- Question cumulative impacts to burdened communities
- Cite FERC chair to assert lack of ‘coherent’ approach
Environmental groups are seeking a rehearing of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s recent authorization of the Commonwealth LNG project, accusing the agency of an “ostrich-like” approach to gas projects that “falsely claims” powerlessness to evaluate environmental effects, reports Platts.
A sufficient framework for consideration
The litigation continues the pattern of opposition confronting LNG projects and expansions along the US Gulf Coast and delves into the environmental justice implications of cumulative fossil fuel, petrochemical, and other industrial facilities in the region.
The commission Nov. 17 unanimously approved the 8.4 million mt/year LNG export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, despite some commissioners’ concerns related to environmental justice impacts or other outstanding permitting matters (CP19-502).
At the time of the decision, Chairman Richard Glick said he voted in favor of authorizing the project because it falls under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, which requires approval unless the record suggests the project is contrary to the public interest.
In a concurring statement, he also spelled out his concerns that Section 3, which covers projects designed to export or import gas, “does not provide a sufficient framework for consideration of the adverse impacts associated with a proposed LNG facility.”
Commissioners Allison Clements and Willie Phillips also expressed some discomfort with the environmental justice aspects of FERC’s approach in the case.
Seeking reversal
Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Healthy Gulf, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, the National Audubon Society, and Turtle Island Restoration Network, filed a request for rehearing Dec. 19 on multiple grounds.
Seizing on Gilck’s concurrence, the groups alleged that FERC failed to articulate a “coherent” standard for the exercise of its NGA Section 3 authority and failed to engage in a meaningful balancing of benefits and harms.
“As Chairman Glick’s concurrence explicitly admits, FERC simply does not have a framework or reasoning for determining whether an LNG project is consistent with the public interest,” they wrote. According to their line of reasoning, FERC shirks its duty when it relies on the Department of Energy’s export approval of the commodity to establish the public benefit of the infrastructure.
Turning to environmental justice, they also alleged FERC was “uncritically” greenlighting yet another LNG facility in southwest Louisiana. They argued that increased nitrogen oxide levels, beyond levels that already exceed US Environmental Protection Agency standards, are of concern for already burdened communities. And they asserted FERC’s analysis of air pollution impacts was arbitrary.
Did you subscribe to our newsletter?
It’s free! Click here to subscribe!
Source: Platts
