Chairman Richard Glick Statement
March 18, 2021
Docket No. CP17-458-000
Order: C-5
I concur in today’s order requiring Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship) to expeditiously resolve the outstanding restoration issues along the pipeline route. I write separately to express my deep frustration with the disregard that Midship has shown for landowners and communities along the route of the Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project (Project). As explained in today’s order, Midship has failed to adequately restore nearly 50 parcels of land, notwithstanding extensive efforts made to remedy the situation by Commission staff and the affected landowners. These ongoing restoration issues and landowner disputes—identified in Appendices A and B to this order—require Midship’s immediate attention and remediation. It is past time for Midship to promptly resolve these issues and allow the landowners to move on with their lives.
On a broader note, we cannot forget that while a certificate of public convenience and necessity provides the holder with significant rights and privileges, it also imposes on the holder concomitant responsibilities, including the responsibility to satisfy every condition in the certificate. There must be consequences when the certificate holder fails to adequately fulfill those responsibilities. For instance, we can refer the matter to the Office of Enforcement for civil penalties.[1] We can also consider whether to revoke the certificate of public convenience and necessity itself.[2] In my opinion, both options should be on the table if Midship fails to promptly resolve its outstanding obligations to landowners.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations and Orders, 123 FERC ¶ 61,156, at P 6 (2008) (Revised Policy Statement on Enforcement) (“The Commission has a number of enforcement tools at its disposal in overseeing those areas of the electric, natural gas, hydroelectric, and oil pipeline industries within our jurisdiction. These tools include imposition of compliance plans; disgorgement of unjust profits; the ability to condition, suspend, or revoke market-based rate authority, certificate authority, or blanket certificate authority; the ability to refer matters to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution; and civil penalty authority.”).
[2] See Trunkline LNG Co., 22 FERC ¶ 61,245, at 61,444 (1983) (“[T]here can be no question that the Commission has the authority to revoke a certificate for violation of its terms or where the parties refuse to uphold the terms of the original contract on which the certificate was predicated.”).