Commissioner James Danly Statement
October 14, 2022
CP18-512-002, CP18-513-002
I write separately to commend to the readers’ attention my separate statement issued with the underlying order.[1] I have only one point I would like to raise with regard to this rehearing order: even though the Commission’s practice of establishing project deadlines in authorization orders is in order to “diminish[] the potential that the public interest might be compromised by significant changes occurring between issuance of the certificate and commencement of the project,”[2] our inquiry when reviewing a request for an extension of time is narrow—it is not an opportunity to revisit the determinations made after orders have become final and unappealable.[3] As today’s order recognizes, “extension of time proceedings are not an invitation to re-open closed proceedings.”[4] To the extent to which today’s order includes any statements that suggest otherwise, I disagree.[5] The question we ask in extension of time proceedings is whether there is good cause to grant the extension—and indeed, in this case, there was.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, 179 FERC ¶ 61,087 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring).
[2] Altamont Gas Transmission Co., 75 FERC ¶ 61,348, at 62,103 (1996).
[3] See Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, 179 FERC ¶ 61,087 at P 15 (“extension of time proceedings are not an invitation to re-open the dockets”) (citations omitted); see also Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 179 FERC ¶ 61,226, at P 20 (2022) (“Rule 716 does not provide the Commission with additional authority to reopen the record underlying the Certificate Order here, where a final, non-appealable order has issued.”) (citations omitted); id. (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at P 5) (“Circumstances, no matter how extraordinary, cannot themselves grant jurisdiction where Congress has conferred no power. In the absence of authority provided by Congress, the Commission simply cannot revisit its public convenience and necessity determinations once a certificate order becomes final and unappealable.”).
[4] Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, 181 FERC ¶ 61,033, at P 15 (2022) (citations omitted).
[5] See, e.g., id. P 11 (“the Commission sets deadlines, in part, because the information supporting our public convenience and necessity determinations can go stale with the passage of time.”) (citation omitted).