I am pleased that we are moving forward on long-awaited guidance for natural gas infrastructure project review under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). I believe these statements are a first step in addressing the uncertainty and delay associated with the Commission’s review of proposed natural gas infrastructure projects. I acknowledge that many may be disappointed that we did not come to consensus on these statements, but I believe this guidance provides greater regulatory certainty going forward and I remain committed to working with my colleagues to act on pending natural gas proposals.
The updated Certificate Policy Statement is a significant undertaking and I believe this statement appropriately balances public benefits against adverse effects, including impacts on landowners, environmental justice communities, and area residents. The updated statement modernizes our guidance on our review process under section 7 of the NGA and explains what evidence we will consider in that review. I am especially pleased that we embed environmental justice considerations into our review. As I’ve said before, it is critical that we consider these impacts while a project is still in the planning stage and ensure we provide opportunity for engagement with underserved communities.
The interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Policy Statement also provides needed guidance to stakeholders on how the Commission will consider and calculate project GHG emissions. And I want to comment on the presumed “significance” threshold in the statement.
Where an agency determines that a project may “significantly” affect the quality of the human environment, NEPA requires that an agency prepare a detailed Environmental Impact Statement or EIS. The purpose is to ensure that the agency has taken a hard look at environmental consequences prior to making a final decision. An EIS also provides those affected an opportunity to have their voices heard in the planning stage and for the agency to take these experiences into account.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is the entity charged with implementing NEPA, but CEQ has not indicated when GHG emissions are significant. While I believe we have the authority to set a threshold, I also recognize that no court has yet requested that we do so. But stakeholders have called for more guidance, and proposing an interim threshold at this juncture provides needed clarity to act on, and defend, needed infrastructure projects. To be clear, this proposal is not setting an emissions cap for natural gas infrastructure projects, nor does it require project proponents to mitigate direct emissions down to the presumed significance level. Nonetheless, this is the first time the Commission has established a significance presumption and I welcome any public comment on the proposal.
Finally, I’ll end by emphasizing that my support for the interim policy statement is meant to provide needed certainty at this time. It is my hope that today’s order provides a first step to act on pending proposals under the NGA, in a way that provides a roadmap for environmental review and minimizes the need for drawn out litigation.