Commissioner Richard Glick Statement
December 19, 2019
Docket No. P-12569-018
Dissent in Part Regarding Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, Washington
I dissent in part from today’s order because I disagree with the Commission’s decision to deny the motions to intervene filed by American Whitewater, Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Columbiana, and Sierra Club (Conservation Groups). As I have previously explained1
, I do not think it is appropriate for the Commission to deny an entity party status—and the rights that come with it2
—simply because the Commission is bothered by the need to address their comments. In a proceeding such as this one, if we disagree with commenters’ arguments, we should so say on the record rather than keeping them out of the proceeding altogether. That is especially so where the Commission has persuasive responses on the merits, as it does here in response to the Conservation Groups’ arguments regarding the disposition of the Enloe Dam and associated facilities. At the end of the day, I simply do not see what public purpose is served by restricting participation in Commission proceedings, especially when the Commission proceeds to address the would-be intervenors’ comments all the same.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.
- 11 Eagle Crest Energy Co., 168 FERC ¶ 61,186 (2019) (Glick. Comm’r, dissenting).
- 22 In order to seek rehearing or judicial review on the merits, it is necessary to be a party to the underlying proceeding. See 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (2018) (providing that “[a]ny party to a proceeding” may appeal the Commission’s order in that proceeding); Cal. Trout v. FERC, 572 F.3d 1003, 1013 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009); N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist. v. FERC, 730 F.2d 1509, 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (a non-party must be considered a party only “for the limited purpose of reviewing the agency’s basis for denying party status”).