United States: Should The FERC Change Its Approach For Licensing New Gas Infrastructure?

Former Chairman and Commissioner Norman Bay gave the natural gas industry a surprise his last day at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or "Commission"), February 3, 2017, in opening a debate about whether the Commission should modify critical aspects of its pipeline infrastructure review process under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act ("NGA").1

In a statement accompanying the Commission's order in National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.,2 Commissioner Bay advocated that the Commission explore adjusting its approach to authorizing new pipelines both in terms of evaluating the need for new facilities and the scope of environmental analysis to support such projects.

Bay maintains that these changes are prompted by the twin forces of "increased controversy" surrounding pipeline infrastructure, as evidenced by a recent paper from the Sierra Club3 advocating a stop to all new pipelines in favor of investment in renewable energy, and the "considerable public interest" associated with concerns over the production of gas, methane emissions and the use of fracking (none of which the FERC has authority to regulate, as Bay readily admits).

Bay recommends that the Commission look beyond executed precedent agreements to determine the need for new projects and that, "in light of heightened public interest and in the interests of good government,"4 the Commission expand its environmental inquiry into areas that he concedes are not required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA").5 This would entail performing a programmatic review of gas production from the Marcellus and Utica Shales and, in connection with each new pipeline project, performing an assessment of the downstream impacts of gas use and a life-cycle greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions study.

Does Controversy Alone Justify Changing the Commission's Approach?

The controversy cited by Bay is real and immediate.  Well-funded environmental groups like the Sierra Club that back a climate change, anti-fracking and renewable energy agenda are locked in what seems like an existential struggle with the Commission over the authorization of new gas projects.  Their agenda of blocking all new pipelines is fundamentally at odds with the Commission's responsibility under the NGA to assure interstate consumers "an adequate and reliable supply of gas at reasonable prices."6 Because Congress has directed the Commission to address the needs of the interstate gas market and has not empowered it to regulate gas production, fracking or GHG emissions,7 the Commission's job regarding new gas projects is clear -- to authorize such projects if they are shown to be in the public convenience and necessity (i.e., demonstrated need for the project, no subsidies and an acceptable route). 

But by no means is the Commission's job easy.  The opposition by environmental groups has gone far beyond the expected vigorous debate presented in pleadings and filings to the Commission and reviewing courts.  It has also included demonstrations inside and outside the Commission's headquarters, sit-ins at Commission's meetings, and even picketing individual Commissioners' homes.

Nonetheless, the mere existence of controversy -- without some showing that the Commission's decisional approach is demonstrably flawed -- does not justify changing the Commission's longstanding reliance on the 1999 Certificates Policy Statement to decide pipeline certificate cases. 

Bay has not made the case that the Policy Statement is flawed.  Nor has he shown that taking on additional environmental reviews not required by NEPA and covering areas where the Commission has no authority to regulate is prudent given the nature of the environmental opposition.  Although the Commission already prepares upper-bound estimates of upstream and downstream environmental effects,8 voluntarily performing the other reviews cited by Bay would serve no purpose other than to unreasonably delay final project approval,9 add significant costs and supply the Commission's environmental adversaries with additional targets to question the Commission's orders in the courts of appeals. 

Adequacy of the Policy Statement to Evaluate the Need and Public Benefit of Projects

The Certificates Policy Statement has guided the Commission's review of new pipeline applications for over 17 years, a period of record additions to gas infrastructure. It sets forth a multi-step review process that an applicant must satisfy to demonstrate that the construction and operation of its proposed project is in the public convenience and necessity.

The first step involves allocation of risk and lack of subsidies, requiring an existing pipeline applicant to demonstrate that its current customers will not subsidize the new project, a requirement typically satisfied by use of incremental rates for service over the new facilities.

The second step entails a general identification of the need/benefits of the project and its potential adverse effects on three discrete interests: (i) the applicant's existing customers, (ii) competing pipelines and their captive customers, and (iii) affected landowners and surrounding communities.

The final step involves balancing the need/benefits of the project, including identifiable public benefits, against the adverse effects to determine whether the benefits outweigh the adverse effects taking into account mitigation measures. Upon determining that project benefits outweigh adverse effects, the Commission then evaluates environmental effects under NEPA.

Bay identifies essentially three categories of concerns with the Policy Statement, labeled here as (i) "balance" concerns, (ii) "crystal ball" concerns, and (iii) "fairness" concerns.

His principal "balance" concern is that the Commission's practice of relying on executed precedent agreements to show project need might exclude consideration of other factors indicative of project benefit like "whether the capacity is needed to ensure deliverability to new or existing gas-fired generators," or "whether there is a significant reliability or resiliency benefit."10

His "crystal ball" concerns deal with the level of confidence or knowledge the Commission can have regarding how a project it approves will be affected by future events, such as the extent to which the markets supporting the project will actually materialize, thus avoiding potential stranded investment or, even more speculative, "[w]hat happens to infrastructure developed to ship Marcellus and Utica gas west, if gas is cheaper to produce in Texas and Oklahoma?" 

Bay's single "fairness" issue deals with the possible impact a project can have on the captive customers of a competing pipeline that loses other existing customers to the new pipeline project. 

Although Bay raises a host of questions about the Commission's approach to pipeline certificates, nowhere does he identify specific flaws with the Policy Statement or provide examples where reliance on the Policy Statement has produced a result at odds with the NGA's purpose, which the Commission demonstrably could have avoided using a different approach.

To the extent Bay's concerns can reasonably be addressed without a crystal ball, they are all adequately addressed in the Policy Statement.  His concern about possible overreliance on executed precedent agreements appears to overlook the array of project benefits that can and should be taken into account in the second and third steps of the Policy Statement review.  The Policy Statement contemplates that all relevant benefits, including those identified by Bay, should be presented for consideration in the balancing process.11

Avoiding stranded investment is an important concern in the Commission's authorization of long-lived projects like pipelines and LNG terminals.  Having no crystal ball, the Commission relies on what is probably the next best alternative to validate the long-term need for new facilities -- the commercial arrangements (executed precedent agreements and firm service agreements) between project developers and their customers.

Given the significant financial commitments associated with new gas projects, project sponsors are incentivized, even required, to off-load all risk of under-utilization of the proposed facilities onto their customers, who, in turn, must back their contractual payment commitments with appropriate credit support instruments from A-grade banks or investment grade parent firms to cover the fixed charges under the project service agreements.  In this context, the Commission can reasonably assume that project sponsors, customers and their respective financial backers derive no benefit from building or contracting for more capacity than they can reasonably expect to use.

Even though Bay cites the US LNG import terminals approved during the first decade of this century as an example of stranded investment, he doesn't fault the Commission for that result or in any way suggest that the Commission could and should have avoided it.12 A measure of risk-taking is essential to a healthy natural gas industry and should not be discouraged. 

What is critical is the proper allocation of risk so that the financial effects of failed projects are not socialized or passed on to parties who have no contractual stake in potential project benefits.  The collapse of the market for LNG imports has in fact had little effect on the industry at large and essentially no effect on interstate consumers.  Most of the import terminals are being re-purposed for LNG exports, the financial hit is being absorbed by large energy merchant off-takers experienced in the global game of LNG arbitrage, and US gas consumers are enjoying the bounty of the shale gas boom (low energy prices, significantly reduced GHG emissions and stable supply).

The other crystal ball issues Bay raises, such as "what happens if basis differentials largely disappear at major gas trading hubs across the United States"13 are essentially imponderables, too speculative to address outside the concrete setting of a specific certificate case.  But if the implication of these questions is that the Commission should assume a greater "central planning" role in overseeing the interstate gas market, the Commission should decline the invitation.  Central planning has largely been disastrous in the gas industry, whereas the market-oriented approach of the Policy Statement has served the Commission and the industry well, supporting a competitive, robust and dynamic market. 

The captive customer/"fairness" concern flagged by Bay was also raised in the Policy Statement as a potential issue that might warrant special treatment if ever presented in a pipeline certificate case.14 Yet despite the passage of 17 years, it has never come up, most likely because new gas facilities are much more expensive than facilities installed 20-30 years ago, providing customers little economic incentive to switch pipelines.

Voluntarily Assuming Additional Environmental Reviews under NEPA

The only support Bay offers for his suggestion that the Commission voluntarily take on additional environmental studies not required by NEPA is that such action would be "in the interests of good government."15 But that skirts the more fundamental issue that the Commission lacks authority to regulate the environmental effects of fracking in the gas supply basins or GHG emissions in the gas consumption markets linked by pipelines.16

Other agencies are tasked by Congress or the states with those responsibilities.  In contrast, the Commission's job under the NGA is to assure gas service to the interstate market, and discharging that responsibility effectively is not helped if the Commission devotes its resources to preparing unnecessary and speculative environmental studies that will only delay and drive up the costs of new projects found in the public convenience and necessity. 

True, Congress can change the law and direct the Commission to deny projects in the name of climate change.  But unless and until it does, the Commission must reasonably accommodate the needs and wants of interstate gas consumers.

Additionally, the nature of the environmental opposition, coupled with the Commission's winning track record in the courts of appeals, suggests caution -- not haste-- on any proposed departure from current practice on pipeline certificates. 

If the environmental opposition cannot win at the Commission because of Congress' choice supporting interstate gas service, they know that they can at least delay projects, serving their purposes, and take the Commission to task on any and all NEPA reviews in the hope of creating issues before the courts of appeals. 

The courts of appeals are the prize, because if the Commission's environmental adversaries can overturn certificate approvals there, the resulting project complications, delay and expense can potentially kill a project.  Realistically, voluntarily adding environmental reviews would not likely end the current intractable controversy but only play into the hands of the Commission's environmental adversaries, delaying project approvals even more and supplying the opposition with even more targets to shoot at in court. 

Because the Commission is now winning its cases in court, prudence would counsel that it stay the course and be wary of increasing its exposure.


1 15 U.S.C. § 717f(c).

2 National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 158 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2017) (statement of Commissioner Bay, hereinafter "Statement").

3 The Gas Rush, Locking America Into Another Fossil Fuel For Decades, Sierra Club (Jan. 26, 2017), http://content.sierraclub.org/sites/content.sierraclub.org.coal/files/1466-Gas-Rush-Report%2004_web.pdf.

4 Statement at 5.

5 Statement at 4-5, citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.

6 California v. Southland Royalty Co., 436 U.S. 519, 523 (1978).

7 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 158 FERC ¶ 61,046, at P 23 (2017) ("Columbia") (acknowledging that without a directive from Congress, the Commission lacks authority to deny new pipelines in the name of advancing national climate change goals).

8 E.g., Columbia at PP 116-23.

9 Where 10 years ago a pipeline certificate case could typically get through FERC within a year after the filing of the application, cases can now take 16-24 months to clear the Commission.  Because time is money for developers, each added procedure that extends the review process carries significant cost, especially if it affects a project's ability to make tree-clearing windows or other seasonal limitations on pre-construction activity in areas of affected species habitat.

10 Statement at 3.

11 Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,749-51.

12 Not all LNG import terminals that were licensed were actually built.  A number of licensed projects couldn't attract the commercial support and financing to go forward.

13 Statement at 4.

14 Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,743.

15 Statement at 5.

16 Section 1(b) of the NGA expressly excludes from the Commission's jurisdiction "the production or gathering of natural gas" at the upstream end of interstate pipelines and "the local distribution of natural gas" at the downstream end of such pipelines. 15 U.S.C. § 717(b).

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
24 Oct 2017, Seminar, Washington, DC, United States

The Dentons Forum for Women Executives invites you to join us for a luncheon featuring guest speaker Liza Mundy, journalist and author. Ms. Mundy recently released her latest book, Code Girls, the riveting untold story of more than 10,000 spirited young American women who cracked German and Japanese codes to help win World War II.

27 Oct 2017, Seminar, New York, United States

Please join us for a milestone event, our 10th annual CLE Seminar for In-House Counsel.

1 Nov 2017, Seminar, Washington, DC, United States

Celebrate the 58th anniversary of Dentons' Government Contracts practice

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.