The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission declined interview requests by the Center for Public Integrity and StateImpact Pennsylvania to discuss its pipeline approval process, requesting questions in writing instead. The questions (and answers in blue) follow: 1. Our search of the FERC eLibrary turned up two cases involving natural-gas pipelines that FERC denied in the past three decades, both tied to larger gasinfrastructure projects — the Pacific Connector Pipeline Project (associated with the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal) in 2016 and the pipeline associated with the Turtle Bayou natural gas storage facility proposal rejected in 2011. Are there any denials of natural-gas pipelines over FERC’s 40-year history that we’ve missed? FERC doesn’t track these actions as our resources are centered on those projects that were authorized to ensure compliance with the Commission’s stringent orders. Under Section 7 of Natural Gas Act of 1938, the Commission is obligated to authorize a project if it finds that the construction and operation of the proposed facilities “is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.” 2. People critiquing FERC’s record often point to the denial rate as evidence that the agency, though it will make route alterations and lay down conditions, functions as a rubber stamp. What is FERC’s perspective on this? Are there aspects of the process that would be important for people to understand? See the July 1, 2014, decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (NO Gas Pipeline v. FERC, 756 F.3d 764). 3. What’s the key for FERC in determining whether there’s need for a pipeline? And if the commission agrees that there’s a need, does it have the power under law to deny that pipeline based on other factors? [See answer to #4 below.] 4. How does FERC approach the need determination in cases where the firms proposing to build a pipeline and the shippers intending to buy its capacity are owned by the same company? What does FERC do to ensure that such a project isn’t anticompetitive or driven by financial considerations unrelated to gas demand? For both questions: Please see the Commission’s Pipeline Policy Statement issued in 1999. (Formally known as “Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities - Statement of Policy” issued in Docket No. PL99-3-000 on 9-15-99). Here is a link: http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/PL99-3-000.pdf 5. The Obama-era EPA frequently contended that FERC’s environmental impact statements for pipelines were insufficient on climate change. FERC also generally receives comments from participants asking for the upstream (production) and downstream (e.g. power plant) emissions to be included in climate-change calculations. Why has FERC decided against such lifecycle analyses? Should this type of calculation be included under the National Environmental Policy Act’s directive to consider reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts? This matter is up to the courts. 6. Some climate scientists and environmental advocates warn that greater investments in gas pipelines will lead to stranded investments and increased global warming from excessive greenhouse-gas emissions, which they call ample grounds to reject pipeline certificates. How does the commission weigh these issues in its determination of public need? Does it place value on the idea that each new pipeline has an impact on the big-picture problem of climate change, or that new pipelines might see their useful lives cut short because of climate considerations? [FERC did not answer this question.] 7. The country is in the middle of a pipeline building boom, particularly out of the Marcellus and Utica shale region, prompting warnings that there’s a pipeline glut in the making. Some have suggested that FERC help coordinate regional planning for pipelines. Has FERC considered this? Has this been done in the past? See Policy Statement, above. 8. In the last several years, FERC has considered rehearing requests for about six months on average, in the meantime allowing pipeline companies to move forward with construction. Some pipeline opponents contend that they’re being kept out of court until there’s much less to be gained from an appeal, and suggest such delays violate the 30-day requirement to decide a rehearing request under the Natural Gas Act. Why does FERC often go beyond 30 days and allow companies to start construction before making a decision on such requests? [FERC did not answer this question.] 9. What’s a typical recourse rate (or a typical range of rates) set by FERC for natural-gas pipelines? And what’s the basis for this rate or range of rates? [FERC did not answer this question.] 10. How significant does an environmental-justice concern need to be for FERC to consider altering a route because of it? Could environmental-justice considerations be the determining factor for whether a pipeline is approved or denied? This question is similar in nature to Questions 3 and 4. Accordingly, please refer to the Commission’s Pipeline Policy Statement for more information. 11. Commenters on pipeline projects sometimes advocate that FERC consider energy efficiency or renewables as alternatives to building a pipeline that’s intended for a power plant. FERC has responded in the “alternatives” section of its environmental impact statements that it only considers alternatives to a pipeline that meet “the stated purpose of the project,” moving gas from point A to B. Why is that? FERC’s authority for siting pipelines is the Natural Gas Act. FERC only can consider the application before it. 12. Former FERC Chairman Norman Bay, in a statement attached to a pipeline order on his last day with the agency, encouraged the commission to reconsider how it evaluates need and climate change. He also cited the public-interest implications of avoiding boom-bust cycles and stranded assets. Has FERC ever considered taking such actions? Why or why not? Former Chairman Bay is no longer with the Commission. FERC does not comment on what the Commission may or may not do in the future. 13. One complaint we’ve heard from a variety of individuals and groups is that, although they can file voluminous comments and attend scoping meetings if they so choose, they feel powerless to impact the FERC process in a meaningful way. Congress directed FERC in 1978 to create an Office of Public Participation to help citizens through the process, such as granting certain intervenors funding to hire expert help. The office was never created or funded. Why not? Is FERC considering asking for funding for the office or adjusting its fees to cover the cost? Also, would FERC like to respond to critics who point to the lack of this office as a sign that FERC is not responsive to the public? [FERC did not answer this question.]