Does the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s recent refusal to rehear approval of a Dominion gas pipeline foreshadow the outcome of the commission’s ongoing review of its pipeline siting policy?
Commissioner Rich Glick says he fears that’s the case. Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur shares Glick’s concern. Both are Democrats, which highlights a partisan split on a commission most often devoid of partisanship. The three-member Republican majority appears to be reflecting the GOPs general downplaying of global warming concerns.
The flap over whether FERC should consider environmental effects of emissions from new gas pipelines could also put FERC on a collision course with federal courts.
Glick pulled no punches in his critique of FERC’s decision in the Dominion case. “Today, the Commission adopts a new policy regarding its consideration of how pipeline permitting decisions under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) contribute to climate change. In particular, the Commission now concludes that the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) do not require that the Commission consider greenhouse gas emissions from the production or consumption of natural gas that may be the reasonably foreseeable result of the Commission’s certification decisions.”
LaFleur was also candid. She wrote, “I am particularly troubled that this policy shift is occurring a few weeks after we initiated a generic proceeding to look broadly at the Commission’s pipeline review, and more specifically at the Commission’s current policy regarding consideration of upstream and downstream impacts.” She has long, and unsuccessfully, argued that FERC must consider the environmental impacts of natural gas moved in pipelines, not just the impacts of routing and construction of the pipes.
The FERC majority argues that it is unable to identify and quantify with any precision the impacts of the pipelines on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the commission argues that it need not address these impacts.
Both Glick and LaFleur acknowledge that they would approve the pipeline had the majority considered the upstream and downstream impacts of natural gas.
LaFleur also brought up the legal jeopardy in the Dominion rehearing order, which one veteran FERC observer said puts a legal “kick me” sign on FERC’s back. She notes that in 2017, “the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sabal Trail found that the downstream GHG emissions that result from burning the natural gas transported by the Commission authorized SMP Project are an indirect impact of the project. This decision clearly signaled that the Commission should be doing more as part of its environmental reviews.”
LaFleur added that “the majority has changed the Commission’s approach for environmental reviews to do the exact opposite. Rather than taking a broader look at upstream and downstream impacts, the majority has decided as a matter of policy to remove, in most instances, any consideration of upstream or downstream impacts associated with a proposed project. The majority’s reasoning for excluding the information and calculations is generally that it is inherently speculative and does not meaningfully inform the Commission’s project-specific review. I disagree.”
–Kennedy Maize