FERC just rubberstamped three pipelines before Commissioner Robert Powelson exits next month. Yet Commissioners Glick and LaFleur are still complaining every time about lack of use of Social Cost of Carbon to account for Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Those dissents started after Sierra Club won against FERC and Sabal Trail in the DC District Court on just that subject; recently FERC and Sabal Trail declined to appeal to the Supreme Court, thus admitting the pipeline company and its permitter lost that case.
Open Season Maps, TX-LA Pipeline Project
Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur spelled out the connection in her dissent on Spectra’s Texas-Louisiana Markets Project:
I believe the fact pattern presented in this case, a pipeline designed to serve a specific known downstream powerplant, falls squarely within the precedent of Sierra Club v. FERC.1 Given that the majority’s analysis here suffers from the same flaws as its decision on remand in Sabal Trail,2 I respectfully dissent.
Commissioner Richard Glick in his dissent on the same pipeline also explicitly cited Sierra Club v. FERC (Sabal Trail) and went further about the specific underlying laws FERC is shirking:
“Today, the Commission issues a certificate to Texas Eastern Transmission, LP to construct and operate the Texas Industrial Market Expansion Project and the Louisiana Market Expansion Project (Projects), concluding that the Projects are required by the public convenience and necessity.1 The Commission also finds that the Projects will not have a significant effect on the environment.2 In reaching these conclusions, the Commission maintains that it need not consider the harm caused by the Projects’ contribution to climate change. The Commission’s refusal to do so falls well short of our obligations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)3 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).4 Because I disagree with these conclusions and believe the Commission cannot find that the Projects are in the public interest without first considering the significance of the Projects’ contribution to climate change,5 I dissent in part from the Commission’s action today.
And yes, he really wrote “shirk”:
“As I have stated previously,10 NEPA does not permit agencies to so easily shirk their responsibilities to consider environmental consequences; instead, it requires that the Commission engage in reasonable forecasting and estimation where doing so would further the statute’s two-fold purpose of ensuring that the relevant agency will “have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts” and that this information will be “available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.”11
FERC application Maps, TX-LA Pipeline Project
Glick also made it clear he was not just objecting to FERC not accounting for GHGs. He says without that, FERC the law says FERC can’t issue a certificate:
Congress determined under the NGA that no entity may transport natural gas interstate, or construct or expand interstate natural gas facilities, without the Commission first determining the activity is in the public interest.20 This requires the Commission to find, on balance, that a project’s benefits outweigh the harms, including the environmental impacts from climate change that result from authorizing additional transportation. Accordingly, it is critical that, as an agency of the federal government, the Commission comply with its statutory responsibility to document and consider how its authorization of a natural gas pipeline facility will lead to the emission of GHGs, contributing to the existential threat of climate change.
“For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.”
FERC approves gas pipelines as Powelson eyes exit Gavin Bade, Utility Dive, 19 July 2018,
FERC authorized the construction of the Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project and the Texas and Louisiana Market Expansion Project, as well as an upgrade to the North Seattle pipeline in Washington. The commission, however, refused to revisit a decision that blocked the construction of the Constitution pipeline.
The Constitution pipeline is the one for which New York State denied a water quality permit, citing the Sierra Club win against Sabal Trail and FERC among its arguments. That’s a Williams Company pipeline, and Williams’ Hillabee Expansion Project is part of the three-part Southeast Markets Pipeline Project that includes Sabal Trail. So Sabal Trail’s loss to Sierra Club is affecting Williams’ business.
One of FERC’s three new eminent-domain pipelines is a Spectra (Enbridge) project, so let’s mostly examine that, the Texas-Louisiana Markets Project. References for the other two are included at the end: the Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project and the Northwest Pipeline.
The Utility Dive article also says:
FERC’s GHG accounting for pipelines could change through its review of its approval policies, which McIntyre said would likely not be completed by the time Powelson steps down. Comments in the docket are due next week.
“I would love it if we could do that,” McIntyre said, “but that to me seems pretty darn ambitious.”
Instead, he said he hopes FERC can issue a decision before the winter, when Powelson, a die-hard Philadelphia sportsfan “transitions from his Phillies cap to his Eagles skicap.”
Glick and LaFleur actually dissented on many more FERC Orders than just these three. You’ll see more about that in the WWALS filing in the above-mentioned FERC “review of its approval policies”, for which the deadline is now tomorrow. It’s probably not a spoiler to say that WWALS will recommend that before FERC continues to be “pretty darn ambitious” in doling out eminent domain to private companies, it should get even more ambitious in dealing with GHG and otherwise doing its job.
If you don’t like details of specific cases, you can stop reading this blog post here.
-jsq, John S. Quarterman, Suwannee RIVERKEEPER®
You can join this fun and work by becoming a WWALS member today!
Spectra’s Texas-Louisiana Markets Project
Texas-Louisiana Markets Open Season, Binding Open Season Notice: February 15, 2017 – March 3, 2017, page 2, Spectra Energy
Spectra is now owned by Enbridge, which says in Texas-Louisiana Markets Project,
The Texas-Louisiana Markets Project will serve increased electric and industrial demand along the U.S. Gulf Coast. This project is designed to transport up to 157,500 dekatherms of natural gas per day through reversal of throughput on the 30-inch diameter Texas Eastern pipeline from Opelousas, Louisiana to Vidor, Texas.
The project also involves replacement of two impellers and installation of two gas cooling bays at the existing Gillis compressor station.
FERC’s elibrary isn’t much help. FERC Accession Number 20180723-3006, “Statement – Dissenting in Part of Commissioner Richard Glick on Texas Eastern Transmission, LP under CP18-10. Letter mailed to parties on July 19, 2018.” gets one of these error messages, depending on which PDF you try to read:
You do not have permission to view this file. Can not find this FileNet Document ID=33018940 !
You do not have permission to view this file. Can not find this FileNet Document ID=33017119 !
Ditto for Commissioner LaFleur’s dissent, in FERC Accession Number 20180723-3007, “Statement – Dissent of Commissioner Cheryl A. LaFleur on Texas Eastern’s Texas Industrial Market Expansion Project dated July 19, 2018 under CP18-10.”
Similar error messages appear even for the FERC Order FERC Accession Number 20180719-3060, “Order Issuing Certificate re Texas Eastern Transmission, LP under CP18-10. Commissioner Lafleur concurring and Commissioner Glick dissenting in part. “For errata notice see accession number 20180724-3035.””
Ditto the errata in FERC Accession Number 20180724-3035, “ Errata Notice to the 7/19/2018 Commission Order re Texas Eastern Transmission, LP under CP18-10. Commissioner LaFleur dissenting with a seperate statement.”For order see accession number 20180719-3060.””
Fortunately, FERC has the order and dissents elsewhere on its website. Pardon me if I include most of the dissents completely in this blog post, since we obviously can’t depend on FERC to archive its own documents.
FERC Order, Texas-Louisiana Markets Project
ORDER ISSUING CERTIFICATE, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Docket No. CP18-10-000, FERC, 19 July 2018,
On October 19, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 1 and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations 2 for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate the Texas Industrial Market Expansion Project (Texas Project) and Louisiana Market Expansion Project (Louisiana Project), together the TX — LA Markets Project, which are intended to provide 157,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/day) of incremental firm transportation service from receipt points on Texas Eastern’s interstate pipeline system in the West Louisiana Access Area to delivery points in Texas Eastern’s West Louisiana Access Area and South Texas Access Area. Texas Eastern also seeks authorization: (1) to use existing system rates as initial recourse rates for firm service on the projects (and a predetermination that it may roll project costs into its system rates in its next NGA section 4 rate case); and (2) to establish and charge an initial incremental electric power cost rate for firm service on the Texas Project. As discussed below, the Commission will grant the requested authorizations, subject to conditions.
1 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c) (2012).
2 18 C.F.R. pt. 157 (2017).
That’s on page 1 of 19 pages. Page 14 says:
Commissioner LaFleur is concurring with a separate statement attached.
Commissioner Glick is dissenting in part with a separate statement attached.
Yet Commissioner LaFleur’s statement, in the same PDF, says dissenting. Maybe FERC confused this LaFleur statement with another one she made about the Northwest Pipeline Order?
LaFleur Dissent, Texas-Louisiana Markets Project
Dissent on Texas Eastern’s Texas Industrial Market Expansion Project, Commissioner Cheryl A. LaFleur, FERC Docket No. CP18-10-000, Item C-2, 19 July 2018, (PDF)
“Today’s order grants Texas Eastern’s request for authorization to construct and operate the Texas Industrial Market Expansion Project (Texas Project) and the Louisiana Market Expansion Project (Louisiana Project), together the TX-LA Markets Project. I believe the fact pattern presented in this case, a pipeline designed to serve a specific known downstream powerplant, falls squarely within the precedent of Sierra Club v. FERC.1 Given that the majority’s analysis here suffers from the same flaws as its decision on remand in Sabal Trail,2 I respectfully dissent.
“As I articulated in my dissent in Sabal Trail, I believe that, given the Court’s finding that downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in that case were indirect impacts, the Commission must now quantify and consider those impacts as part of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review.3 In this case, the Commission quantified and disclosed the upper-bound estimate of the downstream GHG emissions associated with the Louisiana Project, which is fueling the Lake Charles Power Station, a natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant in Westlake, Louisiana.4 The volume of GHG emissions associated with this downstream use would result in about 0.7 percent increase in GHG emissions in Louisiana and a 0.03 percent increase of national GHG emissions, based upon 2015 state and national inventories. The majority states that it cannot “make a finding whether a particular quantity of greenhouse gas emissions poses a significant impact on the environment and how that impact would contribute to climate change.”5 I disagree.
“While the Commission appropriately calculated the GHG emissions from the Lake Charles Power Station, as required by Sabal Trail, I am troubled by the manner in which today’s order addresses the significance of the downstream GHG emissions. NEPA requires us to include discussion of indirect effects and their significance in our environmental review. I reject the contention that the Commission is unable to discern the significance of GHG emissions. We are required by NEPA to reach a determination regarding the significance of all environmental impacts, including downstream GHG emissions. It is our responsibility to use the best information we have to make that determination. One way we could assess the significance of a given rate or volume of GHG emissions is to compare the downstream GHG emissions associated with an individual project to the total state, regional, and/or national emission inventories.6 The fact that consideration of climate change is difficult does not alleviate our responsibilities under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and NEPA to determine the significance of GHG emissions.
“The majority also asserts that it cannot “determine how a project’s contribution to GHG emissions would translate into physical effects on the environment.”7 But that is precisely the use for which the Social Cost of Carbon was developed—it is a scientifically-derived metric to translate tonnage of carbon dioxide or other GHGs to the cost of long-term climate harm.8 By translating the emissions into monetized climate damages, the Commission could provide context to the quantified rate or volume of GHG emissions of a pipeline project and could ascribe significance as part of our NEPA review.9 We can account for changes in GHG emissions resulting from the combustion of the transported gas by applying the Social Cost of Carbon, which more accurately reflects the climate change impacts of a particular project.10 I believe the Social Cost of Carbon metric would more readily apply to a proposed pipeline project if we developed a fuller record to support a quantified cost-benefit approach to our pipeline reviews. I believe we should discuss how the Commission could effectively use the Social Cost of Carbon, and more broadly, how the Commission should consider climate change impacts in our environmental reviews as part of the notice of inquiry on the Certificate Policy Statement.11
“I also note that the Commission did not quantify and disclose the downstream GHG emissions associated with the Texas Project because there is no identified end-use in the record. If I were to vote for this order, I would need to compute the other downstream emissions estimates and consider them as part of my public interest determination.
“For all of these reasons, I dissent.”
1 867 F.3d 1357 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Sierra Club).
2 Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,233 (2018) (LaFleur, Comm’r, dissenting in part) (Sabal Trail)
3 Id.
4 The order includes an estimate that if all 75,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas were transported to combustion end uses, downstream end-use would result in the emissions of about 1.5 metric tpy of CO2e. Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 164 FERC ¶ 61,037 at PP 32-33 (2018) (Texas Eastern Certificate Order). The Commission should have sought more precise information to develop the record in this proceeding, to allow the Commission to more accurately assess the indirect impacts of downstream GHG emissions by calculating gross and net GHG emissions.
5 Texas Eastern Certificate Order at P 33.
6 Though the majority does disclose the state and national comparison data, it does not ascribe significance to the percent increase in GHG emissions, and instead concludes that it cannot making a finding on whether a particular amount of GHG emissions is significant. Texas Eastern Certificate Order at P 33.
7 Id.
8 https://www/epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/social_cost_of_carbon_fact_sheet.pdf; See also, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Comments, Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities, Notice of Inquiry, 163 FERC ¶ 61,042 (2018) (NOI on the Certificate Policy Statement), Docket No. PL18-1-000 (filed June 21, 2018) (The EPA explains that estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon allow an agency to “incorporate the societal value of changes in carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions into benefit-cost analyses of actions that have small, or marginal, impacts on cumulative global emissions.”).
9 Social Cost of Carbon is meant to measure the physical, incremental impacts from a project including changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property loss and damages from increased flood risk, and energy demand changes.
10 See, e.g., Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,233 (2018) (LaFleur, Comm’r, dissenting in part) (Sabal Trail Remand Order); Dominion Transmission Inc., 163 FERC ¶ 61,128 (2018) (LaFleur, Comm’r, dissenting in part); Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,158 (2018) (LaFleur, Comm’r, concurring); and Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 163 FERC ¶ 61,190 (2018) (LaFleur, Comm’r, concurring).
11 163 FERC ¶ 61,042 (2018).
Glick Dissent, Texas-Louisiana Markets Project
Dissenting in Part on Texas Eastern Transmission, LLP, Commissioner Richard Glick, FERC Docket No. CP18-10-000, Item C-2, 19 July 2018, (PDF)
“Today, the Commission issues a certificate to Texas Eastern Transmission, LP to construct and operate the Texas Industrial Market Expansion Project and the Louisiana Market Expansion Project (Projects), concluding that the Projects are required by the public convenience and necessity.1 The Commission also finds that the Projects will not have a significant effect on the environment.2 In reaching these conclusions, the Commission maintains that it need not consider the harm caused by the Projects’ contribution to climate change. The Commission’s refusal to do so falls well short of our obligations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)3 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).4 Because I disagree with these conclusions and believe the Commission cannot find that the Projects are in the public interest without first considering the significance of the Projects’ contribution to climate change,5 I dissent in part from the Commission’s action today.
“In today’s order, the Commission once again adopts a definition of indirect effects for purposes of analyzing upstream and downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is overly narrow and circular.6 The Commission quantifies a portion of the Projects’ downstream GHG emissions,7 but nonetheless fails to recognize that the harm caused by the Projects’ contribution to climate change is an indirect effect that the Commission must evaluate and consider under NEPA and the NGA.8 The Commission also contends, without further explanation, that it “has not identified a suitable method” for determining the impact from the Projects’ contribution to climate change and, absent such a method, it simply “cannot make a finding whether a particular quantity of [GHG] emissions poses a significant impact on the environment and how that impact would contribute to climate change.”9
“As I have stated previously,10 NEPA does not permit agencies to so easily shirk their responsibilities to consider environmental consequences; instead, it requires that the Commission engage in reasonable forecasting and estimation where doing so would further the statute’s two-fold purpose of ensuring that the relevant agency will “have available, and will carefully consider, detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts” and that this information will be “available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision.”11
“As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit explained in Sierra Club v. FERC (Sabal Trail), in the face of indefinite variables, “agencies may sometimes need to make educated assumptions about an uncertain future.”12 The Commission cannot point to the mere presence of uncertainty over upstream and downstream GHG emissions to excuse it from considering the harm from the Projects’ contribution to climate change. In the case of new natural gas pipelines, it is reasonable to assume that building incremental transportation capacity will spur additional production and result in some level of combustion of natural gas, even if the exact details of the method or location are not definite. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit explained in Mid States—a case that also involved downstream GHG emissions from new infrastructure for transporting fossil fuels—when the “nature of the effect” (end-use emissions) is reasonably foreseeable, but “its extent is not” (specific consumption activity producing emissions), an agency may not simply ignore the effect.13
“Based on the record here, it is entirely foreseeable that a portion of the natural gas transported through the Projects will be combusted, emitting GHGs that contribute to climate change. As noted above, the Projects are designed to provide firm natural gas transportation capacity to fuel Lake Charles Power Station and to serve Natgasoline, LLC, a new methanol production complex.14 Under these circumstances, the Commission must consider the harm from the Projects’ contribution to climate change.15
“Quantifying the Projects’ GHG emissions, including reasonably foreseeable upstream and downstream emissions, is a necessary—but not sufficient—step in meeting the Commission’s obligations to consider the Projects’ environmental effects associated with climate change. NEPA and the NGA’s public interest standard require the Commission to consider not the GHG emissions themselves but the resulting environmental impact. The Commission not only refuses to consider the significance of the Projects’ climate-change impact, but also maintains that it lacks the means to do so. 16
“The Commission is incorrect insofar as it concludes that there is no “suitable method” to consider the harm caused by the Projects’ contribution to climate change.17 That is precisely what the Social Cost of Carbon provides. It translates the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide into a monetary value, thereby providing a meaningful and informative approach for satisfying an agency’s obligation to consider how its actions contribute to the harm caused by climate change. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended this approach in its comments on the Commission’s pending review of the natural gas certification process, explaining that estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon “may be used for project analysis when [the Commission] determines that a monetary assessment of the impacts associated with the estimated net change in GHG emissions provides useful information in its environmental review or public interest determination.”18 Furthermore, the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality regulations themselves outline a framework for determining whether a project’s impacts on the environment will be considered significant.19
“Climate change poses an existential threat to our security, economy, environment, and, ultimately, the health of individual citizens. Unlike many of the challenges that our society faces, we know with certainty what causes climate change: It is the result of GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane, which can be released in large quantities through the production and consumption of natural gas. Congress determined under the NGA that no entity may transport natural gas interstate, or construct or expand interstate natural gas facilities, without the Commission first determining the activity is in the public interest.20 This requires the Commission to find, on balance, that a project’s benefits outweigh the harms, including the environmental impacts from climate change that result from authorizing additional transportation. Accordingly, it is critical that, as an agency of the federal government, the Commission comply with its statutory responsibility to document and consider how its authorization of a natural gas pipeline facility will lead to the emission of GHGs, contributing to the existential threat of climate change.
Congress determined under the NGA that no entity may transport natural gas interstate, or construct or expand interstate natural gas facilities, without the Commission first determining the activity is in the public interest.20 This requires the Commission to find, on balance, that a project’s benefits outweigh the harms, including the environmental impacts from climate change that result from authorizing additional transportation. Accordingly, it is critical that, as an agency of the federal government, the Commission comply with its statutory responsibility to document and consider how its authorization of a natural gas pipeline facility will lead to the emission of GHGs, contributing to the existential threat of climate change.
“For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.”
1 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, 164 FERC ¶ 61,037 (2018) (Certificate Order).
2 Id. P 33.
3 15 U.S.C. 717f (2012).
4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91–190, 83 Stat. 852.
5 Section 7 of the NGA requires that, before issuing a certificate for new pipeline construction, the Commission must find both a need for the pipeline and that, on balance, the pipeline’s benefits outweigh its harms. 15 U.S.C. § 717f (2012). Furthermore, NEPA requires the Commission to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts of its decisions. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii); Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). While I cannot support today’s order because it fails to meet these standards, I agree with the Commission’s conclusion that Texas Eastern has adequately demonstrated a need for the Projects.
6 See San Juan Citizens All. et al. v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 16-CV-376-MCA-JHR, 2018 WL 2994406, at *10 (D.N.M. June 14, 2018) (holding that it was arbitrary for the Bureau of Land Management to conclude “that consumption is not ‘an indirect effect of oil and gas production because production is not a proximate cause of GHG emissions resulting from consumption’” as “this statement is circular and worded as though it is a legal conclusion”). In adopting this narrow and circular definition, the Commission disregards the Projects’ central purpose—to facilitate natural gas consumption by providing new supplies to two identified end-use customers. See EA at 1 (describing the purpose and need for the Project as “provid[ing] an additional 157,500 dekatherms per day of firm capacity . . . to meet its contractual obligations with Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Natgasoline, LLC”).
7 Certificate Order, 164 FERC ¶ 61,037 at P 32.
8 Id. P 33. The Commission also ignores the other half of the Projects’ incremental transportation capacity, even though Natgasoline LLC, a “greenfield world scale methanol production complex,” has subscribed for the entire remainder. Natgasoline LLC, Fertilizer & Chemicals, Our Facilities, OCI (July 17, 2018), http://www.oci.nl/oci-fcg/our-facilities/natgasoline-llc.
9 Certificate Order, 164 FERC ¶ 61,037 at P 33.
10 See Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,197, at 7 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 163 FERC ¶ 61,190, at 2 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting in part); Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,158, at 1–2 (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting in part); Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP., 163 FERC ¶ 61,124, at 1–2 (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting in part); Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 162 FERC ¶ 61,223, at 6 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting).
11 Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 768 (2004) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). In order to evaluate circumstances in which downstream impacts of a pipeline facility are reasonably foreseeable results of constructing and operating the proposed facility, I am relying on precisely the sort of “reasonably close causal relationship” that the Supreme Court has required in the NEPA context and analogized to proximate cause. See id. at 767 (“NEPA requires a ‘reasonably close causal relationship’ between the environmental effect and the alleged cause. The Court [has] analogized this requirement to the ‘familiar doctrine of proximate cause from tort law.’”) (quoting Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 774 (1983)); see also Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2014) (“Proximate cause is often explicated in terms of foreseeability or the scope of the risk created by the predicate conduct.”); Staelens v. Dobert, 318 F.3d 77, 79 (1st Cir. 2003) (“[I]n addition to being the cause in fact of the injury [the but for cause], the plaintiff must show that the negligent conduct was a proximate or legal cause of the injury as well. To establish proximate cause, a plaintiff must show that his or her injuries were within the reasonably foreseeable risks of harm created by the defendant’s negligent conduct.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
12 867 F.3d 1357, 1374 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
13 Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 520, 549 (8th Cir. 2003).
14 See supra note 6 (EA at 1).
15 Sabal Trail, 867 F.3d at 1371–72; id. at 1374.
16 Certificate Order, 164 FERC ¶ 61,037 at P 33. Notably, the Environmental Assessment lacks any discussion of climate change.
17 See supra note 9.
18 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Comments, Docket No. PL18-1-000, at 4–5 (filed June 21, 2018).
19 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (2017) (setting forth a list of factors agencies should rely on when determining whether a project’s environmental impacts are “significant” considering both “context” and “intensity.”).
20 15 U.S.C. 717f(c)(1)(A).
Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project
FERC Order, Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project
FERC Accession Number 20180719-3054, 19 July 2018, “Order Issuing Certificate re Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC under CP17-80.”
LaFleur Dissent in Part, Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project
FERC Accession Number 20180723-3011, also, “Statement – Concurrence of Commissioner Cheryl A. LaFleur on Columbia Gas Transmission, L.L.C., Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project dated July 19, 2018 under CP17-80.”
Glick Dissent, Eastern Panhandle Expansion Project
FERC Accession Number 20180723-3009, “Statement – Dissenting in Part Commissioner Richard Glick on Columbia Gas Transmission, L.L.C. under CP17-80. Letter mailed to parties on July 19, 2018.”
Northwest Pipeline
FERC Order, Northwest Pipeline
ORDER ISSUING CERTIFICATE AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT, Northwest Pipeline LLC Docket Nos. CP17-441-000, CP17-441-001, FERC, 19 July 2018.
LaFleur Dissent, Northwest Pipeline
Concurrence on Northwest Pipeline’s North Seattle Project, Commissioner Cheryl A. LaFleur, 19 July 2018.
Glick Dissent, Northwest Pipeline
Dissenting in Part on Northwest Pipeline LLC, Commissioner Richard Glick, 19 July 2018.
-jsq, John S. Quarterman, Suwannee RIVERKEEPER®
You can join this fun and work by becoming a WWALS member today!
Short Link: