Answering critics, FERC Chairman Glick says he has no 'political agenda' to block gas projects

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Glick pushed back on some of the early criticism of the policy statements the agency issued Feb. 17 on how it will conduct natural gas pipeline project reviews, saying he "does not have a political agenda to maneuver gas out of our system" or create roadblocks for pipeline projects.

In an interview with S&P Global Platts Feb. 18, he also expressed the goal of working expeditiously on pending projects in FERC's queue.

FERC voted 3-2 Feb. 17 on updates to its 1999 interstate pipeline certificate policy statement (PL18-1), laying out plans to take a harder look at the need for projects. It also emphasized that the balancing test to determine whether projects are in the public interest would take into account environmental impacts, including climate change, as well as environmental justice and landowner impacts.

The commission also voted 3-2 on interim policy guidance on how it would consider greenhouse gas emissions in its reviews. As a threshold matter, the guidance would create a rebuttable presumption that 100,000 mt/year of CO2e would be considered significant, and it encourages mitigation.

Siting challenges

In the interview, Glick responded to some early commentary that cast the policies as making it much more difficult to site gas projects and defend FERC's orders.

Among the notable comments, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin, Democrat-West Virginia, called FERC's decision "reckless," asserting it "puts the security of our nation at risk" and adds roadblocks to building needed infrastructure.

"The commission went too far by prioritizing a political agenda over their main mission — ensuring our nation's energy reliability and security," Manchin said Feb. 17.

Others have argued the policies would add multiple new legal hooks on which environmental groups can challenge projects.

Glick, in the interview, gave Manchin credit for calling him before releasing his statement.

"What I told him is what I would tell everybody and that is that the proof is going to be in the pudding when we actually handle these applications for certificates and LNG projects on a case-by-case basis," he said. "I would ask that people give us time and see what we do with these orders."

Glick has asserted the effort aims to add clarity and increase the legal durability of FERC's orders after court rulings correcting the commission's course.

While in the minority at FERC, the chairman noted that he dissented only in part on multiple pipeline certificates because in many cases he felt the gas projects were in the public interest

"I don't have a political agenda when it comes to pipelines," he said. "This is not some sort of political maneuver to get natural gas out of our system or to get natural gas to not be a fuel of choice in the future. I'm not here to create roadblocks for pipelines."

Some groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute Feb. 17 warned FERC's policy actions will make it "much more difficult to permit and build badly needed natural gas infrastructure."

Mitigation

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said Feb. 17 that the interim GHG statement did not add clarity but instead created more questions.

Glick responded to warnings from Commissioner James Danly that pipeline developers would face unknowns about how much mitigation FERC ultimately might require to ease GHG impacts, adding uncertainties over whether their projects would remain economic once certificate conditions are added.

"Commissioner Danly has voted for a number of pipeline proceedings in which the pipeline developer went into those proceedings with the same exact uncertainty, whether related to mitigation that might have been necessary for wetland impacts or ... impacts to certain species," he said. In many cases, there is not a common metric, he added.

"I don't think this is anything different than the way [pipeline companies] have been addressing any of these other issues over the years," Glick said.

The chairman also emphasized there is no bright line indicating that if a project doesn't get below 100,000 mt/year of CO2e, FERC will reject the project.

"I think some people are going to say that knowing full well that's not the case," Glick said.

The new policies also drew some warnings that long-pending projects now could face further delays, as pipeline companies work to supplement the record so that they can pass muster and then further public comment is allowed.

In the interview, Glick said FERC is going through in detail where it stands on individual cases now that the policies are out.

"Our goal is to try to act as expeditiously as we can on these pending applications for certificates, and we're working our way through that as quickly as we can," the chairman said.