Docket No. CP14-517-001
I concur with the Commission’s decision to grant Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC’s (Golden Pass LNG) requested amendment of its 2016 authorization of the Golden Pass LNG export terminal. I write separately because today’s order does not assess the significance of the climate impacts from the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Commission precedent supports the conclusion that the project’s GHG emissions will not “significantly” affect the environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).[1] Where, as here, it is unlikely that climate impacts can be deemed significant under any framework for assessing significance that the Commission may ultimately adopt, the Commission should simply 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.[2] The courts have long construed NEPA based on a “common sense” understanding of its terms.[3] Like previous orders, today’s order explains that the Commission is not making a determination on significance because the Commission intends to assess how we will conduct significance determinations in the pending generic proceeding on our now-draft policy statement. However, that does not compel us to abandon applicable Commission precedent in determining whether the GHG emissions in this case would “significantly” affect the environment.
I would have preferred for the Commission to apply its Northern Natural precedent.[4] The record here reflects that the project’s construction will result in GHG emissions estimated at up to 374,569 metric tons of CO2e over the four-year construction period—or less than 100,000 metric tons per each of those four years.[5] I would have concluded that these GHG emissions are not significant. And as I have explained before, in my view there is nothing about GHG emissions or their contribution to climate change that prevents this agency from making determinations about their significance.[6]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] NEPA § 102(2)(C), 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
[2] See N. Nat. Gas Co., 174 FERC ¶ 61,189, at PP 32, 33 (2021).
[3] 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).
[4] N. Nat. Gas Co., 174 FERC ¶ 61,189 at P 32 (finding that “there is nothing about GHG emissions or their resulting contribution to climate change that prevents us from making . . . [a] significance determination”).
[5] Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC, 180 FERC ¶ 61,058, at P 20 (2022).
[6] See, e.g., Texas LNG Brownsville LLC, 169 FERC ¶ 61,130, at PP 5-7, 17-19 (2019) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting); Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 172 FERC ¶ 61,039, at P 17 (2020) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting).