FERC on Tuesday dismissed 14 requests for rehearing of its revised policy statement on natural gas infrastructure and its interim policy on accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, citing that it had reverted the policies to drafts after the requests had been filed (PL18-1-002, PL21-3-002).

“The draft policy statements do not constitute any final commission determination,” FERC said. “Because commission action is not final and because the rehearing parties are not aggrieved by a statement of policy, rehearing does not lie and dismissal is appropriate.”

The decision was unanimous among the five commissioners, but Commissioner James Danly issued a concurring statement noting that making the policy statements drafts does nothing to alleviate the uncertainty expressed by the petitioners, nor does it address any of his concerns about their legality.

Though Danly agreed that the requests were null now that the statements were drafts, “the ‘fog of indecision’ still lingers over the development of natural gas infrastructure,” he wrote. “What will happen [when the commission issues final proposals] is anyone’s guess. I fear that the philosophy animating the issuance of the policy statements in the first place will ultimately result in similar issuances in the future.”

Both Danly and fellow Republican Commissioner Mark Christie were strongly critical of the two updates, issued in February at FERC’s monthly open meeting as final policies that would begin to apply immediately, including to projects already filed with the commission. FERC walked them back a month later at its next meeting, with the majority citing feedback it had received that they were confusing. (See FERC Backtracks on Gas Policy Updates.)

The rehearing requests were filed by several gas pipeline groups and trade associations, as well as several states including Texas and Louisiana. Among their complaints was the retroactive application of the policies, but FERC said that when it issues its final statements, they would not apply to pending projects.

FERC noted in its order that it would include the petitioners’ requests as comments in the dockets, for which it is collecting public input by April 25. While Danly said he was gladdened by this, he expressed skepticism that the majority would address the petitioners’ concerns.

“And I have a good basis for that concern,” he wrote. “The interim GHG policy statement sidestepped many of the exact same arguments parties have made on rehearing, including the argument that the commission cannot do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly and that courts have found that Congress has vested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not FERC, with the authority to regulate GHG emissions. Perhaps if the commission had thoughtfully (or even cursorily) considered these arguments in the first instance, it would not be in the position that it is now.”