ACTION ALERT! FERC Draft Policy Statements

To Our Community: 

Your voices are needed, again. This time, to demand that FERC adopt critical reforms that: better assess the impact of methane gas infrastructure projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and to make the way FERC determines ‘need’ and ‘public interest’ and therefore ‘Certifies’ (approves) a gas project more comprehensive. The NGA gives FERC the authority and responsibility to site interstate gas pipelines, with a two step process. Step one requires the Commission to determine ‘need’ for the project, which has not been updated since 1999 and relies heavily on a flimsy process of agreements between companies and potential ‘shippers’ or customers, and step two requires the Commission to determine if a project is ‘in the public interest’, where industry’s interests have dominated over public interest factors like environmental impacts, environmental justice and climate change impacts. 

FERC announced two long overdue policy statements about the above issues in February 2022, then promptly withdrew them, following corporate tantrums about FERC simply following the law and directives from federal courts. FERC put the policy statements back on the menu as ‘drafts’ and reopened comment periods. We know…not the most glamorous call to action you’ve ever heard. To be clear, we support the adoption of these policies as they were announced in February as a step in the right direction and we call on FERC to take them much further. 

Here’s a quick review of the changes these draft policy statement would bring about at FERC, if adopted, that we are asking you to comment on: 

PL18-1-001: ‘Updated Pipeline Certificate Policy Statement’ 

  • “In 2018 and again, in 2021, the Commission issued notices of inquiry (NOI) seeking public comment on its 1999 policy statement on the certification of new interstate natural gas transportation facilities. In particular, the Commission requested information on the consideration of the effects of such projects on affected communities, the treatment of precedent agreements in determining the need for a project, and the scope of the Commission’s environmental review, including an analysis of the impact of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions. 
  • The Updated Certificate Policy Statement reaffirms many of the goals and objectives of the Commission’s 1999 policy statement, but further clarifies how the Commission will execute its public interest obligations under the Natural Gas Act. The Updated Policy Statement explains that, in making such determinations, the Commission intends to consider all impacts of a proposed project, including economic and environmental impacts, together. It also calls for a robust consideration of impacts to landowners and environmental justice communities in the Commission’s decision-making process.
  • And where the Commission traditionally has relied on precedent agreements between project applicants and shippers to establish the need for a project, the Updated Certificate Policy Statement states that applicants should provide more than just precedent agreements, to help explain why a project is needed, such as the intended end use of the gas. It also states that the Commission may consider other evidence of need, including demand projections, estimated capacity utilization rates, potential cost savings to customers, regional assessments and statements from state regulators or local utilities.”

PL21-3-001: ‘Interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Policy Statement’

  • “The Commission is issuing the Interim GHG Policy Statement to explain how it will assess the impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects on climate change in its reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Natural Gas Act. The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the interim policy statement, including, in particular, the approach to assessing the significance of the proposed project’s contribution to climate change. The guidance is subject to revision based on the record developed in this proceeding; however, the Commission will begin applying the framework established in this policy statement in the interim. This will allow the Commission to evaluate and act on pending applications under section 3 and section 7 of the Natural Gas Act without undue delay and with an eye toward greater certainty and predictability for all stakeholders.
  • The interim policy sets a threshold of 100,000 metric tons per year of GHG emissions. Projects under consideration with emissions above that level will require the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). The Commission will consider proposals by project sponsors to mitigate all or part of their projects’ climate change impacts. The Commission may condition its approval on further mitigation of those impacts.
  • In quantifying GHG emissions, FERC will consider emissions that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action. This will include GHG emissions from construction and operation of the project, and may include GHG emissions resulting from the upstream production and downstream combustion of transported gas.”

This public participation opportunity has tremendous potential to impact the way oil and gas projects are permitted by FERC in the future. It is an opportunity for the Stop MVP community to stand in solidarity with other frontline fights by advocating for policy that addresses the urgency of the climate crisis, even if it may not directly impact our pipeline fight. 

FERC has approved 474 methane gas infrastructure projects since 1999, while rejecting only two (NRDC). It’s worth noting that when they initially approved these policy statements, FERC was following the directives given to it for past errors by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and these new statements were actually attempts at simply following the law. Now that FERC has backed down from their attempt at accounting for the harms of greenhouse gas emissions and other critically important factors in their decisions following industry backlash, there is no doubt that industry will continue to attack these ‘draft policies’ on FERC’s public comment system.

That’s why it’s time for us to lace up our commenting shoes, and become docket warriors once again. For the MVP fighters who have fought so long and hard against this disastrous project. For the projects yet to be proposed that can be stopped through these policies. For all those who will be the first to suffer from the downstream emissions of these methane gas projects as they plunge us further into climate chaos – we must take these unglamorous opportunities by the horns and get to work. 

Stay with us now – brew a cup of tea and take a deep breath before attempting to navigate through FERC’s labyrinthine system, and not one but TWO dockets – we’ll be right here if you need us. We invite you to use the below talking points to formulate your own comment in support of the policies, and/or asking FERC to go further to meet the crisis with adequate action. 

WHEN: 

  • Comments are due April 25th at 4:59 PM ET. 
  • If you only have a minute, sign this fantastic petition from our allies at Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) or file a comment with Beyond Extreme Energy’s Action Network alert – we highly encourage you to write and submit your own comments too if you can!

HOW:

  • File brief, text-only comments using the eComment feature. UPDATE as of April 20th, 2022- it appears FERC is only allowing comments on these dockets through the eFiling feature – NOT the eComment feature. The docket numbers will not come up if you type them into the eComment feature.
  • File your comment via the eFiling feature. This requires an account with FERC (eRegister). Under: “How is your filing to be directed?” select “General“. Under “What kind of filing are you making?” select: “Comment on a Rulemaking (RM, PL AD Dockets)” and “Comment” will self-select under “Filing Type (Fee)”. Click “Next”, and then type in the dockets one comment at a time, or add both dockets at once: PL18-1-001 (gas pipeline certification) and/or PL21-3-001 (greenhouse gasses).
  • Mail to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC  20426. Reference (PL18-1-001 and/or PL21-3-001) on your letter.
  • If you need help navigating the FERC website, you can check out our guide here. Or you can contact Grace at grace@powhr.org 

How your screen should look when you begin the eFile process:

THINGS TO KNOW:  

  • Spend a few moments writing personalized comment(s). A personalized, individual comment (even a short one) has been acknowledged by FERC as having greater weight than a name on a petition, even though it shouldn’t! By law, these comments are part of the public record, so FERC has to read and consider these comments one by one on the docket. Therefore, taking the effort to submit individual comments shows genuine interest and stake in the matters at hand. 
  • Know that your comment and any personal information you submit will be part of the public record and accessible to anyone who desires to read it. 
  • Because, of course, it has to be as complicated as possible (it’s FERC after all) – these policies are related but separate, and therefore comments are being taken on two ‘dockets’. SO, what that means for you is: you can comment on one of these draft policies (do so in FERC’s eComment system by indicating their docket numbers) or both, if you’re feeling adequately caffeinated: 
  • Are you ready to throw your computer yet? And oh, why are the docket numbers 8 digits long? Is it to confuse the public? That’s you – the public – and you refuse to be confused. Carry on.

WHAT SHOULD I SAY? (AKA: TALKING POINTS):

  • Again, we encourage you to write your own comments – what you have to say is valid. These agencies are supposed to be in the service of the public, and your interests, concerns, fears, areas of expertise, lived experience, knowledge, recommendations, considerations and passions all hold weight here. FERC has repeatedly expressed interest in taking more of this into account – and we need to hold them to it. Below are some general ideas for starting points of your comment – or you can simply take one/a few bullets and expand on them as you see fit. Your voice is what matters! Don’t let industry be the only voices on the dockets! 

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Policy Statement (PL21-3-001, better assessing the impact of methane gas infrastructure projects on climate change) 

  • FERC says: “The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the interim policy statement, including, in particular, the approach to assessing the significance of the proposed project’s contribution to climate change”. Given that “methane is 30 times more potent than trapping heat than carbon dioxide over 100 years”, FERC must have a robust policy that drastically lowers allowable methane emissions (Stanford). 
  • Scientific evidence unequivocally states: “Limiting global warming will require major transitions in the energy sector. This will involve a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use, widespread electrification, improved energy efficiency, and use of alternative fuels”. FERC must listen to science, law and public interest to meet the moment with adequate response and action. 
  • Comment about how the climate, environmental justice and ecological justice crises impact your life and the things you care about, and why it is important that FERC adequately addresses these issues given their enormous power to regulate and approve gas projects.
  • Since FERC approves gas projects that cause GHG emissions, it must no longer ignore its active role in escalating the climate crisis. The law makes it clear that FERC must account for this, and this policy is a step in the right direction for determining significant GHG emissions and the potential mitigation of those emissions or rejection of projects. Further than that, emission mitigation measures remain largely unproven, are false solutions and continue our dependence on and pace of extraction. 
  • The new IPCC report released April 4th, 2022 says “Limiting global warming will require major transitions in the energy sector” and “without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, limiting global warming to 1.5°C is beyond reach.” FERC must do their part by considering operational and downstream combustion emissions in their project approvals and weighing their impacts accurately against the public benefits/’need’ of a project. 
  • FERC itself says in its new Strategic Plan: “In recent years, federal appeals courts have found the Commission’s examination of greenhouse gas emissions and analyses of environmental justice impacts related to proposed natural gas infrastructure to be insufficient. Given these court decisions, the Commission must improve its consideration of these issues, consistent with its statutory authority and obligations.” 
  • One of FERC’s main goals in its new strategic plan is: “Facilitate trust and understanding of FERC activities by promoting transparency and equity, open communication, and a high standard of ethics.” Telling the truth about FERC’s unbalanced policies and history, and adopting policy statements that begin to address the immense harms caused by past decisions and current policies are the only ways to work towards this goal. 
  • This draft policy states “This will include GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the project and, in many cases, GHG emissions resulting from the downstream combustion of transported gas.” FERC should adopt this policy statement at a minimum, but also needs to consider downstream combustion emissions in all cases. 

Pipeline Certificate Policy Statement (PL18-1-001, making the way FERC approves gas pipelines more comprehensive of all the public interests at hand): 

  • The direct climate and environmental justice impacts of projects approved by FERC are crucially important public interest factors, and FERC must no longer treat those as less important than other public interest factors. 
  • Talk about your belief and understanding of what factors make up the public interest, and why the priorities of health, safety, environmental justice, a just transition to renewable and clean energy, and climate justice must be adopted as policy if we are to have a livable future 
  • If you have direct experience with eminent domain processes and FERC’s current flawed process for determining project need, you can speak to the disastrous consequences when a project that is not in the public interest still gets approved. Currently, ‘public interest’ determinations rely heavily on ‘corporate interests’. 
  • FERC itself says in its new Strategic Plan: “In recent years, federal appeals courts have found the Commission’s examination of greenhouse gas emissions and analyses of environmental justice impacts related to proposed natural gas infrastructure to be insufficient. Given these court decisions, the Commission must improve its consideration of these issues, consistent with its statutory authority and obligations.” Therefore, FERC must adopt this draft policy statement.
  • If adopted, this draft policy statement would change: “where the Commission traditionally has relied on precedent agreements between project applicants and shippers to establish the need for a project, the Updated Certificate Policy Statement states that applicants should provide more than just precedent agreements, to help explain why a project is needed, such as the intended end use of the gas.” FERC must make these crucial changes to their process of determining need for gas projects. FERC should require applicants to fully and effectively ‘substantiate’ their evidence of need by official, independent demographic information of residential, private and public business and military demands for oil and gas; AND to show hard evidence as to why renewable and clean forms of energy are not an option. 
  • One of FERC’s main goals in its new strategic plan is: “Facilitate trust and understanding of FERC activities by promoting transparency and equity, open communication, and a high standard of ethics.” Telling the truth about FERC’s unbalanced policies and history, and adopting policy statements that begin to address the immense harms caused by past decisions and current policies are the only ways to work towards this goal. 
  • FERC must consider all public interest factors in its reviews. Without adopting this draft policy statement, FERC would continue to inadequately consider: 
    • Impacts on Existing Customers of Pending Projects before the Commission
    • Impacts on Existing Pipelines and their Customers
    • Environmental Impacts
    • Impacts on Landowners
    • Impacts on Environmental Justice Communities
    • Assessing Public Benefits and Adverse Effects
  • FERC should approve and apply this policy to pending, partially completed AND new projects, because the risks of not doing so are all imminently threatening to the public interests of the nation

I am Looking for Additional Help and Guidance: 

Published by

gracepowhr

Grace is POWHR's Coordinator. She enjoys gardening and fighting for a fossil-free future from Western Virginia.