Docket Nos. PL21-3-000, PL21-3-001
PHILLIPS, Commissioner, ROSNER, Commissioner, CHANG, Commissioner, concurring:
Since our confirmation hearings and first day as commissioners, we have been clear in our commitment to follow the law when evaluating applications for natural gas infrastructure projects. This includes rigorous compliance with the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as written by Congress and interpreted by federal courts. Given this commitment, we write separately to address today’s order closing this proceeding.
The consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in our review of natural gas infrastructure projects has been one of the most challenging issues before the Commission for several years. The extent to which the Commission must account for the project’s GHG emissions and in turn the impacts on global climate change has been debated and litigated at length before the Commission and the courts. Furthermore, the courts have continued to review and clarify the Commission’s obligations regarding the sufficiency of our evaluation of GHG emissions, including remanding individual cases in which they find our analysis lacking. The Commission has worked through the GHG Policy Statement proceeding, individual dockets, and appellate proceedings to resolve the differing views on the Commission’s legal authority and responsibility to consider GHG emissions and provide clarity to developers, customers, communities, affected landowners, and other stakeholders.
The GHG Policy Statement, subsequently converted to a draft policy statement, is a key part of that work, and the Commission’s decision today to close this proceeding brings this multi-year initiative to an end. Nonetheless, we recognize that the GHG Policy Statement proceeding has provided information that has proven useful for the Commission in developing our current bipartisan, court-affirmed approach to considering GHG issues on a case-by-case basis.
As a result of the Commission’s recent deliberations, our approach to GHGs has evolved. To comply with NEPA, the Commission estimates reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions attributable to a proposed project,[1] provides a qualitative discussion of potential adverse effects from such emissions,[2] and, where possible, further contextualizes the emissions levels by comparing them to any applicable national and statewide emissions levels[3] and calculating monetized values.[4] Furthermore, “we expect project sponsors to evaluate technically and economically feasible strategies to reduce or avoid GHG emissions during construction and operation of a natural gas infrastructure project.”[5] And ultimately, our evaluation of public convenience and necessity under the NGA requires that “the Commission balances the need for and benefits derived from the project against the potential adverse consequences. Those consequences include impacts on landowners as well as environmental impacts identified in the NEPA document developed for the project.”[6]
All of our colleagues have joined us on orders using this approach to comply with our NGA and NEPA obligations. Critically, the courts have upheld it. If this approach is continued, it will provide more certainty for all parties and stakeholders, fulfill the Commission’s obligations to consider environmental impacts in its decisions, and inform the public regarding the basis for those decisions. We remain committed to work with our colleagues to comply with the Commission’s legal obligations under the NGA and NEPA and to ensure that we have reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy to meet our nation’s growing needs.
For these reasons we respectfully concur.
______________________________
Willie Phillips
Commissioner
______________________________
David Rosner
Commissioner
______________________________
Judy Chang
Commissioner
[1] See, e.g., Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., __ FERC ¶ 61,___, at P 76 (2025) (Order Reinstating Certificate on Remand); E. Shore Nat. Gas Co., 190 FERC ¶ 61,033, at P 47 (2025); Venture Glob. CP2 LNG, LLC, 189 FERC ¶ 61,148, at P 83 (2024); ANR Pipeline Co., 188 FERC ¶ 61,063, at P 45 (2024).
[2] See, e.g., Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., __ FERC ¶ 61,___, at PP 76–77 (2025) (Order Reinstating Certificate on Remand); E. Shore Nat. Gas Co., 190 FERC ¶ 61,033, at P 54 (2025); Venture Glob. CP2 LNG, LLC, 189 FERC ¶ 61,148, at PP 85, 87 (2024); ANR Pipeline Co., 188 FERC ¶ 61,063, at P 46 (2024).
[3] See, e.g., Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., __ FERC ¶ 61,___, at P 76 (2025) (Order Reinstating Certificate on Remand); E. Shore Nat. Gas Co., 190 FERC ¶ 61,033, at PP 47, 51–52 (2025); Venture Glob. CP2 LNG, LLC, 189 FERC ¶ 61,148, at PP 83, 88 (2024); ANR Pipeline Co., 188 FERC ¶ 61,063, at PP 47–49 (2024).
[4] See, e.g., Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., __ FERC ¶ 61,___, at PP 3, 76, 85 (2025) (Order Reinstating Certificate on Remand); E. Shore Nat. Gas Co., 190 FERC ¶ 61,033, at PP 47–54 (2025); Venture Glob. CP2 LNG, LLC, 189 FERC ¶ 61,148, at PP 81–99 (2024); ANR Pipeline Co., 188 FERC ¶ 61,063, at PP 46, 50 (2024).
[5] Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., __ FERC ¶ 61,___, at P 87 (2025); N.J. Conservation Found. v. FERC, 111 F.4th 42, at 56-57 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
[6] Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., __ FERC ¶ 61,___, at P 99; N.J. Conservation Found. v. FERC, 111 F.4th at 62-63.