Commissioner Richard Glick Dissent in Part Regarding Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC & Equitrans, L.P. (CP16-10-006, CP16-13-000)

Commissioner Richard Glick Statement
October 9, 2020
Docket No.  CP16-10-006, CP16-13-000

I dissented from the Commission’s June 2018 order denying rehearing[1] of the decision to issue the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and Equitrans Expansion Projects (collectively, the Projects) certificates pursuant to section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.  In my view, the Commission did not have a sufficient basis to find that the Projects were needed and the Commission did not adequately evaluate the environmental impact of the Projects’ greenhouse gas emissions and contribution to climate change.  But, those issues are not before us today.  The only question here is whether to grant MVP’s request for a two-year extension of time to complete construction of the Projects and put them into service.  The record before us does not indicate any bad faith or intentional delay on MVP’s part to construct these projects.  Rather MVP’s inability to timely complete the pipeline seems to be due primarily to the multiple infirm permits it received from other federal agencies and their subsequent invalidation in court.[2]  Accordingly, and on that basis, I support the extension of time.     

Nevertheless, I dissent in part because the Commission denies motions to intervene from numerous landowners and an environmental group that were not parties to the underlying Certificate Order proceeding.[3]  The Commission contends that only entities that participated in the underlying Certificate Order proceeding may intervene to address MVP’s extension request and, because these entities did not, they are out of luck.[4] 

I disagree.  The would-be intervenors are predominately landowners residing on or near the pipeline route—giving them an obvious interest in these proceedings—and they explained how extending the deadline to complete construction would harm those interests.  That alone should be enough for the Commission to grant them party status and consider their arguments on the merits.  That is especially so given the Commission’s oft-professed concern for landowners.  Time and time again, landowners do their very best to navigate the complexity of FERC proceedings.  And, time and time again, the Commission relies on technicalities to prevent them from even having the opportunity to vindicate their interests.  When it comes to protecting landowner interests, we should look at what the Commission does, not what it says.  With that in mind, today’s order tells you everything need to know about how much the Commission cares about landowners.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.

________________________

Richard Glick

Commissioner