Commissioner James Danly Statement
October 23, 2023
Docket No. RM22-8-000
I agree that several changes to the Commission’s regulations will be helpful to ensure that the Commission has adequate information to examine the design, engineering and safety of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities when authorizing the siting of such facilities under the Commission’s jurisdiction. I write separately to express two misgivings about the final rule.[1]
First, in their joint comments on the proposed rule, the Center for LNG and the American Petroleum Institute (API) identified potential sources of confusion throughout the proposed rule regarding the requirements that project sponsors identify and comply with all “applicable codes and standards.”[2] The final rule does not sufficiently address these well-articulated concerns.
Second, language in the final rule suggests that the Commission has perpetual jurisdiction over LNG facilities[3] under Natural Gas Act sections 3 and 7.[4] I continue to harbor misgivings that the Commission may not, in fact, have ongoing jurisdiction to oversee the safety of LNG facilities once permitted.[5]
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
[1] See Updating Reguls. for Eng’rg & Design Materials for Liquefied Nat. Gas Facilities Related to Potential Impacts Caused by Nat. Hazards, 185 FERC ¶ 61,050 (2023) (Final Rule).
[2] See Center for LNG & API January 27, 2023 Comments at 2.
[3] See Final Rule, 185 FERC ¶ 61,050 at P 39 (“Because the Commission’s authority is to ensure public safety and reliability of proposed LNG facilities not only during siting of the facilities but also during construction and operations of those facilities, the final rule revises existing § 380.12(o)(12) so that Resource Report 13 would now include identification of codes and standards for the design, construction, testing, monitoring, operation, and maintenance of the LNG facility in addition to identification of codes and standards for siting.”) (footnote omitted); see also id. P 15 (“The current rulemaking clarifies and updates the informational requirements in the Commission’s regulations by codifying the current practice for processing NGA section 3 and [section] 7 applications . . . . The environmental document includes Commission staff’s recommendations related to the construction and operation of the project, including measures to mitigate adverse effects. If the Commission approves the application, the Commission’s oversight of the project continues through final design, construction, commissioning, and operation of the project to ensure that the project has complied with the terms and conditions of the Commission’s authorization order.”) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 717b(a), 717b(e)(3)(A), 717f(e) (authorizing the Commission to include terms and conditions to our authorization orders)) (internal citations omitted) (footnotes omitted).
[4] 15 U.S.C. §§ 717b, 717f.
[5] See EcoEléctrica, L.P., 184 FERC ¶ 61,114 (2023) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at P 3); EcoEléctrica, L.P., 180 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring at P 3); EcoEléctrica, L.P., 179 FERC ¶ 61,038 (2022) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring); EcoEléctrica, L.P., 177 FERC ¶ 61,164 (2021) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring); EcoEléctrica, L.P., 176 FERC ¶ 61,192 (2021) (Danly, Comm’r, concurring).