FERC approved two natural gas pipeline projects at a bitter open meeting Thursday after accepting a last-minute, one-sentence amendment from Commissioner James Danly to gain his support.

Chairman Richard Glick and Commissioner Allison Clements, both Democrats, dissented in part.

Since shortly after Glick joined FERC in 2017, the commission’s members have disagreed on partisan lines over whether they should assess a gas infrastructure project’s emissions and their effects on climate change. These latest two orders were no different, with the three Republican members rejecting the need for such an assessment and the two Democrats dissenting over its lack thereof.

But they were also highly unusual, not just in the heated debate that took place prior to their approvals, but in the manner in which they were approved.

At issue were two projects to expand capacity on existing pipeline systems: Northern Natural Gas’ Northern Lights project in Minnesota (CP20-503) and TC Pipelines’ Tuscarora Xpress project in northern Nevada (CP20-486).

Glick brought orders granting the projects’ certificates of public convenience and necessity to a vote at the meeting despite his and Clements’ partial dissents over their lack of environmental impact statements regarding climate change. All five commissioners agreed that the developers had shown that the projects were needed.

Glick and Clements had reached a compromise in March with Republican Commissioner Neil Chatterjee to assess the climate impacts of a different Northern Natural pipeline project, the South Sioux City-to-Sioux Falls A-line Replacement Project. (See FERC Assesses Climate Impact of Gas Project for 1st Time.) But Glick and Clements said these latest two projects’ emissions were much more substantial, warranting a full EIS.

Nevertheless, Glick said, he thought it was best to allow the orders to move forward, as he expected the majority to approve them. Glick also told reporters in a teleconference after the meeting that, although he is able to as chairman, he does not want to withhold orders that the majority supports just because he does not, as both Chatterjee and Danly did during their tenures as chair.

Instead, Glick said, the orders contained data on the projects’ emissions without any analysis, as the commission has been doing since 2019 under a compromise between Chatterjee and former Commissioners Bernard McNamee (R) and Cheryl LaFleur (D). (See LaFleur Sides with Republicans on LNG Terminal as Glick Dissents.)

But Danly refused to support the orders as drafted because they “represent yet another change in the commission’s analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, and they fail under the [Administrative Procedure Act] because they do not properly acknowledge the serial departure, as happened” in a ruling on the South Sioux City-to-Sioux Falls A-line Replacement project in March. (See FERC Assesses Climate Impact of Gas Project for 1st Time.)

Danly had also dissented from that order for similar reasons, saying it marked a “drastic departure” from the commission’s previous positions and was unfair to the developer because it was unexpected. Both he and Commissioner Mark Christie (R) said the commission should not be changing its certificate policies until it completes its Notice of Inquiry on the subject, which Glick restarted in February. (See Glick Hits ‘Refresh’ at 1st FERC Open Meeting.)

Danly’s Motion

But Danly surprised all of his colleagues during the meeting by moving to amend both of the orders by adding a single sentence: “The forgoing analysis on greenhouse gas emissions is offered for informational purposes only, does not inform any part of this order’s holding and shall not serve as precedent for any future certificate order.”

He said the amendment, which he called “a simple and elegant solution,” would alleviate his concerns about the orders’ legality and allow him to vote for them. “What I want to avoid during a pending NOI is breaking new ground,” he said.

Before Danly’s motion — and without alluding to what exactly the dispute was about — both Glick and Chatterjee already sounded exasperated with the matter. Chatterjee said that “there is nothing productive about sitting in separate corners, insisting on getting 100% of what we’d like to see. … Today we could have moved two critical infrastructure projects forward, and the fact that we’re not is extremely frustrating to me. This is not a game.”

In his prepared remarks, Christie also expressed frustration with the debate and, in a way, chastised all of his colleagues. “There are five members that agree that these projects are needed, and let’s remind ourselves why: so people can heat their homes and not freeze in the winter; so people with gas stoves can cook; so people with gas water heaters can have hot water. These are needed projects; it’s not a bureaucratic exercise.”

He said he respected the Democrats’ position on the GHG issue but that he was frustrated by what he viewed as policy changes in both the A-line Replacement order and the two latest orders, citing “some members’ refusal to honor the NOI process.”

Danly’s motion only increased his colleagues’ exasperation.

“I think your motion is out of order,” Glick said. “You did not provide a copy of the amendment. I didn’t know you were going to make the motion. I talked to you many times yesterday; I talked to you again this morning. You didn’t even mention it once. You didn’t share it with anyone. … We all say this isn’t a game; let’s not play games. OK?”

“This is a deliberative body,” Danly responded. “Back before the prepared speeches and wooden performances of the commission’s meetings that we have today, it was very common practice for orders to be edited in real time, for amendments to be made in real time, during a meeting … and there is nothing of which I am aware — and I’ve looked into it — that is a new rule of procedure or a new order that the commission issued between the time that this was in common practice and today.”

Christie immediately voiced support for Danly’s amendment.

Glick, formerly a staffer for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, noted that it was standard procedure for senators to offer amendments on bills in advance of committee meetings, but that apparently the commission did not have any such rules. He also said that, though he was “deeply disappointed” that Danly did not present the amendment ahead of time, he would be fine with approving it, as it would not change his vote on the orders themselves.

Chatterjee, former adviser to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, was also supportive, but he scolded Danly for the maneuver. “People are watching this. The markets are watching this. We are toying with these companies. If this sentence is what would have taken to have gotten us to the three votes, it should have been offered before the meeting. … These kinds of methods and tactics — look, I used to do them all the time in the United States Senate — this is different. This is a regulatory body. … I’m very frustrated with how all this went down.”

“I wish I believed that this amendment was made in good faith,” Clements said. She said the GHG issue is “too serious a matter to get caught up in this surprise amendment proposal.”

Clements ultimately abstained from the vote on Danly’s motion, while the other four commissioners voted to approve it. The commissioners then voted 3-2 on the certificates themselves.

The text of the two final orders had not been published as of press time Thursday night.

“I do have optimism that our Notice of Inquiry on our long-outdated 1999 policy statement will give us the information we need to create a better approach,” Clements said. “With the NOI public comment period closing on May 26, we are drawing closer to that time and what I hope will be — although today is dampening my optimism a little bit — an improved, modernized and fair policy statement.”