The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved four new liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects as well as the facilities needed to export natural gas. Three of the projects will be located “along the Brownsville Ship Channel in Brownsville, Texas” the fourth project will be expanding a facility near Corpus Christi, Texas, that is already operating. It has been noted that with the approval of these projects, FERC has approved a significant number of LNG export facilities this year.

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said he is “very proud of the hard work that the Commission and its staff have undertaken to continue our processing of LNG applications. The Commission has now completed its work on applications for 11 LNG export projects in the past nine months, helping the United States expand the availability of natural gas for our global allies who need access to an efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly fuel for power generation.”

The three approved Brownsville Ship Channel projects that have been approved were proposed by “Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC; Rio Grande LNG, LLC and Rio Bravo Pipeline Company; and Annova LNG Common Infrastructure, LLC and three of its affiliates.”

“Texas LNG Brownsville would build and operate facilities to export approximately 4 million metric tons per year of natural gas as LNG. The Rio Grande LNG Terminal and associated Rio Bravo Pipeline Project would export 27 million metric tons per year. The Annova LNG Brownsville Project would export up to 6 million metric tons per year.”

The proposal by “Corpus Christi Stage III, LLC and Corpus Christi Liquefaction LLC” to build and operate a “Stage 3 LNG Project that would allow the company to liquefy for export an additional 11.45 million metric tons per year.”

The projects now have pending applications with the U.S. Department of Energy, where they are “seeking authorization to export gas to countries without Free Trade Agreements with the United States.”

FERC Commissioner Richard Glick issued a statement explaining that he dissents from the approval of these projects:

Glick says he chose to dissent “because it violates both the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Commission once again refuses to consider the consequences its actions have for climate change. Although neither the NGA nor NEPA permit the Commission to assume away the impact that constructing and operating this liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility and associated natural gas pipeline will have on climate change, that is precisely what the Commission is doing here.”

Glick says that by authorizing these projects, FERC is treating “climate change differently than all other environmental impacts.” He explained that FERC “steadfastly refuses to assess whether the impact of the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change is significant, even though it quantifies the GHG emissions caused by the Project. hat refusal to assess the significance of the Project’s contribution to the harm caused by climate change is what allows the Commission to misleadingly state that its approval of the Project will result in environmental impacts that are generally ‘less-than-significant’ and, as a result, conclude that the Project satisfies the NGA’s public interest standards.”

He said that by “Claiming that a project’s environmental impacts are generally less-than-significant while at the same time refusing to assess the significance of the project’s impact on the most important environmental issue of our time is not reasoned decision making.”

Glick pointed out that all three of these Brownsville LNG projects “will have a significant adverse impact on a number of endangered species, including the ocelot.”

For these reasons, he chose to dissent from the approval of these projects.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) announced it would be starting a new alternative dispute resolution process with the “pipeline companies, shippers and their representatives to explore actions FERC and industry can take to alleviate propane pipeline constraints in the Midwest.”

This new process is the result of “conversations with and letters from Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds” along with members of the Senate and House of Representatives, who had expressed concern about difficulties with propane distribution and supplies in the Midwest.

A state of emergency was declared in nine states in the Midwest because of the shortage of propane. There is not a shortage nationwide, just in the Midwest. This is because flooding led to harvest happening later in the year, and the farmers then needed more power to dry grain out and control the freshness of other crops that are waiting to be sold.

FERC also accepted a proposal from  Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company LLC allowing them to provide “emergency transportation service of propane to the Midwest region for a 30-day period.” Enterprise said that the “demand for propane is due to an unusual coincident increase in heating demand, resulting from unseasonably cold weather in the region, and crop drying demand.” It is for this reason they filed the tariff to help bring relief to the Midwest. They are only doing this for 30 days because they do not think this can “be sustained for a prolonged period of time.” The tariff was filed unopposed, with no comments, protests, or motions to intervene, thus allowing it to pass quickly.

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said “The Commission takes this issue seriously. We have been actively engaging with stakeholders, and with Capitol Hill and the states, and receiving regular updates from pipeline companies. By bringing the pipelines and shippers to the table, we are building on these efforts and establishing a dialogue focused on exploring concrete solutions.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued guidance for developing “closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites and a list of existing non-powered federal dams” that FERC along with other agencies has agreed “have the greatest potential for non-federal hydropower development.” These both “fulfill FERC’s requirements under Sections 3003 and 3004 of the America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA).”

FERC was directed by AWIA to conduct a workshop in April 2019 that explored the “potential opportunities for the development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites.” The new guidance they issued is “based on information provided at the workshop, identifies resources and provides information to assist prospective applicants considering the development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at these sites.”

A closed-loop pumped storage project is “a pumped storage project that uses reservoirs situated at locations other than natural waterways, lakes, wetlands, and other natural surface water features.” The types of reservoirs that are used in closed-loop projects ” include reservoirs located in surface mine pits or underground mines.”

FERC worked “jointly with the Departments of the Army, the Interior, and Agriculture” to develop the list of already existing non-powered federal dams, as they were directed to by the AWIA. In December 2018, FERC “initiated consultation with the Department Secretaries by requesting agency points of contact for the purposes of receiving and providing input on a draft list of non-powered federal dams.” FERC developed their final list with “representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and the Department of Energy.”

To compile this list, FERC used “the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) April 2012 Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States Report; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) July 2013 Hydropower Resource Assessment at Non-Powered USACE Sites; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) March 2011 Hydropower Resources Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities; and Reclamation’s March 2012 Site Inventory and Hydropower Energy Assessment of Reclamation Owned Conduits.”

From there, FERC “used DOE’s list of top 100 non-powered dams with the most estimated hydropower potential, prioritized by capacity.” After “obtaining the complete list of dams for the report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory” the list was up to 296 potential dams.

They then evaluated the potential of each dam for hydropower using this criterion:

·         “The compatibility of hydropower generation with existing purposes of the dam;

·         “The proximity of the dam to existing transmission resources;

The existence of studies to characterize environmental, cultural, and historic resources relating to the dam; and

·         “The effects of hydropower development on release or flow operations of the dam.”

The final list excludes:

·         “dams that are or will be utilized by a nonfederal hydropower project under an existing Commission-issued hydropower license;

·         “dams identified by the Forest Service as incompatible with the purposes of existing Forest Management Plans or reservation authority;

·         “dams identified by the Corps as incompatible with hydropower generation due to certain circumstances that would hinder hydropower development (e.g., pending dam removal, extenuating construction activities, etc.); and

·         “dams identified by the National Park Service that may have the potential to affect the national park system or the National Wild and Scenic River system.”

There are “230 non-powered federal dams, sorted by potential capacity, that FERC and the Department Secretaries agree have the greatest potential for non-federal hydropower development” on the final list.