Statement of Commissioner James P. Danly
February 23, 2023
CP17-470-003
I write separately to draw the reader’s attention to my separate statement to the Extension Order[1] and to reiterate that when reviewing a request for extension of time, our inquiry is narrow—it is not an opportunity to revisit the determinations made in Natural Gas Act authorizations after orders have become final and unappealable.[2]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.[1] See Freeport LNG Dev., L.P., 181 FERC ¶ 61,023 (2022) (Extension Order) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring).
[2] See Midship Pipeline Co., LLC, 182 FERC ¶ 61,031, at P 11 (2023) (“[W]e have explained that extension orders are not an invitation to re-open closed proceedings.”) (citation omitted); Rio Grande LNG, LLC, 181 FERC ¶ 61,032, at P 17 (2022) (“Extension of time proceedings are not an invitation to re-open the underlying dockets.”) (citation omitted), reh’g denied, 182 FERC ¶ 61,027, at P 15 (2023) (“[W]e reject the argument that the Commission needs to revisit either the climate analysis from the Authorization Order or subsequent changes to its liquefaction design because extension of time proceedings are not an invitation to relitigate the underlying proceedings.”) (citations omitted); Port Arthur LNG, LLC, 181 FERC ¶ 61,024, at P 12 (2022) (“Extension of time proceedings are not an invitation to re-open the underlying dockets.”) (citation omitted); Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, LLC, 179 FERC ¶ 61,087, at P 15 (“[E]xtension of time proceedings are not an invitation to re-open the dockets.”) (citations omitted), reh’g denied, 181 FERC ¶ 61,033, at P 15 (2022) (affirming on rehearing that the Commission “continue[s] to find that an extension of time proceeding is not an opportunity to revisit the public interest determination in the Authorization Order”); Corpus Christi Liquefaction Stage III, 181 FERC ¶ 61,033 at P 15 (“While we recognize that environmental policy, environmental conditions, and market conditions are subject to change, extension of time proceedings are not an invitation to re-open closed proceedings.”) (citations omitted); see also Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 179 FERC ¶ 61,226, at P 20 (2022) (“Rule 716 does not provide the Commission with additional authority to reopen the record underlying the Certificate Order here, where a final, non-appealable order has issued.”) (citations omitted); id. (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at P 5) (“Circumstances, no matter how extraordinary, cannot themselves grant jurisdiction where Congress has conferred no power. In the absence of authority provided by Congress, the Commission simply cannot revisit its public convenience and necessity determinations once a certificate order becomes final and unappealable.”).