Environmental, landowner, and community impacts will be factored into decisions on whether to grant federal approval for a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decided Feb. 17.
FERC also decided to issue an interim guidance on how it will take into account greenhouse gas emissions while fulfilling its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Both policy ideas have been argued for years, usually with FERC concluding that it is not an environmental agency, given that the Natural Gas Act is not an environmental law. But with a new majority of Democratic commissioners, the commission voted 3-2 along party lines on both environmental initiatives.
FERC has for decades taken environmental impacts into account, but only after determining whether to permit a pipeline. FERC must first determine whether the pipeline services the public interest, a decision typically made by looking to the gas buyers, such as gas utilities and gas-fired electric utilities.
If enough buyers commit to use a proposed pipeline, FERC has been likely to determine that the line is in the public interest and to grant the project a certificate of public convenience and necessity. After that, the commissioners take environmental, landowner and community issues into account during final determinations of a route.
Now, those environmental and related considerations will be treated as a part of the determination of public interest rather than subordinated to the gas consumer needs.
As for emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), their quantities and potential impacts should be assessed to meet the commission’s NEPA obligations, the Democratic majority insisted.
Public interest
A significant environmental impact will not by itself block a project, Chairman Richard Glick said during the monthly FERC meeting. Benefits of a plan still could outweigh adverse impacts, he said.
But the public interest should not be determined solely by the economic considerations of buyers downstream, according to Glick and the other two Democrats on the commission.
Republican commissioners James Danly and Mark Christie argued that the Natural Gas Act does not give FERC the authority to do what the Democratic majority has decided.
Congress wrote the Natural Gas Act to allow for the orderly development of an energy resource, and Congress determined that provision of gas is in the public interest, Danly said. Now FERC is replacing that with its own notions about what constitutes the public interest, he said.
“These policy statements are going to chill investment,” Danly warned.
Adding up greenhouse gases
The interim policy statement on GHGs says the commission will consider project emissions that are reasonably foreseeable and will consider on a case-specific basis whether upstream and downstream emissions are reasonably foreseeable results of a project. Mitigation measures also will be taken into account.
Upstream and downstream emissions will not be considered for export facilities, however.
If a project will result in as much as 100,000 metric tonnes/year of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, it will require an environmental impact statement.
Glick argued that court rulings have forced FERC to estimate the environmental impacts of gas combustion when the gas reaches electric utilities, other facilities, or consumers.
Christie disagreed. He said that claim derives almost entirely from one case, a 2017 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Sierra Club v. FERC, also known as the Sabal Trail case. But since that ruling, the US Supreme Court has issued opinions reasserting its doctrine that major issues of public policy are to be determined by Congress.
“And whether this commission can reject a certificate to build a natural gas facility, one that otherwise meets the criteria for approval under the Natural Gas Act, because of its alleged impact on global climate change, is clearly a major question of public policy,” Christie said. “I cannot think of a more important question of policy—not just energy policy, but economic policy, and yes, even national security policy.”
Statements denouncing the FERC policy decisions were issued not only by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who called the decisions irresponsible.