Full Comment Here

On June 25, 2021, after the public comment period concluded for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Renewed Notice of Inquiry on the Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Facilities, Enbridge Gas Pipelines filed a “Motion for Leave to Answer and Answer of Enbridge Gas Pipelines” (“Enbridge’s Answer”). Enbridge’s Answer tries to undermine arguments (including Niskanen’s) in favor of substantive revisions to the Certificate Policy Statement. On July 26, 2021, Niskanen filed a response to Enbridge’s Answer.

Niskanen’s response explained that Enbridge: A) mischaracterized Niskanen’s analysis of precedent agreements; B) misunderstands the role of export as being in the public interest in Section 7 analysis; C) incorrectly presumes that landowners are not adversely affected when they enter into easement agreements under threat of eminent domain; D) wrongly argues that more information on adverse impacts to landowners is improper; E) wrongly supports FERC’s lack of examination of adverse impacts; F) misunderstands the laws and regulations regarding landowner rights; and G) misinterprets FERC’s ability to stay a certificate under the Natural Gas Ac.

In short, Enbridge failed to accurately reflect and analyze the serious issues with FERC’s Certificate Policy Statement and suggested solutions. By incorporating Niskanen’s recommendations into a new Certificate Policy Statement, FERC could ensure a more fair and transparent process for landowners, consumers, and industry.

Photo credit: iStock