Docket No. CP21-467-000
We concur with the decision to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) for its proposed Henderson City Expansion Project. We write separately because today’s order does not assess the significance of the climate impacts from the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[1] Both Commission precedent and common sense support the conclusion that the project’s GHG emissions will not “significantly” affect the environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).[2] Indeed, the proposed project will result in a net reduction in GHG emissions when the reasonably foreseeable downstream emissions are factored in. Where, as here, it is obvious that climate impacts cannot be deemed significant under any framework for assessing significance that the Commission may ultimately adopt, the Commission should just say so.
In Northern Natural Gas Co., the Commission found that it could determine the significance of GHG impacts for NEPA purposes using best available quantitative and qualitative evidence and applying its expertise and judgment.[3] The courts have long construed NEPA based on a “common sense” understanding of its terms.[4] The Commission has appropriately decided it will not make significance findings in cases involving potentially significant GHG emissions while we are considering comments on the draft GHG Policy Statement. However, that does not compel us to abandon applicable Commission precedent – or our common sense – in determining whether the GHG emissions in this case would “significantly” affect the environment.
The Henderson City Expansion Project would result in a substantial net decrease in GHG emissions when reasonably foreseeable downstream emissions reductions are considered. The modifications authorized in the order would generate 9,385 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in construction-related GHG emissions and an increase of 11,180 metric tons per year in direct operational emissions.[5] These direct project emissions will be dwarfed by the decrease in downstream emissions that will be made possible by CenterPoint Energy’s replacement of its coal-fired units with a combination of wind and solar generation, backed up by its new gas-fired units that will be supplied by the Henderson City Expansion Project.[6] Accordingly, the Commission should apply our precedent, as well as our common sense, to find that the GHG emissions here are not significant.
For these reasons, we respectfully concur.
[1] See Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, 181 FERC ¶ 61,049, at P 43 (2022) (Order). We agree with one another that (1) the Commission is fully capable of determining the significance of GHG emissions, and (2) there is no reason to wait for a final GHG Policy Statement to find the emissions here insignificant when they would be deemed so under any reasonable framework for assessing significance. However, as reflected in our separate concurring statements in recent certificate orders, our approaches differ when emissions levels are potentially significant. See, e.g., Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., 179 FERC ¶ 61,041 (2022) (Glick, concurring, at P 7) (“I would have found this project’s GHG emissions to be significant”) (Clements, concurring, at P 3) (appropriate to decline to label emissions or significant or insignificant while Commission considers comments on Draft GHG Policy Statement).
[2] NEPA § 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
[3] See N. Nat. Gas Co., 174 FERC ¶ 61,189, at PP 32, 33 (2021).
[4] See, e.g., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 551 (1978) (“common sense” teaches NEPA requirement for “detailed statement of alternatives” does not include every conceivable alternative).
[5] Order at P 49.
[6] Id. at P 47 (net reduction of downstream GHG emissions would be up to 2,075,603 metric tons per year at 100% load factor, although actual amount will depend on frequency with which new natural gas units operate). We acknowledge Sierra Club’s contention that we should use a “no coal baseline” in calculating net downstream GHG emissions. Sierra Club argues that CenterPoint’s coal-fired units will have to close irrespective of whether the proposed new gas-fired units are built or gas is supplied to them by virtue of the Commission approving the Henderson City Expansion Project. Id. at P 48. Texas Gas disputes that the coal-fired units would be shut down, explaining that CenterPoint instead would enter into bilateral capacity arrangements in the MISO market, where approximately 70% of generation capacity is fossil-fired. Texas Gas Reply Comments on Draft EIS at p. 4, Docket No. CP21-467-000 (June 22, 2022). CenterPoint also states that it could invest in upgrades to the coal-fired units to meet air quality regulations if the Henderson City Expansion Project were not built and it therefore could not obtain fuel for the new gas-fired units. See Comments of CenterPoint Energy Indiana South at p. 7, Docket No. CP21-467-000 (July 30, 2021). On balance, the record evidence supports the conclusion that the Henderson City Expansion Project will result in a net reduction of downstream GHG emissions.