Commissioner Richard Glick
August 13, 2018
Docket No. CP17-458-000
In today’s order, the Commission grants Midship Pipeline Company LLC’s (Midship) request for authorization to construct and operate its Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project (Project), which is designed to provide up to 1,440 million standard cubic feet (MMcf) per day of incremental firm transportation capacity from the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma to Gulf Coast and Southeast markets.1
The Commission concludes that the Project is required by the public convenience and necessity and that it will not have a significant effect on the environment.2
In reaching these conclusions, the Commission relies exclusively on precedent agreements for only 64 percent of the Project’s proposed transportation capacity—59 percent excluding affiliated agreements3
—and fails to consider the harm from the Project’s contribution to climate change.4
Before issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Commission must find both that the pipeline is needed, and that, on balance, the pipeline’s potential benefits outweigh its potential adverse impacts.5
As I have stated previously,6
I believe that today’s order fails to comply with our obligations under the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act.7
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
- 11 Midship Pipeline Company LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,103, at P 1 (2018).
- 22 Id. PP 23, 95.
- 33 Id. P 22.
- 44 EIS 4-191–4-192 (“[W]e cannot determine whether the [Project’s] contribution to climate change would be discretely or cumulatively significant.”).
- 55 15 U.S.C. § 717f (2012).
- 66 Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,099 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting); PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,098 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting); Spire STL Pipeline LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,085 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting); NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2018) (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting).
- 77 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (2012); see Florida Southeast Connection, LLC, 164 FERC ¶ 61,099 at 2–3 (Glick, Comm’r, dissenting) (In analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed project, under the NGA and NEPA, “the Commission must determine whether the impacts are ‘significant’ and whether those impacts can be mitigated. Only then will the Commission determine whether the project is environmentally acceptable.”); id. at 5–8.