Chairman Richard Glick Statement
January 20, 2022
Docket No. CP16-9-011, CP16-9-012
We have looked at the issues raised in response to the February Briefing Order[1] from every possible angle. Unfortunately, the record before us simply does not provide a basis for granting the relief requested by Petitioners.[2]
In my opinion, the Commission likely erred in siting the Weymouth Compressor Station where it did. This facility is located in a heavily populated area that is home to two environmental justice communities Those communities have borne a disproportionate burden from a legacy of industrial activity, including elevated rates of asthma, certain cancers, and other serious illnesses.[3] Particularly in light of that history, Petitioners’ concern about the impacts of the Weymouth Compressor station and the blowdowns it has experienced is legitimate, understandable, and, frankly, inadequately assessed in the underlying certificate orders.
But that is not the issue before us today. The certificate is final[4] and, under the law as it stands, that leaves only one issue for us to decide: Whether it was error to allow the project to go into service? The deficiencies in the now-final certificate do not provide a legal basis to prevent the Weymouth Compressor Station from entering service based on the record in this proceeding.
Although it is cold comfort for the residents near the compressor station, I hope that this proceeding will serve as a turning point for the Commission as we work to better consider, address, and act on issues of environmental justice. Partly in response to the lessons learned from the Weymouth proceeding, the Commission has taken steps to ensure that individuals and communities have a full and fair opportunity to participate meaningfully in Commission proceedings. In the last year, the Commission established and filled a new senior role tasked with integrating environmental justice and equity into the Commission’s decision-making processes, formally sought input on how we consider environmental justice in various aspects of jurisdiction, and, last but by no means least, created an Office of Public Participation to facilitate public engagement in Commission proceedings. My great hope is that these changes will ensure that history does not repeat itself.
Finally, while the Commission’s role with respect to the Weymouth Compressor station is largely over, federal oversight remains. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has continuing jurisdiction over the public health and safety aspects of the compressor station’s operations. I urge PHMSA to keep a watchful eye on the facility and use the full extent of its jurisdiction to protect the residents of Weymouth. In addition, I urge Enbridge to take its obligations as a corporate citizen seriously and take a hard look at any and all options to address the community’s concerns.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
Richard Glick
Chairman
[1] Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 174 FERC ¶ 61,126, order on reh’g, 175 FERC ¶ 61,150 (2021).
[2] Petitioners in this case are Fore River Residents Against the Compressor Station, the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, Weymouth Councilor Rebecca Haugh, Michael Hayden, and Food and Water Watch.
[3] See, e.g., Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, Initial Brief at 6-7 (Apr. 2, 2021) (noting that lung cancer rates in the two environmental justice areas of the Fore River Basin are 39 percent higher than the statewide rate, and that communities within 1.5 miles of the compressor station are “in the top quartile of the state for six types of cancers, heart attack rates, and COPD and asthma hospitalizations”).
[4] See Order at P 25 & n.79 (noting that the Certificate Order became final upon filing of the agency record in court and that the D.C. Circuit affirmed that order) (citing Town of Weymouth v. FERC, No. 17-1135, 2018 WL 6921213, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2018) (unpublished)).