regarding “expos[ing] Sierra Club members to air pollution, visual and noise impacts,
`
`vessel traffic that interferes with Sierra Club members’ marine recreation, and other impacts,” as
`
`those issues were ripe for review at that time –which is not the case now. The Commission has
`
`clearly held that “[e]ntities interested in becoming a party in Commission proceedings may not
`
`“sleep on their rights” and wait to see how issues might evolve before deciding whether to
`
`intervene to protect their interests.”27 Sierra Club has slept on its rights and should not be permitted
`
`to benefit from doing so and disrupt the instant proceeding.
`
`Since the Stage 3 Project was first proposed to the Commission in 2018, Sierra Club
`
`(including its local chapters and members) has intervened or filed protests and/or comments
`
`hundreds of times in FERC-regulated pipeline project dockets and LNG project dockets as
`
`indicated in FERC’s e-library database.28 Sierra Club staff make regular postings in opposition to
`
`other LNG projects in Texas,29 and along the Gulf Coast. Notably, unlike the Stage 3 Project,
`
`many of these projects are largely in a pre-operation development stage, with little to no
`
`28
`
`27 Double E Pipeline, LLC, 173 FERC ¶ 61,074, P20 (2020) (citing Bradwood Landing, LLC, 126 FERC ¶ 61,035,
`at PP 11, 16 (2009) (denying late intervention to movant who claimed that scientific studies made it more aware
`of its interests in the proceeding); Cent. Neb. Pub. Power & Irrigation Dist., 125 FERC ¶ 61,192, at P 12 (2008)
`(“The Commission expects parties to intervene in a timely manner based on the reasonably foreseeable issues
`arising from the applicant's filings and the Commission's notice of proceedings.” (emphasis added)); Broadwater
`Energy, LLC, 124 FERC ¶ 61,225, at P 13 (2008) (“Those entities with interests they intend to protect are not
`entitled to wait until the outcome of a proceeding and then file a motion to intervene once they discover the
`outcome conflicts with their interests.”)). See also, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC ¶ 61,013
`(2018).
`See, e.g., Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC, Motion to Intervene of Sierra Club et al Docket Nos. CP22-21-000 &
`CP22-22-000 (Jan. 6, 2022); Rio Grande LNG, LLC, Motion to Intervene of Sierra Club; Docket No. CP22-17-
`000 (December 20, 2021); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC & Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC,
`Motion to Intervene of Healthy Gulf and Sierra Club Docket Nos. CP20-50-000 & CP20-51-000 (September 9,
`2021); Commonwealth LNG LLC, Motion to Intervene of Sierra Club et al., Docket No. CP19-502-001 (Aug. 3,
`2021).
`See, e.g., Sierra Club, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), available at: https://www.sierraclub.org/texas/lower-rio-
`grande-valley/liquefied-natural-gas-lng (“Three Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export terminals are proposed at
`the Port of Brownsville. Opposition to the proposals continue to grow…The efforts has led to project design
`changes, hundreds of FERC interventions, preventing tax abatements, and stopping financing from
`international banks.”) (emphasis added).
`
`29
`
`8
`
`

`

`commercial progress. It is clear that Sierra Club decided, with full knowledge of Corpus Christi’s
`
`activities, to focus its resources on opposing other projects, and not to oppose the Stage 3 Project
`
`when the Stage 3 application was filed with the Commission and undergoing review. The Sierra
`
`Club cannot credibly claim that it was either unaware of or did not know the importance of timely
`
`intervention in the Stage 3 Project initial proceeding.
`
`In addition to failing to show good cause – which standing alone is a fatal flaw that is
`
`sufficient grounds for denying intervention – Sierra Club also runs afoul of the other factors that
`
`the Commission may consider under Rule 214(d) in deciding whether to grant untimely
`
`intervention. Among those factors are: “[a]ny disruption of the proceeding [that] might result
`
`from permitting intervention,” and “[a]ny prejudice to, or additional burdens upon, the existing
`
`parties [that] might result from permitting the intervention.”30 Granting Sierra Club party status
`
`at this late stage in the proceeding, for the purpose of re-visiting issues that the Commission already
`
`has resolved, would be extremely disruptive, especially given its litigious nature and active anti-
`
`LNG campaign, as well as prejudicial and overly burdensome to those who are rightfully parties
`
`to the proceeding.
`
`It is also contrary to well-established Commission precedent. The Commission has not
`
`only articulated its policy of denying new intervenors in extension proceedings, but has also
`
`tightened its policy on late intervention in underlying dockets as well.31 Granting late intervention
`
`on the thin, post-hoc rationale manufactured by Sierra Club here, where the underlying proceeding
`
`and order is final and the statutory deadline for requesting rehearing on those original findings has
`
`30 18 C.F.R. § 385.214(d)(1).
`Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,167, at PP 50-51 (2018) (“going forward we will be less lenient
`31
`in the grant of late interventions. Persons desiring to become a party to a certificate proceeding are to intervene
`in a timely manner.”); Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,281, P6 (2020); DTE
`Midstream Appalachia, LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,238, at P11 (2018).
`
`9
`
`

`

`passed, would result in significant prejudice not only to Corpus Christi but also the numerous
`
`stakeholders who benefit from the Project. As noted in the original Stage 3 Project application,
`
`local and regional economies will benefit from the Stage 3 Project through job creation and
`
`increased economic activity and tax revenues, as well as the direct creation of up to approximately
`
`1,200 jobs during peak construction and 246 permanent jobs during its operation.32
`
`Finally, as Sierra Club notes, it is not making any argument that is not made by Public
`
`Citizen, so all of Sierra Club’s concerns are being raised by an entity that is properly a party to the
`
`proceeding,33 and thus Sierra Club advances no basis for having independent party status.
`
`Consequently, late intervention is not warranted under Rule 214(d), and should be denied.
`
`IV.
`ANSWER TO PROTEST
`
`A. CORPUS CHRISTI HAS DEMONSTRATED GOOD CAUSE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`Contrary to Protesters’ assertions, there is ample good cause for the Commission to grant
`
`an extension of time. The Commission has held that, “‛good cause’ can be shown by a project
`
`sponsor demonstrating that it made good faith efforts to meet its deadline but encountered
`
`unforeseeable circumstances.”34 As discussed above, Corpus Christi began early works for the
`
`Stage 3 Project in early 2020, and then paused construction activities in March of 2020 just after
`
`the COVID-19 pandemic began to significantly impact families and businesses throughout the
`
`United States.
`
`In this regard, Corpus Christi made a clear good faith effort to meet its deadline, timely
`
`commencing construction activities in early 2020, after receiving Commission authorization at the
`
`32 Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC et al., Application for Authorization Under the Natural Gas Act, pg.
`19, Docket Nos. CP18-512-000 & CP18-513-000 (June 28, 2018).
`33 December 29 Filing at 7.
`34 Const. Pipeline Co., LLC & Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., L.P., 165 FERC ¶ 61,081, P9 (2018).
`
`10
`
`

`

`end of 2019, and actively seeking to make a timely FID for the Stage 3 Project. However, no
`
`circumstances could possibly be more unforeseeable than a worldwide pandemic that has claimed
`
`the lives of nearly 5.5 million people, caused lengthy quarantines and shutdowns, closed hundreds
`
`of thousands of businesses and devastated global markets. Even the Protesters admit, the pandemic
`
`“made it difficult for [-] projects to proceed with construction, at least for some period of time, due
`
`to worker safety, supply chain, and other practical issues.”35 Furthermore, the Commission is well
`
`aware of the impact the pandemic had on natural gas project development and this year granted a
`
`two-year extension of time in a proceeding where the pipeline cited “market disruptions caused by
`
`the COVID-19 pandemic” as part of the justification for delay.36
`
`It is also not the case that CCL Stage III, CCL and CCPL “have not even decided whether
`
`they actually want to proceed with the Stage 3 Project” and it is certainly not the case that forward
`
`motion with respect to the project ceased during the last two years.37 Corpus Christi continued to
`
`commercialize the Project and to progress engineering, design and other work necessary for the
`
`sanctioning of the Project. The Protesters conflate the fact that Corpus Christi has not yet reached
`
`FID, with an indication of hesitancy on the part of the applicants. Corpus Christi fully intends to
`
`continue moving forward with the Stage 3 Project, and has been actively seeking to reach FID,
`
`which was substantively delayed by factors stemming from the pandemic and related impacts to
`
`the global market as a whole – not other factors relating to alleged indecision. Furthermore, the
`
`global pandemic introduced practical considerations that introduced delays and have required
`
`careful navigation, including the ability to engage in both domestic and international travel and
`
`protection of safe and healthy working conditions for employees and contractors.
`
`35 December 29 Filing at 9.
`Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,148, P3 (2021).
`36
`37 December 29 Filing at 1.
`
`11
`
`

`

`The Commission has previously stated that it considers “requests for extensions of time to
`
`complete construction on a case-by-case basis, assessing whether the total period of time
`
`ultimately allowed for constructing and placing a project into service is a reasonable one, within
`
`which the findings supporting [FERC’s original certificate authorization] can be expected to
`
`remain valid.”38 The Commission originally granted a construction window through November
`
`2024. The pending request reflects the duration of the pandemic and the length of extension is
`
`similar to other extensions of time that have been granted.39 The “Commission regulations do not
`
`establish a particular time period to complete construction of an authorized natural gas facility”40
`
`and this proceeding is not markedly different from other cases where the Commission has found
`
`good cause to extend a project sponsor’s deadline to construct its project. Extensions of time have
`
`been granted to provide project sponsors more time to navigate market conditions affecting the
`
`commercialization of a project.41 Additionally, the Commission has frequently authorized LNG
`
`export projects and associated pipelines with initial construction deadlines of seven years without
`
`expressing concern about the order’s economic or environmental findings becoming stale.42
`
`38 Northwest Pipeline LLC, 171 FERC ¶ 61,077, P12 (2020).
`See, e.g., Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2021); Mountain Valley Pipeline,
`39
`LLC & Equitrans, L.P., 173 FERC ¶ 61,026 (2020); Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 172 FERC ¶ 61,162
`(2020); Northwest Pipeline LLC, 171 FERC ¶ 61,077 (2020); Constitution Pipeline Company, LLC & Iroquois
`Gas Transmission System, L.P, 165 FERC ¶ 61,081 (2018); see also, Magnolia LNG, LLC & Kinder Morgan
`Louisiana Pipeline LLC, Letter Order Granting Request for Extension of Time, FERC Docket Nos. CP14-347-
`000, CP19-19-000, & CP14-511-000 (October 7, 2020); Cameron LNG, LLC, Letter Order Granting Extension
`of Time, FERC Docket No. CP15-560-000 (March 25, 2020); Freeport LNG Development, L.P. & FLNG
`Liquefaction 4, LLC, Letter Order Granting Extension of Time, FERC Docket No. CP17-470-000 (September 10,
`2020).
`Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,148, at P13 (2021).
`See, e.g. Magnolia LNG, LLC, Letter Order Granting Request for Extension of Time, Docket Nos. CP14-347-
`000, CP19-19-000, and CP14 511-000 (Oct. 7, 2020). (granting extension of time in light of global market
`conditions impacting applicants’ ability to secure long-term offtake contracts and achieve a final investment
`decision).
`See, e.g., Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC & Venture Global Gator Express, LLC, 168 FERC ¶ 61,204
`(2019); Rio Grande LNG, LLC & Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC, 169 FERC ¶ 61,131 (2019); Driftwood
`LNG LLC & Driftwood Pipeline LLC, 167 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2019).
`
`40
`
`41
`
`42
`
`12
`
`

`

`The instant proceeding is not analogous, contrary to Protesters’ assertions, to the Chestnut
`
`Ridge proceeding.43 In Chestnut Ridge, the applicants filed the request for extension of time three
`
`weeks prior to the expiration of the deadline to complete construction and had taken no other
`
`concrete steps toward the development of their project (other than responding to a breach of
`
`contract claim brought by landowners) since one month prior to the issuance of the certificate
`
`order. The Commission further noted in denying the extension that Chestnut Ridge did not even
`
`indicate that it “sought to obtain necessary property rights by means of eminent domain, nor …
`
`made preparations for construction…,” and FERC highlighted that the applicant made “no
`
`representations that any improvement in gas storage markets or [that] the availability of project
`
`financing for its particular project is imminent.”44 None of this reasoning is applicable to the
`
`instant proceeding, and in fact, the circumstances are quite the opposite. Whereas Chestnut Ridge
`
`made no move to progress its project after receiving approval, withdrew a permit application with
`
`a state agency,45 informed the Commission that it had “declared and adopted a suspension of all
`
`project development activities,” 46 even before the Commission issued its order, and indicated the
`
`market would not support the project at the time the extension was requested,47 Corpus Christi has
`
`filed an Implementation Plan, begun site preparation activities, substantially completed
`
`commercialization, commenced financing activities and in fact never stopped or even paused its
`
`active and diligent pursuit of a positive FID.
`
`43 Chestnut Ridge Storage LLC, 139 FERC ¶ 61,149 (2012).
`Id. at 3.
`44
`45 Chestnut Ridge Storage LLC, 137 FERC ¶ 62,106, pg. 4 (2011).
`Id. at fn. 9.
`46
`Id. at pg. 2.
`
`47
`
`13
`
`

`

`Furthermore, the certificate in Chestnut Ridge was vacated because the authorized
`
`construction period had passed by several months. Here, that deadline has not yet passed, a further
`
`demonstration of the diligence and trajectory of the Stage 3 Project, which remains on track other
`
`than due to the pandemic-related delays experienced by the global community – delays previously
`
`recognized as a valid basis for extension by FERC, even in contested cases.48 There are absolutely
`
`no grounds for vacating any authorization granted in the November 2019 Order.
`
`B. THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DEMONSTRATE NEED
`FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW
`
`Protesters incorrectly assert that “changed circumstances provide an additional and
`
`alternative ground for denying the extension request, or at a minimum, demonstrate the need for
`
`additional review.”49 However, this is an impermissible collateral attack on the November 2019
`
`Order. The underlying Commission proceeding is closed. As the Commission clearly stated in
`
`the Notice, FERC “will not consider arguments that re-litigate the issuance of the certificate order,
`
`including whether the Commission properly found the project to be in the public convenience and
`
`necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for the certificate complied with
`
`the National Environmental Policy Act [“NEPA”].”50 The Commission has previously held that
`
`with regard to extension requests “arguments attacking the certificate itself, including those
`
`regarding: water quality impacts of the project; public safety considerations; the environmental
`
`48
`
`See, e.g., Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,148 (2021) (“Transco notes the
`COVID-19 pandemic has had an unforeseeable adverse impact on its development of the project”); Rockies
`Express Pipeline LLC, Letter Order Granting Extension of Time, Docket No. CP18-103-000 (September 1, 2021)
`(“Rockies Express states it has been delayed in reaching full commercialization for compressor units 5 and 6,
`with the economic slowdown and fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic… Based on the facts presented in the
`request, Rockies Express is granted a two-year extension of time…”).
`49 December 29 Filing at 12.
`50 Notice. See also Algonquin, at fn. 111 “Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance of an NGA
`section 3 permit, including whether a proposed project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
`Commission’s environmental analysis for the permit order complied with NEPA.”).
`
`14
`
`

`

`impacts of the project; the Commission’s failure to consider alternatives outside of its jurisdiction;
`
`the likelihood that state law will alter demand; and aesthetic impacts… are improper collateral
`
`attacks on [] the Certificate Order and need not be considered further.”51
`
`Furthermore, Protesters’ arguments regarding changed circumstances are without merit or
`
`legal support. Preliminarily, it is not the case, as Petitioners seem to imply, that any changed
`
`circumstance requires the Commission to reconsider the underlying findings. It is merely that time
`
`limits for the completion of construction are placed on projects for the purpose of “diminish[ing]
`
`the potential that the public interest might be compromised by significant changes occurring
`
`between issuance of the certificate and commencement of the project”52 and that CEQ NEPA
`
`regulat