At present, life goes on as normal for companies navigating the complex maze of policies and permitting procedures required before breaking ground on an interstate natural gas pipeline project. However, the past year has brought about a flurry of activity on the federal level that could change the regulation-heavy landscape.
The looming question is: Will these changes, if implemented, speed up these processes, slow them down, or have no measurable impact at all? The most significant developments in federal policy guiding this industry appear on the surface to be accelerators of natural gas pipeline projects, but what lies underneath indicates more of a push-pull relationship.
First is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC)’s unanimous approval in April of a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to review its current policy for certification of new interstate natural gas facilities. Second is the landmark memorandum of understanding signed by 12 federal agencies to implement “One Federal Decision” for major infrastructure projects.
The FERC’s NOI was the first step of review of its currently-effective Policy Statement on Certification of New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities issued in 1999 that guides whether a proposed natural gas project meets the standard for certification under the federal Natural Gas Act (NGA). The FERC took public comments until June 25 on the following topics:
- The FERC methodology for determining whether there is a need for a proposed project
- Eminent domain and landowner interests related to a proposed project
- Evaluation of environmental impacts of a proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
- Recommended improvements that could result in efficiencies in FERC’s certificate processes
On the surface, it could be inferred that the potential for future policy revisions would result in a speedier process. However, several environmental and public policy groups recognized an opportunity to expand the scope of environmental review to fully address public concerns that have grown in prominence since the policy was last reviewed almost 20 years ago.
A letter submitted jointly by a group (including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Southern Environmental Law Center, Energy Program Public Citizen, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Acadia Center, Sierra Club, GreenFaith, Conservation Law Foundation, Catskill Mountainkeeper, and Riverkeeper, Inc.), requested an expanded review of projects to determine “public need.” Included in this was a suggestion to adopt an approach that evaluates the effects of proposed pipeline project in tandem with other existing pipeline projects, as opposed to an isolated approach. The evaluation would measure the cumulative impacts of regional climate change, natural resources, and consumer prices. “An integrated, more comprehensive review would assess the need for new pipelines based on the energy needs of the region(s) directly affected by the project,” states the letter.
Similarly, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation made recommendations to the FERC regarding how it can better meet its obligations to consult with American Indian tribes, state and local governments and other preservationist organizations under the National Historic Preservation Act. At the top of the list was a suggestion to invite groups along the proposed pipeline route, and that could be affected by the project, into early discussions, as opposed to further down the line when the project was already in advanced planning stages.
On the other hand, the One Federal Decision policy established in President Donald Trump’s executive order “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” and the “One Federal Decision Framework” MOU could significantly reduce a project’s approval timeline. These policies seek to establish a single permitting timetable for environmental review decisions; the preparation of a single environmental impact statement (EIS) and Order (equivalent to a Record of Decision); the issuance of all necessary authorization decisions within 90 days of issuance of the Order; and the reduction of time for completing environmental reviews and authorization decisions to an agency average of not more than two years from publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS.
The combined effect of these proposed policy changes remains to be seen, which could lead to questions about how and when a company should proceed with a future natural gas pipeline project. The team at EDGE conducts feasibility studies and project restraints analyses to identify any fatal flaws in existing project planning, and provides alternate preferred routing options should such a flaw be discovered. We’re also available to conduct small scale surveys and produce reports often needed to obtain permitting. As the project progresses, EDGE facilitates ongoing consultations with involved agencies, tribal entities and/or stakeholders to apprise all parties of proposed work plans and ensure they remain informed through each project milestone.