Predict your next investment

ENERGY & UTILITIES | Oil & Gas Production & Exploration
peregrineoilandgas.com

See what CB Insights has to offer

Founded Year

2004

Stage

Private Equity | Alive

Total Raised

$105M

Last Raised

$105M | 14 yrs ago

About Peregrine Oil & Gas LP

Peregrine Oil & Gas LP conducts exploration, development and production operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

Peregrine Oil & Gas LP Headquarter Location

Three Riverway Suite 1750

Houston, Texas, 77056,

United States

713-589-6800

Latest Peregrine Oil & Gas LP News

FERC Meeting Agenda Summary for December 2020

Dec 16, 2020

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog: <iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=1bc4b182-a680-4f99-b3cd-c64460716f39" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe> Below are summaries of the agenda items for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's December 17, 2020 open meeting, pursuant to the agenda issued on December 10, 2020. Agenda items E-1, E-7, E-14, E-17, G-5, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-9, C-10, C-11, and C-12 have not been summarized due to omission. RM21-3-000). Agenda item E-2 may be a new docket relating to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on Cybersecurity Incentives. The NOPR proceeding may expand and formalize the concepts outlined in a Commission staff white paper issued on June 18, 2020, which explored certain transmission incentive policy proposals designed to encourage utility spending on protocols that would ostensibly improve security and compliance with critical infrastructure protection requirements. E-3 – California Independent System Operator Corporation (Docket No. EL21-19-000). Agenda item E-3 may be a new docket relating to a Show Cause proceeding brought by the Commission against California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO). The Commission may issue an order to CAISO pertaining to an investigation and identifying possible civil penalties or sanctions for the alleged matter. E-4 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Transmission Systems Inc. (Docket No. ER20-2046-001). On June 12, 2020, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted proposed revisions to its Tariff pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). PJM sought to amend Attachment M-3 of the Tariff in order to expand the scope from solely prescribing procedures governing Supplemental Project planning to additionally capture certain PJM transmission owner asset management activities and projects. PJM asserted that, while the aforementioned activities are not subject to transmission planning requirements of Order No. 890, this expanded scope would improve coordination with the Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) by increasing transparency of projects nearing the end of their useful lives. A number of stakeholders and utilities filed formal comments and protests, commonly alleging that PJM did not contemplate the full scope of all asset management projects within the scope of the local planning procedures, and therefore, there will be insufficient review of the most cost-effective solutions for ratepayers in the region. On August 11, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the proposed Tariff revisions and found a number of potential cost-related issues raised by intervenors to be beyond the scope of a FPA Section 205 proceeding. On September 10, 2020, several parties filed respective requests for rehearing of the August 11 order, stating that the Commission improperly ignored the cost concerns, violated the principles of Order No. 890 with regard to transparency measures, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion by applying examples from different regions to PJM. On October 13, 2020, the Commission issued a notice of denial of rehearings by operation of law and provided for further consideration, but in the absence of future Commission action, the request will be deemed denied. Following the issuance of the August 11 and October 13 orders by the Commission, a number of parties and utilities filed a Petition for Review in the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on November 12, 2020 under case number 20-1449. Agenda item E-4 may be an order responsive to the substantive items raised in the respective requests for rehearing in order to formalize (or finalize) Commission action in light of the potential rehearing denial. E-5 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket No. ER20-2308-000). On July 2, 2020, PJM submitted a Joint Stakeholder Proposal in order to revise Schedule 6 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM (PJM Operating Agreement). Namely, the proposal would move the planning of all transmission facilities determined as at their end of life (EOL) to a new category of EOL Projects under the PJM RTEP process. PJM and the stakeholders assert the new EOL designation would better incorporate the needs of EOL projects into the regional transmission planning process and improve identification of assets which have reached EOL conditions for evaluation, and ultimately, replacement in the RTEP planning process. A number of stakeholders and transmission owners filed formal comments and protests, commonly alleging that the PJM Joint Stakeholder Proposal filing was "incurably deficient" and PJM would effectively violate contractual rights of the transmission owners in the region by assuming power in EOL determinations and asset management activities more broadly. Agenda item E-5 may be an order on the Joint Stakeholder Proposal relating to the creation of a new EOL category under the PJM Operating Agreement. E-6 – Virtualization and Cloud Computing Services (Docket No. RM20-8-000). On February 20, 2020, the Commission initiated a policymaking docket by issuing a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of virtualization and cloud computing services in the operation of the bulk electric system. The NOI solicited comments on whether the current Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards properly accommodate such technology advances and balance innovation with practical security needs. Specifically, the Commission posed questions on four general topics: the scope of potential use of virtualization or cloud computing, their associated benefits and risks, possible impediments to their implementation, and potential new and emerging technologies beyond virtualization and cloud computing that responsible entities may be interested in adopting. The Commission instructed the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, Inc. (NERC), the entity which has oversight over CIP standards, to engage in the proceeding and act to implement any new policies that originate from the docket. A number of stakeholders, ranging from trade associations, utilities, and technology companies, filed formal comments. The common refrain supported the voluntary adoption of virtualization and cloud computing services due to the perceived benefits to reliability, but accompanied by proper audit and risk management protocols under NERC. Agenda item E-6 may be a final rule relating to virtualization and cloud computing services and directing certain NERC actions. E-7 – Omitted E-8 – Fuel Cell Thermal Energy Output (Docket No. RM21-2-000), Bloom Energy Corporation (Docket No. RM20-20-000). On October 15, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to potentially revise Commission regulations under Sections 201 and 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The NOPR is responsive to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Bloom Energy Corporation (Bloom Energy) on August 19, 2020 stemming from the development of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell systems with integrated natural gas reformation equipment as a technical evolution of cogeneration capabilities. Bloom Energy advocated that Solid Oxide Fuel Cell systems could be a viable option for efficient electric energy cogeneration and serve the interest of PURPA in terms of innovation and development of such facilities. A number of stakeholders filed formal comments, including opposition to the NOPR. For example, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) countered that the statutory language of PURPA does not support including these new facilities as Qualifying Facilities (QFs). EEI stated that expanding the criteria for QFs would consequently broaden the list of entities that would be required to comply with interconnection responsibilities as well as mandatory obligations to purchase energy and/or capacity. Agenda item E-8 may be an order on the NOPR aiming to expand regulations under PURPA to integrate the new technology of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell systems as developed by Bloom Energy. E-9 – Southern California Edison Company (Docket No. ER21-155-000). On October 20, 2020, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted a Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service between Wildcat I Energy Storage, LLC (Wildcat) and itself. The interconnection agreement furnishes the provisions by which Wildcat will interconnect a battery energy storage system generating facility to SCE and transmit energy to the grid administered by CAISO. Agenda item E-9 may be an order on the agreement between SCE and Wildcat. E-10 – Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. and MidAmerican Energy Company (Docket No. ER21-161-000). On October 20, 2020, Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) submitted proposed revisions to the formula rate for MidAmerican included in the MISO Tariff. The proposed Tariff sheet revisions modify the method by which MidAmerican calculates average Accumulated Deferred Income Tax (ADIT) balances in its annual transmission formula rate true-up calculation. The revisions would be effectuated so as to preserve the effect of the application of the proration methodology used in the projected test year calculation, in order to comply with Section 1.167(l)-1(h)(6)(ii) of the United States Internal Revenue Services (IRS) regulations and an April 2017 Private Letter Ruling (PLR) issued by the IRS. Agenda item E-10 may be an order on the proposed MISO Tariff revisions to the MidAmerican ADIT balance calculations in accordance with IRS and PLR guidance. E-11 – Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Docket No. ER20-2590-000). On July 31, 2020, as supplemented on October 30, 2020, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) submitted an application requesting, inter alia, that the Commission accept Basin Electric's revised market-based rate tariff and grant Basin Electric authority to sell energy, capacity and ancillary services in wholesale transactions at market-based rates in additional markets, including the Northwestern Energy Montana, PacifiCorp East, Western Area Power Administration Colorado-Missouri, Western Area Power Administration Upper Great Plains West, and Public Service Company of Colorado Balancing Authority Areas. Agenda item E-11 may be an order on Basin Electric's market-based rate tariff application. E-12 – Western Area Power Administration (Docket No. EF20-7-000). On August 25, 2020, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) submitted a tariff filing titled "Notice of order for Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects firm power and sale of surplus products and Colorado River Storage Project transmission and ancillary services rates – Rate Order No. WAPA-190", to be effective October 1, 2020. Agenda item E-12 may be an order on WAPA's tariff filing. E-13 – Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Docket No. ER20-687-001). On September 18, 2020, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State) filed proposed revisions to its Large Generator Interconnection Procedures in compliance with the requirements of a May 21, 2020 Commission order that partially accepted Tri-State's previous Order No. 845 compliance filing. On October 9, 2020 Gladstone New Energy, LLC filed a protest of Tri-State's September 18 compliance filing. Agenda item E-13 may be an order on Tri-State's September 18 compliance filing. E-14 – Omitted E-15 – PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Docket Nos. ER19-2722-000, ER19-2722-001, ER19-2722-002). On August 30, 2019, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed proposed modifications to the PJM Open Access Tariff (OATT) and the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM in compliance with a previously issued April 19, 2019 Commission order related to PJM's fast-start pricing practices. On October 22, 2020, PJM filed an errata to its August 30, 2019 compliance filing. Agenda item E-15 may be an order on PJM's August 30, 2019 compliance filing. E-16 – IIF US Holding LP and IIF US Holding 2 LP (Docket No. EC20-94-000). On August 31, 2020, pursuant to section 203(a)(1) of the Federal Power Act, IIF US Holding LP (IIF US Holding), on behalf of its public utility subsidiaries (collectively, the IIF Public Utilities), and IIF US Holding 2 LP (IIF US Holding 2), on behalf of its public utility subsidiaries (collectively, the IIF 2 Public Utilities, and together with IIF US Holding, IIF US Holding 2, and the IIF Public Utilities, IIF, requested Commission authorization for the disposition of jurisdictional facilities that will result from the transfer of an approximately 33.3% membership interest in the general partner of IIF US Holding and the general partner of IIF US Holding 2 from one private individual to another private individual. On September 21, 2020, Public Citizen, Inc. filed a protest of IIF's application. Agenda item E-16 may be an order on IIF's application. E-17 – Omitted E-18 – Curry Solar Farm, LLC (Docket Nos. EL20-18-000, QF20-184-001, QF20-185-001, QF20-186-001, QF20-187-001, QF20-188-001, QF20-189-001, QF20-190-001, QF20-191-001, QF20-192-001, QF20-193-001, QF20-194-001, QF20-195-001, QF20-196-001, QF20-197-001, QF20-198-001, QF20-199-001, QF20-200-001). On January 9, 2020, Curry Solar Farm, LLC (Curry Solar),  filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking limited waiver of the filing requirements applicable to small power production facilities set forth in section 292.203(a)(3) of the Commission's regulations. Agenda item E-18 may be an order on Curry Solar's petition for declaratory order. E-19 – IIF US Holding 2 GP, LLC (Docket No. EL20-64-000). On August 12, 2020, pursuant to sections 366.3 and 366.4 of the Commission's regulations, IIF US Holding 2 GP, LLC (IIF US Holding 2 GP) submitted a petition for declaratory order requesting an exemption of certain of IIF US Holding 2 GP's subsidiary companies, that are holding companies following IIF US Holding 2 GP's acquisition of a traditional public utility with a franchised electric service territory. On September 11, 2020, Public Citizen, Inc. filed a protest of IIF US Holding 2 GP's petition for declaratory order. Agenda item E-19 may be an order on IIF US Holding 2 GP's petition for declaratory order. E-20 – North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Docket No. EL20-15-001). On December 23, 2019, North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (NCEMPA) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting, inter alia, that the Commission interpret the Fifth Restated Full Requirements Power Purchase Agreement between NCEMPA and Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP) in a manner that permitted NCEMPA and its municipal members to utilize battery storage technology on their systems. On September 17, 2020, the Commission issued an order granting NCEMPA's petition for declaratory order (September Order). On October 16, 2020, DEP requested rehearing of the September Order. On November 16, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Rehearing by Operation of Law (November 16 Notice) stating that the rehearing request filed in the proceeding will be addressed in a future order. Agenda item E-20 may be the future order referenced in the Commission's November 16 Notice. Gas G-1 – Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index (Docket No. RM20-14-000). In accordance with Order No. 561, it is expected the Commission will institute a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) initiating its five-year review to establish the oil pipeline index level. Agenda item G-1 may be the issuance of a NOI initiating the Commission's five-year review of the oil pipeline index. G-2 – Actions Regarding the Commission's Policy on Price Index Formation and Transparency, and Indices Referenced in Natural Gas and Electric Tariffs (Docket No. PL20-3-000). Agenda item G-2 may be the issuance of a proposed Policy Statement concerning the Commission's policy on price index formation and transparency, and indices referenced in natural gas and electric tariffs. G-3 – Safe Harbor Policy for Data Providers to Price Index Developers (Docket No. RM20-7-000). Agenda item G-3 may be the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for the codification of the Safe Harbor policy into the Commission's regulations. G-4 – Peregrine Oil & Gas II, LLC v. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket Nos. RP17-811-002, RP18-271-000). On June 1, 2017, Peregrine Oil & Gas II, LLC (Peregrine) filed a complaint against Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Docket No. RP17-811-000 alleging that Texas Eastern's response to an outage that commenced on September 2016 due to a leak on a subsea tie-in violated §§ 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, § 154.3 of Commission regulations, and Sections 17.1 and 17.2 of Texas Eastern's Tariff. On October 27, 2017, the Commission issued an order establishing hearing and settlement judge procedure. On December 19, 2017, Peregrine filed an Amended and Restated Complaint in Docket No. RP18-271-000 raising allegations and requesting relief related to an outage that commenced in November 2014 due to a barge anchor strike on Texas Eastern's Line 41-A-5. On April 2, 2018, the Commission issued an order consolidating the two proceedings. A hearing in the proceeding was held between October 31, 2018, and November 8, 2018. On April 8, 2019, the presiding administrative law judge issued an Initial Decision finding that Texas Eastern responded to the outages the way a reasonable utility would have in good faith, under the same circumstances, and at the relevant point in time. Agenda item G-4 may be an Opinion on the presiding judge's Initial Decision. G-5 – Omitted G-6 – Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC and Kinetica Energy Express, LLC (Docket Nos. RP19-1634-002, RP20-788-000, RP13-1116-000, RP19-54-000). On September 30, 2019, Kinetica Deepwater Express, LLC (KDE) filed a general rate case under Section 4(e) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), in which KDE proposed to increase its then-effective Rate Schedule IT recourse rate of $0.0535 per dth to $0.1366 per dth. In an order issued on October 30, 2019, the Commission accepted and suspended KDE's rate filing to be effective April 1, 2020, subject to refund and the outcome of a hearing. On April 21, 2020, the parties reached an uncontested settlement. Agenda item G-6 may be an order approving the settlement. G-7 – Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (Docket No. FA15-16-000). On April 15, 2015, the Commission issued a letter informing Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) that it is commencing an audit to evaluate DTE's compliance with the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts, reporting requirements, and DTI's FERC Gas Tariff. On November 8, 2017, the Commission issued its audit report. On December 8, 2017, DTI filed a request for Commission review of certain findings and recommendations in the audit report. Agenda item G-7 may be an order on the request for review of findings and recommendations in the audit report. G-8 – BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (Docket Nos. IS20-171-001, IS20-169-001, IS20-166-001). On January 27, 2020, BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company (collectively, TAPS Carriers) submitted revised tariffs to comply with Commission orders in Opinion Nos. 481, 481-A, and 481-B (TAPS Quality Bank Orders) and corresponding orders of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), reflecting the required annual adjustments to the reference prices of crude components for the TAPS Quality Bank. On February 26, 2020, the Commission issued an order accepting the tariffs for filing, to be effective February 1, 2020. On March 25, 2020, Petro Star Inc. filed a request for rehearing of the Commission's February 26 order. Agenda item G-8 may be an order on the request for rehearing. G-9 – BP America Inc. BP Corporation North America Inc. BP America Production Company BP Energy Company (Docket Nos. IN13-15-000, IN13-15-001, IN13-15-002). This proceeding concerns allegations by the Commission's Office of Enforcement for violations of the Commission's Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. 1c.1, for sales of natural gas at specific natural gas trading hubs to affect the index price at which related financial instruments settled. The Commission set the matter for hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ's Initial Decision, reviewable by the Commission, found that BP violated Section 1c.1 of the Commission's regulations and Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act, and made factual findings respecting the application of the Commission's Penalty Guidelines. The Commission issued an order affirming the ALJ's Initial Decision and ordered BP to pay $20,160,000 in civil penalties and disgorge unjust profits in the amount of $207,169. On September 7, 2016, BP filed a Petition for Review of the Order on Initial Decision and Rehearing with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. BP also filed a motion for the Commission to stay the payment directives ordered in the Penalty Assessment and the Commission issued an order on September 12, 2016 granting the motion. On December 11, 2017, BP filed a motion to lodge, to reopen the proceeding, and to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. Agenda item G-9 may be an order on BP's motion. G-10 – Oil Pipeline Affiliate Contracts (Docket No. PL21-1-000). On October 15, 2020, the Commission issued a proposed policy statement providing guidance outlining information oil pipelines may provide to demonstrate that proposed rates and terms of service pursuant to Affiliate Contracts comply with the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). The deadline for initial comments as December 14, 2020. Reply comments are due by January 28, 2020. Agenda item G-10 may be an order involving the proposed policy statement. Hydro H-1 – Cube Yadkin Generation LLC (Docket No. P-2197-135). On September 18, 2018, as supplemented on May 24, 2019, Cube Yadkin Generation LLC (Cube Yadkin) filed the Sedimentation and Flood Protection Plan for Yadkin River Raw Water Intake and Pump Station for approval in accordance with Article 401(a) and Condition 9 of the water quality certificate. On March 12, 2020, Commission staff issued an order approving the Sedimentation and Flood Protection Plan filed by Cube Yadkin, licensee for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project No. 2197. On April 13, 2020, the City of Salisbury filed a timely request for rehearing of the March 12 Order arguing, inter alia, that the Sedimentation and Flood Protection Plan was insufficient. On September 17, 2020, the Commission issued an Order Addressing Arguments Raised on Rehearing and Setting Aside Prior Order in Part. The September order required that Cube Yadkin revise its Sedimentation and Flood Protection Plan to better address safe road access to the Salisbury pump station. On November 16, 2020, Cube Yadkin submitted a request for extension of time to file the revised Sedimentation and Flood Protection Plan. The City of Salisbury opposed the request and the parties exchanged pleadings. Agenda item H-1 may be an order addressing the request for extension. Certificates C-1 – Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Docket No. CP20-471-000). On June 1, 2020, Texas Eastern Transmission LP (Texas Eastern) filed an Abbreviated Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations for the proposed Bailey East Mine Panel 12J Project (Project). The Project proposes to excavate, elevate, and replace certain segments of four different pipelines and appurtenant facilities to ensure safe operation during longwall mining activities conducted by CONSOL Energy, Inc. in the area beneath the pipelines, in Marshall County, West Virginia. On October 19, 2020, Commission Staff issued an Environmental Assessment including specified mitigation measures and recommending that a Commission Order on the application find that the Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Agenda item C-1 may be an order addressing Texas Eastern's application. C-2 – Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC (Docket No. CP16-10-000). On October 23, 2015, Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC submitted, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and related authorizations, for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (MVPP). Mountain Valley proposes to construct, own, and operate the MVPP, which includes approximately 301 miles of new interstate natural gas pipeline, three new compressor stations, and other facilities located in West Virginia and Virginia. On June 23, 2017, Commission Staff issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the MVPP determining that construction and operation of the projects would result in limited adverse environmental impact, with the exception of impacts on forest. The FEIS recommended mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts on the environment to less-than-significant levels. On October 13, 2017, the Commission issued an order granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the MVPP. On December 14, 2019, the US Forest Service (USFS) issued an FEIS. The USFS FEIS identified alternative 2 as the preferred route through National Forest Service Land. Agenda item C-2 may be an order addressing the USFS FEIS. C-3 – Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company LLC (Docket No. CP19-118-000). On March 29, 2019, the Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company LLC (Trans-Foreland) filed, pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, an application for authorization to construct, install, own, and operate modifications to an existing liquefied natural gas export terminal in Kenai, Alaska. On September 3, 2020, Commission Staff issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) including specified mitigation measures and recommending that a Commission Order on the application find that the project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Comments regarding the EA were submitted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Agenda item C-3 may be an order addressing the application for authorization. C-4 – Omitted C-6 – Omitted C-7 – Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC and Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC (Docket No. CP16-9-011). On October 22, 2015, the Trans-Foreland Pipeline Company LLC (Trans-Foreland) filed, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, an Abbreviated Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations for the proposed Atlantic Bridge Project. The project was designed to enable Algonquin to provide 132,705 dekatherms per day of firm transportation capacity and Maritimes to provide 106,276 dekatherms per day of firm transportation capacity to deliver natural gas to meet the requirements of the Project shippers. On January 25, 2017, the Commission issued an Order Issuing Certificate and Authorizing Abandonment. Trans-Foreland subsequently commenced construction and incrementally placed specified facilities in service to comply with environmental conditions imposed by the Commission. On September 24, 2020, Commission Staff issued a letter order granting Trans-Foreland authorization to place into service the Weymouth Compressor Station in Norfolk, MA and the Maritimes Westbrook Metering and Regulator Station in Cumberland, ME. On October 23, 2020, the Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station (FRRACS), the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, Weymouth Councilor Rebecca Haugh, Michael H. Hayden, and Food & Water Watch filed a request for rehearing of and recission of Commission Staff's In-Service Authorization issued on September 24, 2020. Agenda item C-7 may be an order addressing the request for rehearing of the In-Service Authorization. C-8 – Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Docket Nos. CP17-458-006, CP19-17-002). On May 31, 2017, Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship) filed, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), an application for authorization to construct and operate the proposed Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project (MIDSHIP Project). The MIDSHIP Project was designed to provide up to 1,440 million standard cubic feet (MMcf) per day of firm transportation capacity from the South Central Oklahoma Oil Province, and the Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher gas plays in the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma, to existing natural gas pipelines near Bennington, Oklahoma, for subsequent transport to Gulf Coast and Southeast markets. On August 13, 2018, the Commission issued an Order Issuing Certificate approving the MIDSHIP Project with environmental conditions. On May 1, 2019, Midship filed, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA, an application to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity issued on August 13, 2018, to implement cost-based interim recourse rates to enable Midship to provide up to 1,100,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of interim transportation service on the MIDSHIP Project. On September 6, 2019, the Commission granted Midship's request to phase construction of the Project and approved interim rates for service in an amount of up to 1,100 MMcf/d. The Commission found that the request was in the public convenience and necessity because it will make additional transportation service available to the market at an earlier date, as requested by Midship's firm shippers. On August 10, 2020, Midship requested an extension of time until December 31, 2022, to complete commercialization and construction of the remaining portions of the Project. Agenda item C-8 may be an order addressing the request for extension of time. C-9 – Omitted C-12 – Omitted C-13 – Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Docket No. CP15-17-005). On November 21, 2014, Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) filed, pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), an Abbreviated Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations to construct and operate the Sabal Trail Project. The Sabal Trail Project will include approximately 515 miles of new pipeline, six compressor stations, and six meter stations in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida to provide up to 1,075,000 Dth/d of firm transportation service. On September 4, 2015, Commission Staff issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the related Florida Southeast Project, Hillabee Expansion Project, and Sabal Trail Project (collectively the Southeast Market Pipelines Project). Sierra Club filed comments on the DEIS, arguing that the DEIS failed to analyze downstream GHG emissions and therefore did not support the conclusion that there would be no significant cumulative impact from GHG emissions. On December 18, 2015, Commission Staff issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS quantified the SMP Project's direct construction and operation related GHG emissions, but stated that it would be difficult to meaningfully consider downstream end-use effects. On February 2, 2016, the Commission issued an Order Issuing Certificate and Approving Abandonments for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, subject to environmental conditions (Certificate Order). The Sierra Club requested rehearing of the Certificate Order, arguing, among other things, that the Commission erred in failing to estimate the downstream GHG emissions from the gas transported by the project, and in failing to consider the effects that those emissions will have on climate change. On September 7, 2016, the Commission denied rehearing, finding that the FEIS sufficiently assessed GHG emissions (Rehearing Order). In September 2016, Sierra Club, among other parties, appealed the Commission's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In June and July 2017, while the court case was pending, Commission staff authorized the pipelines to commence service on completed facilities. On August 22, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the Certificate and Rehearing Orders. The court held that where "all the natural gas that will travel through these pipelines will be going somewhere: specifically, to power plants in Florida," the downstream greenhouse gas emissions that will result from burning the transported gas "are an indirect effect of authorizing [the SMP] project, which FERC could reasonably foresee, and which [FERC] has legal authority to mitigate." On September 27, 2017, the Commission issued a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to supplement the information and analyses contained in the December 2015 FEIS for the SMP Project. On February 5, 2018, the Commission issued the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. On March 14, 2018, the Commission issued an Order On Remand Reinstating Certificate And Abandonment Authorization. On April 8, 2020, Sabal Trail submitted a request to place into service the Sabal Trail Project Phase II Facilities, specifically the Albany and Dunnellon Compressor Stations located respectively in Dougherty County, Georgia and Marion County, Florida. Commission Staff approved the request by letter order dated April 22, 2020. On May 22, 2020, the Sierra Club requested rehearing and rescission of FERC's April 22, 2020 letter order authorizing Sabal Trail to place the Phase II Facilities in service on or around April 30, 2020. Sierra Club also requested a stay and that operation of these compressor stations be halted. Agenda item C-13 may be an order addressing the request for rehearing.

Predict your next investment

The CB Insights tech market intelligence platform analyzes millions of data points on venture capital, startups, patents , partnerships and news mentions to help you see tomorrow's opportunities, today.

Peregrine Oil & Gas LP Web Traffic

Rank
Page Views per User (PVPU)
Page Views per Million (PVPM)
Reach per Million (RPM)
CBI Logo

Peregrine Oil & Gas LP Rank

CB Insights uses Cookies

CBI websites generally use certain cookies to enable better interactions with our sites and services. Use of these cookies, which may be stored on your device, permits us to improve and customize your experience. You can read more about your cookie choices at our privacy policy here. By continuing to use this site you are consenting to these choices.