August 25, 2023
Docket No. RP23-466-000
I concur with today’s order.[1] I believe it is rational for the Commission to find that Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC (Florida Gas) has not satisfied its burden to show that its proposed tariff provisions on renewable natural gas (RNG) gas quality standards are just and reasonable under section 4 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).[2]
I write separately because of my misgivings regarding the Commission’s adjudication of RNG standards.[3] The approval of RNG standards raise technical questions involving pipeline integrity, health, and safety—none of which the Commission has the expertise to assess. The Commission does not deny this and we implicitly acknowledge it by “encourag[ing] the industry to develop standards for RNG.”[4]
But unitl that happens—if it does—what is the Commission’s plan? It appears that it is to simply accept unopposed tariff filings, regardless of whether they are solely based on general studies (evidence which the Commission states is insufficient),[5] while rejecting similar filings if they are opposed. Indeed, the Commission has done just that. In Great Basin Gas Transmission, Inc.,[6] an order which I supported, the Commission without any discussion or analysis approved unopposed RNG standards that Great Basin Gas Transmission Company (Great Basin) stated were “informed by natural gas industry best practices with respect to RNG specifications, discussions with entities requesting RNG interconnections, the gas quality specifications of RNG of interstate and intrastate pipelines in the western United States, and the constituents in Great Basin’s current gas stream.”[7] Great Basin provided no project-specific data.
Today’s order, however, rejects RNG standards which Florida Gas claims “are almost identical to the quality standards submitted in Great Basin, and the support submitted by Florida Gas is similar to the support submitted in Great Basin.”[8] The Commission does not refute Florida Gas’ claims. Instead, the Commission states that “each proposal is unique and we make our determination based off the record in each proceeding”[9] and that the RNG standards in Great Basin were “approv[ed] based on a collaborative process” despite the Great Basin having said no such thing.[10] The only apparent difference: Great Basin was unopposed.
What are potential filers to learn from this precedent? The Commission does not want to adjudicate technical arguments on whether RNG standards are needed for pipeline integrity, health, and safety. It should not go unnoticed that, while the order states that “Florida Gas has not shown how [the filed] studies and standards relate to its own system,”[11] the Commission offers no guidance on what explanation it might accept. Instead, the Commission states, “we encourage . . . parties to work collaboratively” and “[s]ettlement is encouraged.”[12] In other words, do not bother filing RNG standards unless you expect no opposition.
While I do not fault the Commission for wanting to avoid the adjudication of matters upon which it has no expertise, I cannot help but wonder how only accepting unopposed filings supports the purported purpose of our gas quality standard requirements, which is, to “avoid[] unnecessary restrictions on gas supplies.”[13] According to Florida Gas, its proposed provisions are intended to “allow for receipt of [RNG] on [Florida Gas’] pipeline system,”[14] meaning that current provisions do not allow some RNG supplies to be transported on the pipeline system. Several parties appear to agree that absent tariff changes Florida Gas cannot receive certain volumes of RNG on its system.[15] This is not unique to Florida Gas. Other pipelines have also suggested that tariff revisions are necessary to receive RNG.[16]
Instead of only accepting unopposed RNG standards—which are only likely on pipelines with few shippers—perhaps the Commission consider—and articulate—the minimal demonstration necessary for a pipeline to show its RNG standards to be just and reasonable under the NGA.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] Fla. Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 184 FERC ¶ 61,121 (2023) (Florida Gas).
[2] 15 U.S.C. § 717c.
[3] See Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 175 FERC ¶ 61,091 (2021) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at P 1).
[4] Florida Gas, 184 FERC ¶ 61,121 at P 43 n.94.
[5] Id. P 43 (“relying on studies and standards from outside of the pipeline’s own system is by itself insufficient”).
[6] Great Basin Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 178 FERC ¶ 61,071 (2022) (Great Basin).
[7] Great Basin Gas Transmission Co. December 21, 2021 Tariff Filing, Docket No. RP22-432-000, at 2 (Accession No. 20211221-5094) (Great Basin Tariff Filing).
[8] See also Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC March 21, 2023 Answer, at 6-7 (Accession No. 20230321-5144).
[9] Florida Gas, 184 FERC ¶ 61,121 at P 42.
[10] Id. P 42 n.90. In Great Basin, in discussing the background of the proceeding, the Commission merely describes the natural gas company as “stat[ing] that it collaborated with interested shippers and intervenors . . . and, based on that collaboration, modified its proposed tariff filing to reflect agreements reached during the collaboration.” 178 FERC ¶ 61,071 at P 9. The Commission’s determination is one sentence: “We find that Great Basin’s proposed tariff changes are just and reasonable.” Id. P 11.
[11] Florida Gas, 184 FERC ¶ 61,121 at P 43.
[12] Id. P 46.
[13] Id. P 44 (citation omitted).
[14] Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC February 27, 2023 Tariff Filing, at 1 (Accession No. 20230227-5068) (emphasis added); see also Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC Uncontested Settlement, Docket No. RP21-441-000, at Art. VII, section 6 (Accession No. 20220118-5002) (“the Settling Parties shall conduct negotiations in an attempt to reach consensus on the acceptability of the tariff language . . . which is designed to facilitate the introduction of [RNG] into the Florida Gas system.”) (emphasis added).
[15] See Chesapeake Utilities Corp. June 30, 2023 Post Technical Conference Reply Comments, at 3 (Accession No. 20230630-5280) (“Unfortunately, until the Commission approves tariff sheets authorizing the introduction of RNG on the Florida Gas pipeline, this project is at risk for missing its targeted in-service date because there is no clear path for the facility to connect to the Florida Gas system.”) (emphasis added); Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. June 30, 2023 Post-Technical Conference Reply Comments, at 11 (Accession No. 20230630-5295) (“[I]t is simply premature to degrade or remove the relatively few safeguards that [Florida Gas] has proposed before it will accept RNG volumes en masse”) (emphasis added); American Forest & Paper Association, et al. June 12, 2023 Post Technical Conference Comments, at 1 (Accession No. 20230612-5127) (“The filed tariff language would establish new standards and procedures that allow for receipt of [RNG] on [Florida Gas’] pipeline system . . . .”) (emphasis added); Florida Power & Light Co. June 12, 2023 Initial Post-Technical Conference Comments at 2 (Accession No. 20230612-5180) (“the introduction of RNG into [Florida Gas’] system”) (emphasis added).
[16] See Great Basin Tariff Filing at 1 (“The purpose of this filing is to modify Great Basin’s Tariff language to define and allow for the receipt and transport of [RNG] on its pipeline system.”); id. (“The proposed changes are designed to enable Great Basin to accept RNG at RNG Receipt Points on its system and promote and enable the development of RNG in Great Basin’s market area while protecting the integrity of Great Basin’s system, the gas-burning equipment of its customers, and the general public.”); Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (DETI) October 30, 2020 Tariff Filing, Docket No. RP21-144-000, at 1 (Accession No. 20211030-5052) (“The proposed changes are designed to promote the development of RNG within DETI’s footprint . . . .”); id. (“DETI has received interest from numerous RNG developers to deliver gas to the DETI system and is interested in facilitating the acceptance of RNG.”). The Commission rejected Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.’s filing in Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc., 175 FERC ¶ 61,091.