Puerto Rico Abandons $20 Billion LNG Deal
According to a report by Hart Energy, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico withheld support for the contract earlier this month, citing concerns about cost, duration, and long-term fuel dependency. In response, the Puerto Rico government formally canceled negotiations with New Fortress, despite the company's dominant position in the island's LNG market.
New Fortress had been in line to supply fuel for the state-owned Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), whose fleet includes aging oil- and gas-fired plants awaiting conversion or decommissioning. The canceled deal was expected to cover LNG imports for a period of up to 25 years, potentially extending New Fortress's role as the island's primary gas supplier well into the 2040s.
The collapse of the agreement leaves a significant vacuum in Puerto Rico's energy planning. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas, primarily LNG, accounted for approximately 34% of the island's electricity generation in 2023, with petroleum making up the majority. Although full-year 2024 data is not yet available, analysts at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) had warned that Puerto Rico's increasing reliance on LNG contracts could entrench fossil fuel use at the expense of federally supported renewable energy goals.
In parallel, the U.S. Department of Energy is preparing to disburse nearly $1 billion in solar and storage funding through the Puerto Rico Energy Resilience Fund. As of July, however, local permitting constraints and utility interconnection delays had slowed the rollout of community-scale renewable projects.
The New Fortress deal had also come under scrutiny for bypassing competitive procurement rules. While the company already supplies LNG to the San Juan combined-cycle plant and EcoEléctrica's Peñuelas facility, its attempt to lock in a 25-year sole-source contract drew criticism from public interest attorneys and environmental groups. Legal scholars warned the deal could have violated key provisions of Puerto Rico's energy reform laws.
For New Fortress, which has not issued any public comment on the deal's breakdown, the canceled contract represents a setback in its bid to expand LNG operations across the Caribbean. The company is still advancing its Fast LNG project in Mexico, with modular floating liquefaction units aimed at flexible export markets, including potentially Puerto Rico. While one cargo was delivered to Puerto Rico in early 2025, no current-quarter shipments have been confirmed. Without a long-term anchor contract, its foothold on the island may be more vulnerable than previously assumed.
Puerto Rico's Energy Bureau has not announced whether a new solicitation process will follow. With the island's debt restructuring still underway and federal funding tied to grid modernization, the question now is whether energy planners will reframe the mix around renewables, or seek a scaled-down LNG alternative.
By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.comRead this article on OilPrice.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
SRPT LEGAL ALERT: Lose Money on Your Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Investment? Contact BFA Law by August 25 Class Action Deadline (NASDAQ:SRPT)
NEW YORK, Aug. 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SRPT) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Sarepta, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: Investors have until August 25, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors who purchased Sarepta securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Dolgicer v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-05317. Why Was Sarepta Sued for Securities Fraud? Sarepta is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing treatments for rare diseases. Sarepta's most important product is Elevidys, a therapy for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. As alleged, Sarepta repeatedly touted the safety profile of Elevidys and told investors that the benefits of the treatment outweighed its risks. In truth, Elevidys causes fatal acute liver failure in some patients. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On March 18, 2025, Sarepta announced that a patient that had been treated with Elevidys died after suffering acute liver failure. On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell $27.81 per share, or over 27%, from $101.35 per share on March 17, 2025, to $73.54 per share on March 18, 2025. Nevertheless, on the same day, Sarepta assured investors that 'the benefit-risk of ELEVIDYS remains positive.' Next, on June 15, 2025, Sarepta announced that a second patient treated with Elevidys had died from acute liver failure and that it was suspending certain shipments of Elevidys and paused dosing in an ongoing clinical trial of the treatment. On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell $15.24 per share, or more than 42%, from $36.18 per share on June 13, 2025, to $20.94 per share on June 16, 2025. Finally, on July 17, 2025, Sarepta revealed that a third patient treated with one of Sarepta's investigational treatments related to Elevidys had died from acute liver failure in June 2025. On this news, the price of Sarepta stock fell more than 40% on July 18, 2025. Click here for more information: What Can You Do? If you invested in Sarepta you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: Or contact: Ross Shikowitz [email protected] 212.789.3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named 'Elite Trial Lawyers' by the National Law Journal, among the top '500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers' by Lawdragon, 'Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar' by Law360 and 'SuperLawyers' by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Mamdani eyes former 'Squad' member for top education position in NYC
CUNY law professor Jeffrey Lax joins 'Fox & Friends Weekend' to discuss Zohran Mamdani reportedly considering former Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., for a top education position in New York City.
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
The Justice Department seeks voter and election information from at least 19 states, AP finds
NEW YORK (AP) — The requests have come in letters, emails and phone calls. The specifics vary, but the target is consistent: The U.S. Department of Justice is ramping up an effort to get voter data and other election information from the states. Over the past three months, the department's voting section has requested copies of voter registration lists from state election administrators in at least 15 states, according to an Associated Press tally. Of those, nine are Democrats, five are Republicans and one is a bipartisan commission. In Colorado, the department demanded 'all records' relating to the 2024 election and any records the state retained from the 2020 election. Department lawyers have contacted officials in at least seven states to propose a meeting about forging an information-sharing agreement related to instances of voting or election fraud. The idea, they say in the emails, is for states to help the department enforce the law. The unusually expansive outreach has raised alarm among some election officials because states have the constitutional authority to run elections and federal law protects the sharing of individual data with the government. It also signals the transformation of the Justice Department's involvement in elections under President Donald Trump. The department historically has focused on protecting access to the ballot box. Today, it is taking steps to crack down on voter fraud and noncitizen voting, both of which are rare but have been the subject of years of false claims from Trump and his allies. The department's actions come alongside a broader effort by the administration to investigate past elections and influence the 2026 midterms. The Republican president has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden and continues to falsely claim he won. Trump also has pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional maps to create more House seats favorable to the GOP. The Justice Department does not typically 'engage in fishing expeditions' to find laws that may potentially have been broken and has traditionally been independent from the president, said David Becker, a former department lawyer who leads the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research. 'Now it seems to be operating differently,' he said. The department responded with an emailed 'no comment' to a list of questions submitted by the AP seeking details about the communications with state officials. Requests to states vary and some are specific Election offices in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Utah, and Wisconsin confirmed to the AP that they received letters from the voting section requesting their statewide voter registration lists. At least one other, Oklahoma, received the request by phone. Many requests included basic questions about the procedures states use to comply with federal voting laws, such as how states identify and remove duplicate voter registrations or deceased or otherwise ineligible voters. Certain questions were more state-specific and referenced data points or perceived inconsistencies from a recent survey from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an AP review of several of the letters showed. The Justice Department already has filed suit against the state election board in North Carolina alleging it failed to comply with a part of the federal Help America Vote Act that relates to voter registration records. More inquiries are likely on the way There are signs the department's outreach isn't done. It told the National Association of Secretaries of State that 'all states would be contacted eventually,' said Maria Benson, a NASS spokeswoman. The organization has asked the department to join a virtual meeting of its elections committee to answer questions about the letters, Benson said. Some officials have raised concerns about how the voter data will be used and protected. Election officials in at least four California counties — Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and San Francisco —said the Justice Department sent them letters asking for voter roll records. The letters asked for the number of people removed from the rolls for being noncitizens and for their voting records, dates of birth and ID numbers. Officials in Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin confirmed to the AP that they received an email from two department lawyers requesting a call about a potential 'information-sharing agreement.' The goal, according to several copies of the emails reviewed by the AP, was for states to provide the government with information about instances of election fraud to help the Justice Department 'enforce Federal election laws and protect the integrity of Federal elections.' One of those sending the emails was a senior counsel in the criminal division. The emails referred to Trump's March executive order on elections, part of which directs the attorney general to enter information-sharing agreements with state election officials to the 'maximum extent possible.' Skeptical state election officials assess how to reply Election officials in several states that received requests for their voter registration information have not responded. Some said they were reviewing the inquiries. Officials in some other states provided public versions of voter registration lists to the department, with certain personal information such as Social Security numbers blacked out. Elsewhere, state officials answered procedural questions from the Justice Department but refused to provide the voter lists. In Minnesota, the office of Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, said the federal agency is not legally entitled to the information. In a July 25 letter to the Justice Department's voting section, Simon's general counsel, Justin Erickson, said the list 'contains sensitive personal identifying information on several million individuals.' He said the office had obligations under federal and state law to not disclose any information from the statewide list unless expressly required by law. In a recent letter, Republican lawmakers in the state called on Simon to comply with the federal request as a way 'to protect the voting rights of the citizens of Minnesota.' Maine's secretary of state, Democrat Shenna Bellows, said the administration's request overstepped the federal government's bounds and that the state will not fulfill it. She said doing so would violate voter privacy. The department 'doesn't get to know everything about you just because they want to,' Bellows said. Some Justice Department requests are questionable, lawyers say There is nothing inherently wrong with the Justice Department requesting information on state procedures or the states providing it, said Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general who teaches at Loyola Law School. But the department's requests for voter registration data are more problematic, he said. That is because of the Privacy Act of 1974, which put strict guidelines on data collection by the federal government. The government is required to issue a notice in the Federal Register and notify appropriate congressional committees when it seeks personally identifiable information about individuals. Becker said there is nothing in federal law that compels states to comply with requests for sensitive personal data about their residents. He added that while the outreach about information-sharing agreements was largely innocuous, the involvement of a criminal attorney could be seen as intimidating. 'You can understand how people would be concerned,' he said. ___ Fields reported from Washington. Associated Press state government reporters from around the country contributed to this report.
