H-1
H-1 is a rather momentous decision approving the license surrender and removal of four dams along the Klamath River in Oregon and California. This order is the culmination of years of effort on the part of the project licensee, Pacificorp; the states of Oregon and California; several federal, state, and local agencies; and importantly, on the parts of several Tribes.
While it is hard to nuance their varied perspectives in a few sentences, I would point you to the summary of their comments in the final EIS. The Tribes that provided important consultative perspectives included the Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Yurok Tribe, Klamath Tribes of Southern Oregon, Shasta Indian Nation, Quartz Valley Community of the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, Resighini Rancheria, and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indian Reservation.
The record created through this consultation and Staff’s strong environmental analysis in this docket demonstrate significant, long-term benefits to water quality and critical fish species like salmon and steelhead, as well as commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing more broadly.
I recognize that the decision to remove hydropower project dams affects many people, and that this approval is not without opposition. However, the record reflects overwhelming support for removal. I am convinced that the important environmental, cultural, and economic benefits that will be realized make removal in the public interest.
C-2
Today, in C-2, the Commission is authorizing Commonwealth LNG’s major new LNG export facility in Louisiana. Consistent with our precedents, we are granting the authorization, and doing so before other agencies have issued critical permits under the Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act.
My separate statement accompanying this order explains why I believe the Commission needs to reconsider our practice of authorizing major facilities before we—and the public we are charged with serving—know whether the permitting decisions of other agencies may result in material changes to the planned facility or to any of the environmental mitigation measures the applicant has proposed.
I absolutely support efforts to process Natural Gas Act authorization applications efficiently. We must find the balance, however, in ensuring that a project’s environmental impacts—and the mitigation measures to address them—are fully considered. For that to happen, stakeholders must first be aware of, and second have the opportunity to comment on, potential modifications. That is particularly important where, as here, environmental justice communities will be affected by the proposed project.
In the public listening sessions I spearheaded that led up to opening our Office of Public Participation, and in meetings with representatives of environmental justice communities in the Gulf since then, a consistent theme has been that the Commission must do more to help communities impacted by our decisions. We must inform them of the opportunity to weigh in, and, as appropriate in our decisions, require mitigation measures tailored to communities’ expressed needs.
One critical issue community representatives have addressed with me is the need to involve them more directly in the development of emergency response plans for LNG facilities. Our order today encourages Commonwealth to work closely with the affected environmental justice communities in developing its plan. In the future, I hope we will make this engagement a mandatory condition of our authorizations.
I look forward to working with fellow Commissioners and our dedicated staff in continuing to improve our application review processes and approaches to addressing environmental justice concerns.
Winter Storm Uri Report Anniversary
I will save my comments about E-1 and E-2 until after the Staff presentations, but before I close, I want to echo some of the concerns Commissioner Danly pointed to reflecting on the risk of New England winter weather conditions as well as reliability efforts around the country.
There has been a lot of good work done, and yesterday was the one year anniversary of the FERC-NERC Joint Inquiry into Winter Storm Uri report. I want to commend Chairman Glick for his and therefore Staff’s attention to the recommendations in that report.
Since Staff issued it, we have convened important discussions and received input from the key players on winter reliability. We had a generator winter readiness technical conference in the spring. We held the New England Winter Gas-Electric Forum in September in Burlington, and NAESB has convened a Gas-Electric Harmonization Forum and follow on meetings. This is all on top of our Staff’s Winter Assessment and our reliability technical conference in the last few weeks.
Also, NERC has submitted its first set of proposed nationwide new cold weather standards to the Commission at the end of October, ahead of schedule. This is a significant accomplishment by the NERC Staff who I understand spent nights and weekends getting these standards ready. I also know how hard our own Staff has worked to facilitate this process.
Each of these events and efforts is just a step, but collectively they are important to keep building knowledge and information that will refine this Commission’s understanding of the problems and potential solutions on the reliability front.
Presentation: Office of Enforcement Report
It’s an impressive list of activities that you’ve shared us with, Sam. In addition to its bread and butter work, OE has simultaneously played a major role this last year in special projects such as the report on Winter Storm Uri and the duty of candor NOPR. I know that work is continuing. We are lucky to have such talented and dedicated staff and I thank you. I encourage everyone to read the report, as it is an exceptional example of government transparency. It is also a great guide to the essential work the Office of Enforcement does to support the Commission in protecting the public interest and ensuring the integrity of the markets we regulate.
Presentation: E-1/E-2
Thank you all for the presentations and good work on the orders. I’m really pleased we’re doing this. This is exactly the kind of action the Commission should be taking as a technology-neutral regulator. We’ve learned these lessons and industry has worked alongside NERC and provided input to the Commission. The resource mix is changing and these IBR resources are coming online, so let’s take those lessons learned and let’s make them reliable, because as we know, they will continue to grow exponentially in number. We’re facilitating that in a way that ensures reliability.
It’s important to me that NERC’s actions in response to E-1 and E-2 will be informed by stakeholder input. We’ve seen those reports, but I do want to understand if we struck the right balance on the costs and burdens imposed by these IBR requirements. And are we treating these resources in a comparable way to synchronous generation—and in those places where we need to deviate due to technological differences, have we hit that mark?
These concerns sit next to the important opportunities that these IBR resources bring to the table. The ability to respond orders of magnitudes faster and to provide operational flexibility is really exciting. As we work to get this right, I hope we continue to think about whether our eligibility and market participation rules are also taking advantage of and monetizing that opportunity.