C-5
I dissent from today’s order authorizing Venture Global’s proposed CP2 LNG terminal and CP Express Pipeline project. I do so because the Commission has not adequately addressed the projects’ environmental and socioeconomic impacts, including adverse impacts on environmental justice communities. These projects will have enormous emissions of greenhouse gases, equivalent to putting more than 1.8 million new gas-fueled cars on the road each year. The order does not meaningfully assess those emissions.
Since the EIS for the projects was issued, there have been important developments that should have been addressed in a supplemental EIS. Instead, the Commission relies on updated air pollution impact modeling submitted by Venture Global itself, without giving the public access to the underlying data or any opportunity to comment. These and other deficiencies violate multiple statutes and preclude me from finding either project is in or consistent with the public interest.
E-1
Thanks for the good work on this ANOPR. I am so glad we are issuing it today. Pick your favorite real-life example or study cited in this ANOPR and they all have the same theme: we are leaving significant benefits and cost savings on the table for every minute that we fail to deploy and utilize DLRs on our transmission system.
This has been a long time coming. We first voted on DLR issues in December 2021. That’s nearly 3 years to move the ball forward several yards – with most of the field yet to cover. Best case, we are looking at another year for the NOPR and then a final rule, plus compliance and implementation after that. All of this emphasizes the need for good, thoughtful comments in response to this ANOPR, which sets up a promising framework. I encourage you file comments and to get specific. I want to thank Byron Corum who made this ANOPR better by working so hard on it for our team.
Closing Remarks
Across the three commissions of which I have been a part, we have accomplished a great deal. It has taken the majority of my term to create, develop, and bring across the finish line two major rules of which I am very proud, Order Nos. 2023 and 1920.
These rules set the stage for ensuring our nation’s electricity system will be sufficient to drive a flourishing U.S. economy, to protect national security, to keep costs manageable for all Americans, and to protect communities in the face of climate driven extreme weather and disasters. I believe when the dust settles, Order No. 1920 will be understood as a legally sound, commonsense evolution of electricity system planning necessary to meet the challenges of our modern society. It will direct billions of dollars that are already spent annually on transmission towards more beneficial outcomes for customers. States that support cost-effective long-term planning will have a leg up in the fierce competition for economic development, and more importantly, in the quest to protect the health and safety of their citizens.
I am also particularly proud of the progress we have made in encouraging the deployment of grid enhancing technologies. There is a lot more to look forward to in the quest to deploy these technologies, but I am glad it is now understood and believed that transmission owners are not satisfying their responsibility for just and reasonable service if they are not moving swiftly to deploy GETs.
On the electric side, we have also set the table for further actions on cost management, interregional transmission, gas-electric coordination, and for the next steps on interconnection reform. The list for topics of discussion is great. Some of them are discussed in my Order No. 2023 concurrence and I will be eagerly watching from home.
There will also be the continuing need to address the threats posed by extreme cold weather events that have revealed cracks in our system’s preparedness. We have made important strides under Chairman Phillip’s leadership on reliability standards, but as demonstrated today in our Cold Weather standards order, the process has plenty of room for improvement. Beyond reliability standards, our forums on winter energy adequacy challenges in New England offered important lessons learned, including the value in rigorous analysis on the front end to define the problem we are trying to solve. As I have said in the past, that approach must be a hallmark of market evolution going forward.
Of course, there is also more work to be done with respect to our Natural Gas Act responsibilities. There remains the need for good-faith dialogue and progress on developing a modern decisional framework for deciding on new project applications. The Commission needs an updated policy that looks beyond private contracts for new gas capacity and accounts for all factors affecting the public interest. The complexities of the energy transition demand a more discerning, forward-looking approach to evaluating the need for new gas projects.
One of my team’s and my proudest accomplishments is being associated with the establishment of the Office of Public Participation. Building an office from nothing is not easy. Early in my term I spent time thinking about the ways we could support OPP to take root and grow. And it’s more than grown – it has flourished, now with 20 staff members, including remote staff covering the Northeast, Gulf and Southwest, and Northwest. The foundation of this office was established by OED, Stacey Steep, and then Elin Katz and Nicole Sitaraman. Now, each of its team members are continuing to build the program and welcome public voices into FERC’s proceedings. I look forward to seeing OPP continue to thrive in the years to come.
I too have tried to maintain an open-door policy and taken meetings with all kinds of stakeholders, regardless of the name of their organization or their perspective. As a result, I have had the chance to meet and learn a great deal from a broad array of stakeholders.
This is an impressive Commission of five and I am optimistic about what they will achieve. As I depart, I humbly offer my perspective on what I have learned during my term.
At this moment in time, when facts on the ground are changing so quickly, it is difficult to regulate at the pace necessary to keep up. I urge the new Commission to lean in and take a proactive approach to reliably and affordably adapting to the energy transition that is underway. Regulation will fail if it is deemed “ideological” to try and skate where the puck is going. More than any time in our memory, the Commissions’ regulations must be nimble in the face of a changing energy system and new threats. The antidote to new challenges is not an inflexible devotion to the past. A regulator’s job in these times of rapid change and uncertainty, as Judge Scott Hempling would say, is to lead, not preside. And finally, the public interest cannot apply to only a portion of the public. Underserved and overburdened communities must be a key constituency, as they don’t have the same means to advocate for themselves as others.