[Senate Hearing 117-276]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                                 ______


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-276
 
                  HEARING TO REVIEW THE RECENT ACTIONS
                    OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
                   COMMISSION RELATING TO PERMITTING,
               CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF INTERSTATE
                NATURAL GAS PIPELINES AND OTHER NATURAL
                      GAS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 3, 2022
                             

                               __________
                               
                               
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                       
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
               
              
               

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
        
        
                       ______

             U.S  . GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-754                WASHINGTON : 2024   
        
        
        
        
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                 Brie Van Cleve, Senior Energy Advisor
            Armando Avila, Senior Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
      Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
          Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Special Counsel
              James Bartholomew, Republican FERC Detailee
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Glick, Hon. Richard, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................     6
Danly, Hon. James, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................    22
Clements, Hon. Allison, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................    28
Christie, Hon. Mark C., Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................    35
Phillips, Hon. Willie L., Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory 
  Commission.....................................................    40

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     4
Christie, Hon. Mark C.:
    Opening Statement............................................    35
    Written Testimony............................................    37
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   252
Clements, Hon. Allison:
    Opening Statement............................................    28
    Written Testimony............................................    30
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   237
Consumer Energy Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................   110
Danly, Hon. James:
    Opening Statement............................................    22
    Written Testimony............................................    24
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   139
Glick, Hon. Richard:
    Opening Statement............................................     6
    Written Testimony............................................     8
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   119
Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
    Comments for the Record......................................   106
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................    89
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Millenium Pipeline Company, LLC:
    Letter for the Record........................................   113
Our Children's Trust:
    Letter for the Record with attachments.......................   282
Phillips, Hon. Willie L.:
    Opening Statement............................................    40
    Written Testimony............................................    42
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   269
TC Energy Corporation:
    Letter for the Record........................................    96
TC Energy Corporation et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   101
U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    85
WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   114
(The) Williams Companies, Inc.:
    Letter for the Record........................................    52


                  HEARING TO REVIEW THE RECENT ACTIONS



                    OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY



                   COMMISSION RELATING TO PERMITTING,



                 CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF INTER-



                 STATE NATURAL GAS PIPELINES AND OTHER



                  NATURAL GAS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin 
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III, U.S. SENATOR FROM 
                         WEST VIRGINIA

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge two members of 
my staff whose time on the Committee is coming to a close. The 
first is Amanda Hoffman. Amanda has been with us for a year, on 
loan from the Bureau of Land Management, and will be returning 
to her home base in Idaho. Her expertise and hard work have 
been integral to our work on public lands issues and 
legislation. She brings a wealth of knowledge and is very, 
very, very helpful to us. The other is Armando Avila. Armando 
has been our expert on fossil fuels, carbon capture, carbon 
management, and hydrogen for the past two years. In that time, 
he worked to ensure that the Energy Act of 2020 and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law advanced these critical 
technologies. Armando came to us from the private sector, and 
that experience has been invaluable to our team. His last day 
is next Friday. So I wish both Armando and Amanda well and 
thank them for their service to all of America and to my State 
of West Virginia. Thank you. Stand up.
    [Applause.]
    The Chairman. Okay, Amanda is watching us, so, Amanda, 
thank you so much.
    Now, today's hearing is about the recent actions taken by 
the Democratic Commissioners on the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, which, in my view, serve to elevate environmental 
considerations above American energy reliability, security, and 
independence. While I am aware of the fact that the D.C. 
Circuit ruled that FERC needed to adequately consider 
greenhouse gas emissions, I believe very strongly that the new 
policy statements overshoot what was necessary in the national 
interest. I believe you all took the direction from the court 
and applied it far more broadly than you needed to, setting in 
motion a process that will serve to further shut down the 
infrastructure that we desperately need as a country and 
further politicize energy development in our country.
    So I want to thank all five Commissioners for being here 
today to answer for your actions. But let me take a step back 
because this decision, along with several other recent 
decisions made by the courts at the state level and in other 
political arenas, represents a shortsighted attack on fossil 
fuel resources without recognizing the heavy lifting they have 
done and continue to do and the integral role they play in our 
economy going forward. In my view, there is an effort underway 
by some to inflict death by a thousand cuts on fossil fuels 
that have made our energy reliable and affordable, while also 
providing us countless products and a vast strategic advantage 
over our adversaries and benefit for our allies and our trade 
partners. I have consistently fought back against anything that 
puts our economy and energy security at risk under normal 
circumstances--something we all agree on, but we are now at a 
time of war, given Russia's invasion of Ukraine--a freedom-
seeking country. This is in many ways an energy war, and we 
need to treat it with that kind of gravity. We cannot bring a 
knife to a gunfight.
    I tell you, in my lifetime, the only other time I have been 
more concerned for our country--who we are, and the people that 
we are--was as a teenager during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I 
believe this is just as serious and can be further expanded. I 
say that because I know what it can escalate to when we are 
dealing with nuclear weapons and the threat of using them. We 
cannot take this seriously enough. So to deny or put up 
barriers to natural gas projects and the benefits they provide 
while Putin is actively and effectively using energy as an 
economic and political weapon against our allies is just beyond 
the pale. If we could actually get natural gas infrastructure 
built, it would not only help with the energy transition here 
at home, it would also help keep costs down for American 
families, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen our ability 
to use energy as a geopolitical tool to fight for our values 
abroad and support our strategic partners.
    But it is not just the infrastructure that we need. We also 
have to increase our domestic production or we will squander 
this opportunity to help ourselves and others around the world. 
While the international effort to displace some Russian oil 
through release of Strategic Petroleum Reserves is warranted, 
it is not a long-term fix. We sit on an ocean of energy in West 
Virginia, my state, with nearly 214 trillion cubic feet of 
untapped natural gas in the Appalachian Basin, a resource that 
is even greater when you consider the rest of the United 
States' reserves. But we cannot get our abundant natural gas 
out of West Virginia with the roadblocks being placed in the 
way of each project developer, and the impacts are felt by the 
construction workers and the energy communities who need the 
jobs and the tax revenues. That is just ridiculous. We have 
tapped into these resources efficiently, with nationwide 
production of natural gas reaching 34.1 trillion cubic feet in 
2021. That is almost a 50 percent increase in the last decade. 
However, since then, crude oil production has fallen almost 9 
percent to 11.2 million barrels per day by 2021.
    I understand that part of this impact is due to the 
pandemic, but while demand has ramped back up, production has 
not. That has driven up prices, but what is maddening is that 
we are prolonging the high price pain on our American citizens 
with unnecessary regulatory uncertainty and shortsighted 
actions, like the ones that you all took two weeks ago. I 
understand the projections of both crude oil and natural gas 
are expected to grow in the short term, but that is heavily 
dependent on favorable policies to allow for their efficient 
development. Our issue is certainly not a shortage of energy 
resources. It is a lack of support for the responsible 
development and transport, but we also need industry to step up 
to the plate and start producing instead of prioritizing their 
profits over the good of our country. It makes no sense at all 
for us to continue importing energy from Russia while they are 
attacking a friendly nation seeking democracy and that the 
whole world has rallied behind, nor does it make sense for us 
to call on OPEC countries to increase production when we are 
not willing to do it ourselves, despite our abundant resources.
    That is why Senator Murkowski and I are introducing the Ban 
Russian Energy Imports Act today, together with many of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle--bipartisan. We have 
Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska here with us today, and I 
appreciate you being here, Senator. This bill will prohibit 
importation of Russian crude oil, petroleum, petroleum 
products, LNG, and coal during this emergency. I stood by the 
new Administration when they called for a pause on the federal 
leasing programs last year. But the time for pausing has come 
and gone, and despite a court ruling saying the same, the 
Administration continues to drag its feet when it comes to 
leasing on federal lands and in federal waters.
    And let me be clear, I am in no way saying that we should 
throw our efforts on climate change to the wayside. No way. 
Without continuing to use all of our energy resources in the 
cleanest way possible, we will simply lose an ability to 
compete globally, as other countries plow ahead with their own 
plans for fossil development. The oil and gas that we produce 
is cleaner than what we are importing from Russia. That is a 
fact. Our allies should take note and work with us to advance 
technologies like carbon capture utilization and sequestration, 
and clean hydrogen that will strengthen our energy security and 
reduce global emissions. We also need to be deploying the 
existing technologies that would reduce our own methane 
emissions while also getting more product to market. For the 
next several decades, fossil fuels will be part of our energy 
mix. I am committed to the United States leading the world in 
the development and use of energy technologies that will allow 
us to produce and use fossil fuels in the cleanest possible way 
while we are ramping up zero carbon alternatives like nuclear, 
energy storage, and hydrogen.
    With that, let me get back to FERC. You permit natural gas 
infrastructure, including LNG export facilities. As such, you 
all have a big role to play when it comes to all of these 
issues pertaining to energy security and reliability, and any 
action you take has implications. I strongly disagree with the 
decision to put a new policy statement with these huge 
potential ramifications into effect before an opportunity for 
comment. Putting ``interim'' on the title is misleading. This 
went into full effect two weeks ago, and the American people 
deserve transparency behind what you are trying to do and what 
you are doing. These actions and arbitrary lines drawn within 
them suggest a political agenda that the Democratic majority of 
FERC has gone overboard with rushing forward. Your policy 
statement updates a similar statement from 1999, and it 
concludes a process initiated by former FERC Chairman, Chairman 
Kevin McIntyre, but instead of building on those documents, 
your work swings the pendulum far to the left. Doing so 
exacerbates the politicization of your agency, undermines long-
term regulatory certainty and the ability of industry to plan 
and invest.
    It is critical for the security of our country that we 
strike the right balance and that environmental factors be 
given consideration, but that must be weighed in the broader 
context, and I do not believe this was done. So I very much 
look forward to this discussion and hearing from all of you.
    With that, I will turn to Senator Barrasso for his opening 
remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so very much, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing, and 
thank you for your very strong opening statement properly 
critical of the political and partisan decision by the FERC to 
undermine our nation and our nation's security.
    Today we are going to consider the FERC's two recent policy 
statements on natural gas pipelines and related infrastructure. 
It is difficult to overstate the damaging impact of these two 
orders--damage to our nation's energy supply, damage to our 
ability to help our allies escape the trap from Russian energy. 
These policies are going to make it next to impossible to build 
any new natural gas infrastructure or upgrade our existing 
facilities in the United States. These orders are going to 
increase the cost for American families to heat their homes, to 
power their homes at a time of record 40-year-high inflation, 
and they are going to undermine the reliability of our electric 
grid. These orders were among the chief objectives of 
Commissioner Clements' former employer, a group with a mission 
to block pipelines. And now, for a purely partisan vote of 
three to two, a majority of the Commission has delivered on 
this approach.
    The Commission's majority is going to claim that it was 
time to update a 1999 policy statement on natural gas. They are 
going to claim that the courts require the Commission to 
consider climate change when evaluating pipelines and related 
facilities. Remember the President's Climate Advisor, John 
Kerry, did not want what was happening in Ukraine by Russia and 
the deaths that were to come to distract from the climate 
agenda that members of this Commission, in a partisan way, seem 
to be more focused on than American national security. Neither 
time nor the courts required the Commission to ram through 
these orders on a completely partisan basis. Chairman Glick 
brought these orders forward only after the Senate had 
confirmed Commissioner Phillips. The majority issued them when 
they no longer needed to compromise with Commissioners Danly 
and Christie, and they wrote these orders in such a manner that 
cast doubt on whether anyone can challenge them in court. It is 
intentional.
    Congress intended the Commission to be independent and non-
partisan. At this point you wonder if you even need a FERC, the 
way it is behaving. We now know it is a political arm of the 
White House, a White House intent on shutting down American oil 
and gas production. The fact that the Commission issued the 
partisan orders as inflation has hit record highs and just 
before Russia's invasion of Ukraine is enough to astonish all 
Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained the principal 
purpose of the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act. It is to 
encourage the orderly development of plentiful supplies of 
electricity and natural gas at just and reasonable rates. We 
know a majority of the FERC does not agree with the mission of 
the FERC, does not agree with what the mission is, does not 
agree with the law. They want a new mission and are willing to 
violate the law in the process. This radical, extreme, and 
dangerous majority now claims that the Natural Gas Act gives 
the authority to reject an application for a natural gas 
pipeline on the basis of climate change. This majority of the 
FERC claims that it can require applicants to mitigate for 
climate change and that applicants can pass mitigation costs on 
to American families. These are sweeping new powers that have 
nothing to do with the Natural Gas Act.
    Now, I am particularly disappointed in Commissioner 
Phillips. During your confirmation hearing, you assured us that 
``the cornerstone of utility service is reliability.'' You went 
on to say, ``There are many people who are less fortunate, who 
depend on utility regulators to make sure that we have energy 
services that are efficient, at the lowest possible reasonable 
rates.'' These very people are going to have to decide whether 
they can afford to heat or to eat as a result of this recent 
decision. So I cannot square those statements with the decision 
to approve these orders. These orders are going to have the 
exact opposite effect on what he has promised this Committee 
just a few months ago. We know what happens when partisans 
block efforts to build or upgrade natural gas pipelines and 
related infrastructure. Prices continue to go up. The electric 
grid is put at unacceptable risk. We have seen it in New 
England. We have seen it in California. We have witnessed it 
across Europe, where millions have been forced to decide 
whether to pay their utility bills or put food on the table.
    This Committee has a responsibility to ensure that the 
Commission operates in a non-partisan manner, especially on the 
most consequential decisions. But we must insist, Mr. Chairman, 
that the Commission go back to the drawing board. FERC must 
make major changes to these orders, changes that can win the 
support of Commissioners Danly and Christie. This Committee 
should use every tool at our disposal, including our authority 
over future nominations to the Commission, to ensure that that 
happens.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    Now we are going to turn to our witnesses for today's 
hearing for their testimonies, and we will begin with Chairman 
Glick.

          STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD GLICK, CHAIRMAN, 
              FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Chairman Manchin, Ranking 
Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 
inviting us to testify this morning. I appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss FERC's recent Updated Certificate Policy 
Statement and Interim Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement, which 
provide for how FERC will consider applications to site 
interstate natural gas pipelines and LNG facilities.
    As a Commissioner, I make every decision based solely on 
the applicable law and the facts in the record. And that is 
certainly how I approached our infrastructure siting 
responsibilities. I have no other agenda. In order to issue a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to a proposed 
pipeline the Commission must find that a project is needed and 
that it would be in the public interest. For LNG projects, the 
Commission is not charged with assessing need, but we do have 
to conclude the project would not be contrary to the public 
interest. As the Supreme Court has explained, the Commission 
must weigh all factors bearing on the public interest. As part 
of this inquiry, FERC examines a variety of potential impacts 
on a project, including fisheries, wildlife, old growth 
forests, wetlands, air quality, agricultural lands, soil, 
visual impacts, and noise. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit vacated a certificate order, criticizing 
the Commission for failing to consider the impact of reasonably 
foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 
construction of the gas pipeline to be transported by the 
proposed Sabal Trail Pipeline. In 2019, the D.C. Circuit in 
Birckhead, again, admonished the Commission for its failure to 
adequately analyze the impact of a proposed pipeline's 
greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. Last year, in the 
Vecinos case, the court again criticized the Commission's 
failure to assess the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. 
That decision also concluded the Commission's analysis of the 
project's impact on environmental justice communities was 
inadequate and remanded back to the Commission our approval of 
the two LNG projects.
    I think developers of energy infrastructure would agree 
that when regulatory agencies ignore traditional directives or 
cut corners, the courts typically vacate the permits and send 
the agencies back to the drawing board. This often adds a 
significant amount of time and hundreds of millions if not 
billions of dollars of additional cost onto a project. In one 
case, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the developer ended up canceling 
the project altogether after rounds of protracted litigation. 
Several other pipeline projects are currently experiencing 
substantial delays and cost overruns because the agencies, such 
as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Forest Service, 
and FERC, did not get it right the first time. I am confident 
that the policy statements the Commission recently issued will 
lead to project orders that are more legally durable.
    To his great credit, and as Chairman Manchin mentioned, 
Chairman Kevin McIntyre, who had his first public meeting in 
2017, announced that FERC would revisit the 1999 Certificate 
Policy Statement on pipeline siting and soon thereafter issued 
a notice of inquiry seeking public comments. Further action was 
not taken after Chairman McIntyre's tragic passing. Last year, 
we reopened the proceeding, and in total we have received 
approximately 38,000 comments in response to the two notices of 
inquiry, which eventually led to the Commission approving the 
two policy statements on February 17th. The Certificate Policy 
Statement updates our 1999 Policy Statement in clarifying the 
factors the Commission will consider when assessing whether a 
pipeline project is needed and how we will determine whether a 
proposed project is in the public interest. The interim policy 
statement provides guidance as to how the Commission will 
comply with the court's guidance concerning the consideration 
of a project's potential greenhouse gas emissions.
    I want to emphasize that just like all other environmental 
impacts, a conclusion that the impact is significant is just 
the beginning of the inquiry. The Commission often finds a 
particular impact will be significant but still concludes that 
the benefits of the project outweigh any adverse impact. 
Moreover, and this happens all the time, the project developer 
can engage in mitigation to reduce the adverse impacts. As 
always, I would have preferred a unanimous vote on the policy 
statements. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case here. 
Commissioners Danly and Christie in their dissent essentially 
argue that Sabal Trail, Birckhead, and Vecinos were all wrongly 
decided. Commissioner Christie's dissent, which in my opinion 
was particularly well written, suggests that the Supreme Court 
will eventually overturn the D.C. Circuit's decisions because 
in his opinion those appellate decisions conflict with the 
major questions doctrine. But it is not our role to second 
guess the courts. A fundamental principle of our constitutional 
structure is that the judicial branch interprets the law, and 
the executive branch applies it. The D.C. Circuit has spoken on 
several occasions and, unless the court's interpretation is 
reversed, we have no choice but to follow its unambiguous 
guidance.
    Now, before closing, I want to take a second to note that 
my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of my colleagues, are 
with the brave people of Ukraine. We are witnessing true 
heroism. During times like these it is impossible to ignore the 
role that energy security plays around the world, including the 
geostrategic significance of natural gas and LNG exports. That 
is all the more reason why we must not cut corners in 
permitting decisions and risk further disruptions should the 
court reject our decision-making. Instead, we need to do things 
right the first time.
    So thank you again for the invitation to testify, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Glick follows:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Commissioner Danly.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DANLY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL ENERGY 
                     REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Danly. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, 
members of the Committee, thank you for giving us this 
opportunity to discuss our recent issuances.
    I want to begin by dispelling this misconception about the 
meaning of these D.C. Circuit cases. The policy statements and 
the decision that the Commission recently arrived at places far 
too much weight on a handful of cases from the D.C. Circuit, 
most importantly, Birckhead and Sabal Trail. The holdings of 
those cases are narrow. Sabal Trail stands for the following 
proposition, and nothing more, that the Commission is required 
to give an upper-bound estimate of the downstream GHG emissions 
that are reasonably foreseeable and explain why it is unable to 
assess the particular project's impacts on the environment that 
are due to the emissions from that particular project. And you 
don't have to take my word for it. This is not my 
characterization of the holding of that case. This is the D.C. 
Circuit's description of the holding of Sabal Trail in a case 
that was issued about 18 months later, Appalachian Voices. That 
is the description that Appalachian Voices had and cited to 
include Sabal Trail for that proposition. So I leave it to you 
to determine whether or not you think that is nearly as 
expansive as the majority at FERC would have you believe its 
effect to be.
    In the case of Birckhead, there was no rejection of 
anything that the Commission did. We won Birckhead. Birckhead's 
sole holding was that the court did not have jurisdiction to 
entertain the petition for review because the petitioners had 
failed to raise their issue earlier in the proceeding. That is 
all it stands for, and yes, of course, the court did spill a 
great deal of ink saying what it would rather we had done when 
we reviewed that pipeline application, but that is not the same 
thing as commanding action by the Commission. I defy anyone to 
find a single sentence in a single appellate court case 
anywhere that mandates, requires, and demands that the 
Commission undertake the vast sweeping changes that it 
implemented in these policy statements. It may be convenient to 
appeal to these D.C. Circuit cases to justify the actions the 
Commission took, but these policy statements were discretionary 
actions by the Commission, and the policy statements were not 
required to be in compliance with the terms of Sabal Trail.
    How do we know this? Because we have issued many cases over 
the two years following Sabal Trail that complied with those 
exact requirements. Appalachian Voices was one of them, and we 
were affirmed. That is all that was required to be within the 
compass of those cases' demands of us. So I simply want to 
highlight to the Committee the fact that these cases simply do 
not bear the weight that is placed on their narrow holding.
    To turn to a couple of other points about the contents of 
the issuances, you know, we rely on private investment in order 
to deliver this absolutely strategically important and 
economically fundamental infrastructure for natural gas 
pipelines and LNG terminals. Private investment is impossible 
when the investors are unable to access risk premiums, and 
uncertainty is what drives risk premiums up. The uncertainty 
that is caused by these pipelines' certificate policy 
statements is profound. We replaced the basic need 
determination, which was primarily centered on the question of 
whether there were precedent agreements, that is to say 
agreements with shippers who wanted to use the pipeline's 
capacity before ground was even broken and construction had 
begun. That demonstrated market need, and is probably the most 
objective and probative form of evidence you can get. This is 
now muddied by raising a bunch of non-economic concerns to 
determine whether or not the project is needed.
    When it comes to the mitigation regime, which subjects the 
emissions of the entire natural gas industry, from wellhead to 
ultimate consumer to our jurisdiction, in a very dramatic 
expansion of our jurisdictional reach, that mitigation regime 
is so vague--the details of it--that it is impossible to know 
what type of mitigation will be required, how much mitigation 
is going to be required, and even if you do it with your best 
efforts, the Commission has decided that it is going to 
withhold to itself the right to impose unilaterally further 
mitigation as a condition of the certificate. That makes it 
impossible for you to pursue any application without, at every 
single stage, reassessing the economic fundamentals of the 
project you are proposing. I cannot imagine anyone being able 
to rationally allocate capital under those circumstances, or 
certainly manage to get financing on terms that are 
commercially viable.
    I would be remiss if I did not mention that FERC is not 
acting in a vacuum. We have other agencies that are pursuing 
similar objectives. The Interior is delaying leases. The 
Department of Transportation is regulating existing pipelines 
through PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration) very aggressively. We have the SEC and other 
financial regulators shaming companies into divesting energy 
holdings. And I guess the last point I would make is that, as 
everybody is aware, the electric system and the natural gas 
pipeline system are very deeply intertwined. When you have 
supply constraints, you are going to have higher prices, which 
are going to drive up the cost of electricity for everybody, 
and this is going to lead to reliability problems. At a time 
like this, when reliability is fundamental and the geostrategic 
importance of energy independence and energy security are 
playing out in front of us every day in stark terms, these 
policy statements come at a bad time.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Danly follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Clements.

   STATEMENT OF HON. ALLISON CLEMENTS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                  ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 
be here this morning.
    Much has changed since the 1999 Policy Statement the 
Commission issued on the certification of natural gas 
facilities. Hydraulic fracturing has dramatically increased the 
supply of natural gas, and demand has grown here and abroad. 
Applications for new projects have multiplied, and tribes, 
landowners, communities, and environmental groups have 
participated to make their voices heard in Commission 
certificate proceedings. Court challenges to the Commission's 
decisions have mounted, and in recent years, the courts have 
found that the Commission's decision-making is deficient for 
the failure to examine project need, greenhouse gas impacts, 
and environmental justice implications closely enough. The 
Commission's Updated Certificate Policy Statement is based on a 
record of over 38,000 comments. It has the same broad goals of 
the 1999 predecessor and retains much of its content.
    There are several important improvements, and I will 
highlight two. First, the new policy provides clear guidance on 
project need, which is now the gating question in the public 
interest analysis. Over the years, the Commission's needs 
assessment has devolved to rely almost exclusively on the 
existence of precedent agreements. That is not what the Natural 
Gas Act or the 1999 Policy Statement intended, and the 
insufficiency is increasingly indefensible in light of vastly 
changed market circumstances over the last 23 years. Second, 
the Updated Certificate Policy Statement follows the Supreme 
Court's instruction by providing for the consideration of all 
factors bearing on the public interest. This is about the 
balance that the Natural Gas Act calls for. We will balance a 
project's benefits with its adverse impacts. Our analysis will 
then result in decisions that can withstand judicial review.
    Regarding the GHG Policy Statement, stakeholders, including 
industry, told us that they wanted more guidance on how the 
Commission would calculate and assess emissions and when it 
would require an environmental impact statement as opposed to 
an environmental assessment. The interim policy sets a 
numerical threshold of annual GHG emissions that presumptively 
triggers the preparation of an EIS. It also encourages project 
sponsors to propose measures to mitigate GHG emissions. Let me 
be clear, despite the consternation, that the policy does not 
purport to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, that is the role 
of state and federal environmental agencies. Instead, as it 
does with other impacts, the Commission will take GHG emissions 
and mitigation measures into account in balancing a project's 
benefits against its adverse effects. Nothing in the policy 
statements requires the Commission to reject a project that has 
significant GHG emissions. Our balancing would lead to approval 
if the project's benefits--for example, reliability--outweigh 
its adverse impacts.
    My colleagues, Commissioner Danly and Commissioner 
Christie, argue in their dissent that the two policies exceed 
the Commission's authority because they advance environmental 
goals in conflict with the purpose of the Natural Gas Act, 
which the Supreme Court has said is to encourage the orderly 
development of plentiful supplies of natural gas at reasonable 
prices. In considering their concerns, we must acknowledge 
three things. First, the Supreme Court also said in the very 
decision to which their dissent cites that the statute's 
purpose encompasses environmental concerns. Second, the Supreme 
Court's interpretation cannot be understood to render language 
out of the Natural Gas Act. The statute provides that the 
Commission shall issue a certificate only if it is required by 
present or future public convenience and necessity. Otherwise, 
it shall be denied. All projects before the Commission 
contribute in some way to the supplies of development of 
natural gas. The Congress could not have meant that every 
project proposed should be approved, or else the Act's specific 
Section 7 instructions for review would be superfluous. Third, 
the D.C. Circuit has held that the Commission must consider GHG 
impacts, which, of course, are an important environmental 
factor, and has the authority to require mitigation of those 
impacts.
    As regulators, we must follow binding precedent. We do not 
have the statutory or constitutional authority to substitute 
our own opinion that circuit cases were wrongly decided or may 
one day be overruled. We can continue to dig in to the status 
quo. We can parse through the words of these decisions, whether 
or not they are in this part of the decision or this part, and 
continue to criticize the Commission's insufficiency. All that 
does is set us up for further delay and expense. This is a 
good, balanced policy. It goes nowhere near as far as the many 
thousands of comments suggest we should go.
    Finally, I want to assure the Committee that we will 
implement these polices with due regard for the important role 
natural gas plays both domestically and abroad. A lot is 
happening right now. We could not have this conversation 
without acknowledging the impact of the war, inflation, and 
other factors on U.S. customers and our allies, and I take that 
very seriously. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Clements follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Chairman Christie.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MARK C. CHRISTIE, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                  ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Christie. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee, thank you for this 
invitation.
    I strongly dissented from this new policy. I think it is 
wrong on the law, and I think it is horribly wrong in terms of 
national energy policy at this point in time. It will 
definitely raise costs and uncertainties of building natural 
gas facilities, and by raising costs and uncertainties it is 
going to undeniably act as a deterrent to building the 
facilities this country is going to need to keep our electric 
grid reliable, to heat people's homes in the winter, to provide 
manufacturers with the energy supply they need to keep 
manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and even to serve 
our national security as current events in Europe and Ukraine 
illustrate. Now, I agree there were reasonable updates we could 
have made to the 1999 Policy Statement. I agree with the 
majority that precedent agreements among corporate affiliates 
should not, in and of themselves, prove need. I was more than 
willing to compromise on that. We could have had a compromise 
on that. I also agreed that we need to strengthen the due 
process considerations that go to property owners and affected 
communities. We could have compromised on that.
    Unfortunately, the new policy the majority imposed does not 
represent a reasonable update of the 1999 policy. What the 
majority did was read into the Natural Gas Act a power to 
address climate change by rejecting facilities that otherwise 
under the Natural Gas Act are absolutely needed. They violated 
a core maxim of administrative law that has been in effect for 
many years, and that is that an agency cannot--that Congress 
does not hide elephants in mouse holes. And what they did here 
is pull a big elephant out of a little mouse hole because they 
wanted the power to address climate change, and that is exactly 
what has been done here. But you have that power. That is a 
major, major policy issue addressing climate change, and you 
are elected by the people to address those major questions, not 
us, an unelected Commission.
    And as the Chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, don't 
be fooled by the term ``interim.'' It's meaningless. It is in 
effect now. It's not temporary. It's not time limited. It 
applies right now, and it applies not only to future 
applications, but also to pending applications, and it's going 
to inflict material harm on many pending applications. And I 
know there is, and Chairman Glick has said many times, it's 
just a framework, don't worry about it, nothing to see here. It 
applies now, and it is going to be a deterrent now. Now, it 
didn't happen in a vacuum. It's only the latest example in a 
year of a pattern of actions that have been delaying and adding 
costs to natural gas facility applications. There's no question 
about that. In January, for example, the majority imposed a new 
procedural rule that allows in a pipeline case, even after FERC 
has found it was needed to serve the public, unlimited late 
interventions by parties that want to come in--and of course, 
they want to come in--to oppose it. I said at the time, that is 
not a legal standard. That is a legal weapon. Well, this new 
policy is the mother of all legal weapons because it is going 
to be used against every major natural gas facility in the 
country. And again, Chairman Manchin mentioned that the 
national campaign against all fossil fuel facilities, really, 
there's no question this is going on. And this new policy is 
going to hand, as I said, the mother of all legal weapons to 
this campaign against all fossil fuel facilities, but 
specifically natural gas.
    So it is not about legal durability. As the Chairman says, 
it is about making these projects even more vulnerable on 
appeal just because FERC even approves a few. And I have no 
doubt--just let me say this, there's no doubt in my mind, we're 
going to see a handful of pipeline approvals brought forth to 
the Commission to vote on, and it's going to be a Potemkin 
village because it's not going to represent a true indication 
of this--of how damaging this policy is. So, finally, I want to 
say this. This issue of how to deal with climate change is an 
issue for you, who are elected by the people. This is not for 
unelected Commissioners or any administrative agency. In a 
democracy, the major questions that affect tens of millions of 
Americans' lives, those are supposed to be made by you all. You 
are the elected legislators. We don't have that power, and you 
haven't given it to us. No bill has ever been passed saying 
FERC gets to reject projects based on climate change. No 
President ever signed a bill saying FERC gets to reject 
projects based on climate change. And I can tell you, Sabal 
Trail didn't require us to do this. There's not a case that 
required us to do this.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity 
to be here, and I look forward to any questions that you may 
have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Christie follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And Commissioner Phillips.

  STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIE L. PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                  ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and members of the Committee for this opportunity to 
testify today.
    As you are well aware, Congress delegated to the Commission 
the responsibility to certificate pipeline projects and LNG 
export and import terminals in the public interest to provide 
needed and reliable energy to consumers pursuant to the Natural 
Gas Act. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, 
we are directed to examine whether these projects significantly 
impact the environment. I aim to fulfill these duties as 
expeditiously as possible, consistent with each statute and 
court guidance. Our failure to comply with court precedent 
interpreting the NGA and NEPA risk possible remand or vacatur, 
which may result in further delays or curtailment of needed 
service. This does not help consumers. I believe the 
Commission's recently issued guidance is a first step--I 
repeat, a first step--in addressing the uncertainty and delay 
associated with the Commission's review of the proposed natural 
gas infrastructure projects. The Updated Certificate Policy 
Statement does not establish binding rules, but is intended to 
explain how the Commission will consider applications for new 
projects.
    The updated statement explains that, in determining whether 
to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity, the 
Commission will weigh public benefits of a proposal, the most 
important of which is the need that will be served by a 
project, against adverse impacts. When assessing a project for 
need, the Commission will continue to rely on precedent 
agreements, but we may also examine additional evidence and, 
like the 1999 Policy Statement, consider all relevant factors 
bearing on the need of a project.
    Now, the Interim Policy Statement on Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions provides guidance on how the Commission will consider 
and calculate projected GHG emissions for LNG import and export 
proposals under Section 3 of the NGA and Section 7 of the NGA. 
The statement establishes a presumptive threshold for assessing 
whether GHG emissions are significant for the purposes of NEPA. 
This threshold is not an emission cap, nor does it require 
project proponents to mitigate direct emissions down to the 
presumed significance level. Instead, it establishes a 
guidepost to consider when GHG emissions may be significant. I 
believe we have the authority to set this presumption to guide 
our NEPA document preparation, but I also recognize that no 
court has required the Commission to do so yet, nor has the 
Council on Environmental Quality, the entity charged with 
implementing NEPA. It has not indicated when GHG emissions are 
significant. However, stakeholders--and I have met with these 
stakeholders--have called for more guidance and proposed 
thresholds, and the proposed threshold is meant to address the 
ambiguity on how and when the Commission will assess 
significance. It is intended to provide clarity.
    While the Commission attempts to address the significance 
standard during this interim period, I look forward to engaging 
with responses from our comment period. If comments demonstrate 
a better framework, which can withstand judicial review, I 
remain open to those solutions. The Commission's role in 
approving needed natural gas infrastructure is essential to 
every American. I am committed to ensuring our decision-making 
is timely, provides an opportunity for stakeholder input, and 
is insulated from unnecessary court disruption. However, even 
as we announced these statements, we acknowledge that they will 
likely be modified if they fail to achieve their intended 
purpose.
    Now, much has been made about my commitment to 
affordability and reliability. I want to say with clarity, my 
commitments have not changed. I have deep experience regarding 
reliability, and I do not have to recount my personal stories 
dealing with affordability. That remains top-of-mind for me, 
but it is now, Senators, and always will be, about balance for 
me. That is what I have always done, and I came here to do one 
thing. That is to make sure that we get to work. I look forward 
to your questions. I thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Let me thank all of you for being here today 
and for your testimonies. Now we will begin our questions. I 
will start with the questioning.
    The Commission--you all--acknowledge that to date, no 
federal agency, including this Commission, has established a 
threshold for determining what level of project-induced 
greenhouse gas emissions is significant. Why do you all think 
that FERC, whose primary purpose is to regulate efficient and 
reliable energy, should be the first agency--the first--to set 
such a standard rather than the environmental agencies?
    Chairman Glick.
    Mr. Glick. Thank you very much for the question, Chairman 
Manchin.
    You know, we certainly could wait, but then we would be 
waiting. We had a number of cases sitting there, and we need to 
act on this issue.
    The Chairman. Why did the EPA not think they should be 
first?
    Mr. Glick. I can't answer for the EPA.
    The Chairman. Why didn't Fish and Wildlife? Why not 
Interior?
    Mr. Glick. I can't answer.
    The Chairman. Army Corps of Engineers?
    Mr. Glick. Yes, I can't answer that. All I can tell you is 
that we have cases for which the courts have told us that we 
have to analyze the impact of the greenhouse gas emissions as 
to whether they are significant or not, and, if we sat there 
and didn't do anything, these cases would be sitting there. We 
have been getting criticized because we are not moving cases. 
That is what I am doing here. I am trying to move cases.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Mr. Chairman, I think that the standard they 
have chosen, the 100,000 tons, is purely arbitrary and 
capricious, and there's no basis for it.
    The Chairman. That is my second question. Where did 100,000 
tons come from?
    Let Ms. Clements answer first.
    Ms. Clements. Sir, we looked to analogous situations in 
other agencies and states across the country. We put forward 
the number as a proposed interim basis.
    The Chairman. Why did you put it in effect? There is 
nothing proposed. You are in effect now.
    Ms. Clements. Sir, we put it in effect so that we could 
send certificate approvals through that the D.C. Circuit would 
say, FERC did its job in considering these issues. We left it 
open for input so that if we get more feedback from 
stakeholders from the project sponsors that we landed in the 
wrong place, then we have the flexibility on that front.
    Mr. Danly. Senator Manchin.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Danly. The reason stated in the GHG Policy Statement 
for why the 100,000 was chosen, remember this is administrative 
law.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Danly. The only thing that matters is what the order 
says. The order said it was administratively easy to do 
100,000, that it would encompass 99 percent of the emissions of 
FERC jurisdictional projects, and that 100,000 was used by 
other agencies. And I will point out in that case, it was other 
agencies administrating different statutes covering different 
subject matter. Those were the reasons that the Commission said 
it chose that number. None of them bear at all on the potential 
effects or consequences or environmental effects of the 
emissions.
    The Chairman. Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. I was just going to add, Mr. Chairman, to 
show how just arbitrary and capricious this whole thing is, 
they don't even say what level of mitigation. They don't even 
say they have the power to require mitigation of indirect 
impacts because they don't. So what they are going to do is say 
to the applicant, we encourage you to propose--sort of 
encourage with a gun to your head--we're going to encourage you 
to propose mitigation, but we won't tell you what's good 
enough. We won't tell you how much is enough or how much is not 
enough. So it's purely arbitrary, and it just comes down to 
whatever three members are willing to approve.
    The Chairman. Very quickly.
    Mr. Glick. Thank you, Chairman Manchin.
    You know, we do this analysis all the time with all sorts 
of environmental impacts--geology, soil, water, land use, 
visual issues. We do this all the time. Every single time the 
Commission issues an order, we don't have the necessary metrics 
that the other agencies use. We have to determine whether those 
issues--those impacts are significant or not, and we do so 
through our environmental impact statements, and then the 
Commission votes on that. And this is no different. They're 
making it sound like it's a totally different set of issues. 
We're just following the law.
    The Chairman. Let me just say this, if I may. LNG, we know, 
is needed right now. With what Europe is going through and the 
geopolitical climate that we have, which is very, very 
dangerous, we are trying to ramp-up LNG to backfill if we can. 
We cannot get anything through. I mean, this is the bottom 
line. I will say this, as a person that comes from an energy 
state, a transition is going on. I am all for transition from 
the standpoint if we can make sure that we have reliable, 
affordable, and dependable power. I am just not going to go out 
10 years from now and be caught short. That is the problem. 
That is what Europe did.
    And we spoke to them yesterday about that. We do not have 
to ramp-up. We already have it. Just let us go. We cannot get 
lines in. And you all say, well, this and that. You are not 
talking to agencies, must not be talking to each other. You are 
not talking to the EPA. I guess you are all separate. Everybody 
goes through their own process. You are wearing people out. You 
are wearing people out and putting undue burden on the users in 
America. We are paying much higher prices. We have never paid 
these kinds of prices, not in my State of West Virginia. They 
have doubled their utility prices, and we have not seen any 
principal changes.
    Mr. Christie. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to 
something Chairman Glick just said under his nothing-to-see-
here defense that we've always done these environmental impact 
analyses--nothing to see here, no big deal, we've always done 
it. And I read his statement talking about the various 
environmental impacts that FERC has historically done. They're 
all impacts directly related to the specific facility itself. 
There's no question we can mitigate or reduce or minimize 
environmental impacts to a forest or a wetland where the 
pipeline goes through, but to say that the applicant has to 
mitigate global climate impacts is not even remotely related to 
what FERC has historically done. So I think that it's totally 
misleading to say there is nothing to see here, nothing new, 
we've always done environmental impacts to compare drainage 
mitigation going through a wetland to oh, you've got to 
mitigate global climate change. If you can't see the difference 
in that, you're not looking. That is a massive step different.
    The Chairman. You are going to be able to answer many 
questions, and I am going to go down to Senator Barrasso so 
everybody gets a turn.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate your line of questioning. I appreciate the comments, 
and I can clearly see the difference, Commissioner Christie, 
what you have outlined, and I would think that any thoughtful 
person could see that and understand it completely.
    Let me get to Commissioner Danly, if I could. What is going 
to be the impact of the Commission's two policy statements on 
consumers for the near future, the medium future, and over the 
long term? What is the impact?
    Mr. Danly. So the immediate effect is going to be that 
there will be a chilling of investment, which, for the most 
part, is actually going to be realized in its palpable effect 
to the consumer down the road. But the chilling of investment 
is going to make it difficult for us to build this 
infrastructure in the future. It's going to cause a rise in 
prices, both for natural gas as a commodity that people burn in 
their houses and the like, but also for electric generation, 
and it's going to create supply constraints that are going to 
imperil reliability.
    Senator Barrasso. So what the Democrat members of this 
Commission are doing right now is going to make inflation even 
worse on American consumers by raising energy costs?
    Mr. Danly. Yes, and of course, energy is an input to 
virtually everything we do. And so it's going to make every 
cost go up everywhere. It'll be most acute though in the case 
of electricity and gas.
    Senator Barrasso. And could the Congressional Review Act 
enable Congress to block these orders and protect American 
families?
    Mr. Danly. I think it probably can. The question that is 
often raised is the issue of the terminology rule. The word 
rule in the Congressional Review Act by its definition in the 
enactment is much broader than rulemakings that we have in 
administrative agencies. I think it's virtually certain that 
the CRA can be applied here.
    Senator Barrasso. In your dissent, you state that the 
Interim Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement violates the Natural 
Gas Act, NEPA, and the Commission and the Council on 
Environmental Quality's regulations. Could you expand a little 
bit about your comments?
    Mr. Danly. Certainly. So it violates the NGA because it is 
designed to undertake tasks that are directly contrary to the 
purpose of the NGA. The case with the NAACP informed us that we 
have to interpret our statute in the light of the purpose of 
the statute, which is to promote the orderly development of 
natural gas in plentiful supplies at reasonable prices. It 
violates the CEQ's regulations because we have regulations that 
implement CEQ's regulations, and CEQ specifies the means by 
which we're supposed to engage in our environmental review, 
including when EAs or EISs are appropriate, and how the rule of 
reason governs our NEPA analysis. These things are actually 
contrary to the laws on the books as they stand.
    Senator Barrasso. So, in your dissent, you discuss how the 
Interim Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement applies to both new and 
pending applications for natural gas projects. You say, the 
applications to all projects, both new and pending, some for 
over two years, is an affront to the basic fairness and is 
unjustifiable, especially in light of the many unnecessary 
delays already suffered by these applicants. Could you expand a 
little bit on that for the Committee?
    Mr. Danly. So, when I talk about the unnecessary delays, 
one of the concedes so far that we've heard during this hearing 
is that everything had to wait--this logjam had to build up 
while we were waiting for the policy statement. Well, that 
can't be true by the terms of the policy statement itself 
because, according to my colleagues, it's nonbinding. We 
could've engaged in any of these analyses that we had wanted to 
as these cases were pending. That is what I mean by the 
unjustified delays. When it comes to the unfairness, it is a 
basic premise of the law that people are supposed to be on 
notice about how it is that their request of government and 
their interactions with government are going to be considered. 
And all of the reliance interest that was built and all of the 
money that was spent in getting these applications to the 
Commission and prosecuted before the Commission are now thrown 
into disarray, and people cannot rely upon any of those 
assumptions that had been baked into our process for decades 
before this policy statement was issued. That is obviously 
unfair, and I think everybody who has a sense of fairness and 
decency understands that.
    Senator Barrasso. Commissioner Christie, let me first go to 
you, and then I will ask Commissioner Danly to respond as well. 
The Interim Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement claims that to 
provide guidance for applicants on how to account for 
greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas projects, you know, 
your dissent paints a very different picture on this. When the 
Commission applies the policy statement to specific projects, 
what is likely to happen?
    Mr. Christie. Well, that is an unanswerable question, 
Senator, because it is so unclear, it's so confusing, that the 
applicant doesn't even know what it takes to get approved. And 
that is one of the most pernicious aspects of this whole thing. 
You know, what they've said in here is, well, above 100,000 
tons you're going to get an EIS, which is a very long, 
involved, costly process, and by the way, the 100,000 tons are 
going to end up meaning almost all major projects are going to 
fall into that category. So they're all going to have to do an 
EIS, which is very costly. But the pernicious thing about this 
is that they say, we're not even going to tell you what you 
have to do. We encourage you, again, with a gun to your head, 
to propose mitigation, but how is an applicant for a 
transportation facility--let's remember something, a pipeline 
is a transportation service. It's not producing gas. It's not 
consuming gas. It's just transporting gas from the producer to 
the consumer. So what they're telling them in this policy is, 
you're just a transportation service, but you have to propose 
mitigating global climate change, and we're not even going to 
tell you how much is enough. So you have to guess.
    Now, who can go out and raise $6 billion of risk capital 
based on a prospect that you don't even know what three members 
of the Commission are going to be willing to approve? It is 
purely arbitrary and capricious, but it's just utterly 
pernicious and, of course, it's all set up so no one can 
appeal. Let's get real. It's all set up so no one can appeal. 
The Chairman says it's only a framework. You have to wait to 
see how it works out in individual cases, and clearly, in 
individual cases, we're going to see it work out, but I think 
what we're probably going to see is that the deterrent factor 
is so great, I think you're going to see a lot of applications 
that are never going to get even proposed, and maybe that is 
the point because who can raise $6 to $8 billion of risk 
capital based upon a standard that says, try your luck, go buy 
a Powerball ticket. Try your luck.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I just want 
to submit for the record a letter from Alan Armstrong on this 
specific thing. He is the CEO of Williams Companies. They 
transport about 30 percent of the natural gas in this country. 
As he put it, ``One thing is clear, instead of providing more 
clarity and regulatory certainty for natural gas infrastructure 
projects, this new policy statement creates more confusion and 
less regulatory certainty,'' and he concluded by then saying, 
``The Interim Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy Statement has 
shrouded FERC's certificate decisions in a fog of indecision.''
    I ask unanimous consent that----
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The letter referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
    The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. So it seems to me that the real threat to 
energy infrastructure is uncertainty, and cutting corners in 
the planning process creates an enormous amount of uncertainty, 
as we have seen borne out in multiple court rulings. Chairman 
Glick, can you elaborate on how FERC's recent actions relate 
directly to those court rulings and how certainty in the 
planning process not only improves the prospects of completing 
projects but also investment and finance?
    Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    That is what this is all about. We are all talking about 
certainty one way or the other. And I think that, you know, 
there are different ways of looking at certainty, but with 
regard to Commissioner Danly, who argued a second ago that the 
Sabal Trail case doesn't say what we say it says, and read his 
dissent, read Commissioner Christie's dissent, they spend the 
entire dissent saying the court got it wrong. They don't say 
the court didn't say what it said. They just said the court got 
it wrong. And that is not our job to do.
    And so there is the ACP case, which I mentioned in my 
opening testimony. There's the MVP Pipeline, which is sent back 
over and over again because the agency has kept on cutting 
corners. In FERC's case we have the Spire case, the pipeline in 
Missouri and Illinois in which the Commission, with no evidence 
in the record, and the court said so, approved the pipeline, 
and then it got sent back. Now it's back to us a couple years 
later. And then we have a pipeline before the FERC's 
jurisdiction, the Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline for 
which the agency decided not to do an environmental impact 
statement. You know what the court said? Sending it back.
    And so we're talking about billions of dollars. We have the 
MVP Pipeline in which they said recently they're thinking about 
dropping out of the project because of the lengthy delays. And 
so what we're trying to do here is provide more certainty. I 
understand this is a difficult concept. I understand that I am 
going to be meeting with a bunch of CEOs next week to talk 
about it. They can certainly seek clarification. We will be 
glad to clarify it, if that will help. But if we sat there and 
did nothing, all we would be doing is further imperiling these 
cases and adding more uncertainty to the whole process.
    Senator Heinrich. Commissioner Clements, you brought up the 
issue of what triggers an EA versus an EIS, and that is often 
the subject of litigation and challenges to some of these 
projects. Why is it so important to have some actual guidance 
so that people do not have to guess what process is appropriate 
for their project?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
    The planning process for large, long-lived infrastructure 
like a pipeline is expensive and long, a long planning process 
regardless of whether or not you are performing an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The 
environmental impact statement will increase by a number of 
months the upfront work. It involves a more thorough review. It 
is time well spent. It sets the project sponsor up for success 
in having a legitimate approval that not just the courts 
respect, but that stakeholders who have other tools to 
challenge the pipeline respect. So what we have done, to your 
question, sir, is put forth a number that allows us to go 
forward right now with an understanding we can work with and 
then to take feedback as we apply this policy statement to the 
facts of each given case on a going-forward basis.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you. I think that is a very 
important point, and I want to thank you all for doing your 
job. All five of you clearly do not have the same opinions, and 
I think that is appropriate. And I hope that all of you will 
remain independent and reject any efforts by anyone to bully 
you into embracing one political agenda or another, and I 
appreciate your independence.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Christie, I would like to start with you. It 
seems the majority is interested in essentially halting new gas 
projects. Now, you addressed this point in your dissent noting, 
``the new policy threatens to do fundamental damage to the 
nation's energy security.'' Tell us how you think American 
families will be hurt if these policies remain in place.
    Mr. Christie. Well, we start from the premise that at this 
point in our history, natural gas is absolutely essential to a 
lot of things. First of all, it's essential to our electric 
reliability grid. It's now the largest single source of fuel 
for our electricity reliability grid. So natural gas is 
essential to keep the lights on. It's also essential to our 
manufacturing base. We hear, you know, not only is this going 
to attack energy jobs, this is going to impact manufacturing in 
the parts of America where manufacturing and manufacturing jobs 
are a vital part of our economy because manufacturing 
industries need reliable energy supply. And of course people 
heat their homes with natural gas, and it is a national 
security issue.
    So we need natural gas supply. As Senator Manchin says, the 
transition is underway. Certainly, we're going to move toward a 
more carbon-free--and that is a good policy goal, but as we 
move toward reducing carbon emissions, natural gas is going to 
be an essential part of our energy mix. And what this policy is 
going to do is, it's a massive deterrent to building the 
natural gas facilities that we're going to absolutely have to 
have.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Now, Commissioner Danly, in your testimony you addressed a 
finding in Appalachian Voices v. FERC which indicates that the 
Commission is setting a standard for itself and for applicants 
that simply is not supported by the law. Tell us how far beyond 
the law projects will have to be able to go now. How far beyond 
the legal standard prescribed by the law itself they will have 
to go in order to comply?
    Mr. Danly. Thank you, Senator. That, unfortunately, is the 
very question that every one of the possible project proponents 
is asking themselves. There's no way to know.
    Senator Lee. Unknown and unknowable.
    Mr. Danly. That is correct. And when you consider--if you 
want to speak in just broad legal terms how far beyond the law 
is required, I explained that Sabal Trail required that narrow 
holding. Imagine this set of policy statements basically 
declares that FERC now has the power to regulate emissions 
going all the way from the wellhead to the ultimate consumer of 
the gas. That means that it's everything from gathering at the 
front to literally boilers in your house to heat water, 
combined-cycle electric generators, and fertilizer plants. And, 
although they put it in terms of exhortation, as in, we 
encourage you to come up with a mitigation plan. That kind of 
encouragement has a bit of coercion in it, right? The project 
applicants are going to have to guess what it is, and worst of 
all, even if it's extremely good mitigation, they can still 
have more imposed upon them as a certificate condition.
    Senator Lee. And in a field that requires--for the 
stability of our access to energy in this country, it requires 
substantial capital investment. Investment, in turn, cannot 
happen, I mean, a condition precedent of investment is a degree 
of legal certainty. Is that right?
    Mr. Danly. That is correct.
    Senator Lee. And that is why you have come to this 
conclusion that this pushes us dangerously into a territory in 
which such investments simply will not be made----
    Mr. Danly. They will not be made. And many of the current 
ones in the pipeline, I expect--I can't give a number, of 
course, it's in the future--but 15, 20 percent, I could imagine 
that high, withdrawing because of the uncertain mitigation 
they're going to be facing. And in order for us to claim as an 
agency that we're creating this level of uncertainty for the 
sake of giving certainty down the road, for the legal 
challenges that will arise, is like saying we have to destroy 
the village to save it. It's just not believable. The chilling 
effect is happening now. The lack of investment is happening 
now. In the boardrooms they're discussing what they're going to 
do for the sunk costs that have already gone into these 
projects.
    Senator Lee. All this is very troubling, and it is 
troubling especially in light of the fact that it has not been 
very long since we saw how fragile some of our systems are. It 
has only been a few months since the Colonial Pipeline attack. 
And in the immediate wake of that attack and others that have 
occurred even more recently in the same time period and events 
that occurred in Texas, we have seen how fragile it can become. 
And in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline attack, Chairman Glick 
noted--you noted, sir, that the, ``cyberattack against the 
Colonial pipeline system, which provides nearly half of the 
fuel supply for the East Coast, is a stark reminder that we 
must do more to ensure the safety of our nation's energy 
infrastructure.'' Now, I find it unsettling that just months 
after making that statement, we saw a majority, including you, 
Chairman Glick, undertaking actions that are the opposite of 
that. As I see it, you have prioritized your own radical 
climate agenda over expanding our energy infrastructure, and 
this makes us more vulnerable to attack and leaves us with less 
of what we need.
    Now, I want to close just by noting, reminding everyone why 
FERC exists. FERC was created to help bolster our nation's 
energy security, not weaken it. And the Commission's recent 
actions make clear that it prefers the latter. In light of that 
and echoing what Senator Barrasso said in his opening 
statement, I am now starting to think that perhaps we would be 
better off without FERC, which, having been created by 
Congress, can be eliminated by Congress. Perhaps it should.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we have Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank all 
of you for your hard work on this. The conflict is obvious, and 
I can see clearly the two sides. I see why FERC was compelled 
to take this action under the current statute and the cases 
that the D.C. Circuit Court made clear. They felt that the 
business as usual was not working. In a way, this is similar to 
the issues we are facing around transmission, which I think we 
have heard Senators of both sides--I know I heard Senator 
Lankford, Senator Manchin, and Senator Heinrich talk about 
these issues. Maybe it is time that we get around the table and 
just discuss a legislative solution to gas and transmission at 
the same time because we really are running out of time. I 
think there should be a sense of urgency around this. We will 
continue to grapple with this and figure out how to do 
everything and provide the protections and the process to touch 
all the bases, but create a system that is going to move a lot 
more rapidly, and with more assurance and less risk to 
investors that are trying to make assessments on where to put 
their capital.
    So hopefully that would be something that the other 
Senators could work on. Is that something that would be 
receptive to each of you?
    I think that is almost unanimous.
    The Chairman. I don't know if they have ever talked to each 
other before
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hickenlooper. Honorable Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Mister is fine, Senator Hickenlooper, thank 
you.
    You make a very good point, and I think it is a much bigger 
issue even than gas pipelines. Just yesterday in Wisconsin a 
federal judge struck down an electric transmission line that 
was going to bring electricity from Iowa, mostly wind 
generated, to Wisconsin, and he struck it down based upon, 
guess what? You didn't do enough of your NEPA analysis. So 
attacks on infrastructure that this country is going to need, 
whether it's electric transmission lines or natural gas 
pipelines, are incredibly vulnerable to the legal warfare that 
can be used against by using these procedural statutes like 
NEPA, APA, and so it is a much bigger issue even than natural 
gas pipelines, Senator.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Well, that is an issue that is not 
going to go away.
    Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Glick. Senator, we certainly would be willing to work 
with you. To the extent you need any technical advice in 
legislation, we're always willing to do that and talk about it. 
I think Commissioner Christie is right, you know, we, as a 
country, we have a problem. We know we need more infrastructure 
as we transition into this energy future, whether it be 
pipelines, LNG, whether it be electric transmission, whether it 
be generating facilities. And constantly, the developers of 
these projects run into all sorts of snags, and it's very 
difficult. I understand that completely. But the answer is not 
to ignore the law and, as Senator Lee mentioned a second ago, 
maybe we don't need FERC, you know, if Congress wants to get 
rid of FERC, someone is going to site the project though. You 
give it back to the states. I don't think anyone wants that 
because there is all sorts of checkerboard regulating. You can 
give it to the Interior Department. You can give it to the EPA. 
There are other agencies that can do it. But the problem still 
exists. We have to do it right the first time and follow the 
law. If we don't follow the law, we're just going to continue 
to get these court orders that Commissioner Christie mentioned.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
    And what would be the information that gas companies would 
be required to submit to the Commission if we are going to go 
forward on this?
    Mr. Glick. Well, first of all, they're going to have to 
submit information about the need for the project, which is 
required under the law, and then they're going to submit 
information about a whole variety of potential impacts, like I 
mentioned earlier--wetlands, water quality, visual impacts, all 
sorts of impacts, and they'll submit information as the courts 
have required on a number of occasions now regarding their 
potential greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions 
are primarily used, at least up front, to determine whether an 
EIS is necessary or an environmental assessment is necessary.
    The problem is, if you don't do the environmental impact 
statement first, if you think there's potentially an 
environmental problem and you do the environmental assessment, 
the court is going to send it back to you and do the EIS. We 
saw that in Dakota Access. It's just further delaying needed 
infrastructure development.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Right. And certainly, there is a 
whole raft of new information that is available. I know we have 
a company in Colorado called Canary that can measure very, very 
accurate methane leaks and emissions, which, obviously, would 
have to be a part of any kind of environmental impact 
statement.
    Mr. Glick. Absolutely.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Well, at some point we should 
figure out what that process might look like because I think 
whether you are talking about the grid or pipelines, we all 
have the same sense of urgency of how can we move in this 
transition a lot more rapidly.
    The Chairman. Well, they want to move into transition 
rapidly, but the bottom line is you cannot just abandon the 
reliability that we need. That is the problem.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Exactly.
    The Chairman. They want to put the cart in front of the 
horse and have the horse push the cart up the hill.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Can't do it. Just can't do it. It makes no 
sense at all for us to be that vulnerable, for a superpower of 
the world to be this vulnerable, especially when the world 
needs us more now than ever. And here we sit having these 
conversations here that are going to restrict us. That makes no 
sense to me.
    Senator Hickenlooper. But I bet we could sit down fairly 
quickly and figure out some ways to----
    The Chairman. Well, I think we need to all sit down.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. This is wrong.
    Thank you. I'm sorry.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. You got me going there, Senator.
    Senator Hickenlooper. I yield.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper. In a nick of time.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. You saved me.
    Senator Lankford, it is your turn.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    In the week that Russia is murdering its neighbors and 
using fuel as a weapon again, against all of Europe, 
intimidating everyone with it, we are discussing how much 
slower fuel will be managed in the United States. That is the 
problem, is that this continues to slow down this conversation 
about certainty that has been here. My understanding from 
reading through this is FERC will now handle mitigation plans 
on a case-by-case basis. A case-by-case basis does not give 
anyone a sense of certainty to say turn it in, we will look at 
it and we will discuss it, and especially with a new process, 
when literally we should be trying to expedite things. It is 
now a case-by-case basis. Do a $3 billion proposal, and we will 
take a look at it, case by case, depending on the makeup of 
this body.
    I'll tell you, Keystone sent a pretty clear message on day 
one of this Administration. We do not want to do pipelines on 
oil. And then, there was an announcement of a Federal Reserve 
nomination that the nominee announced immediately and made it 
very clear that they are going to use the Federal Reserve to 
then punish any entity that provides capital for any kind of 
fossil fuel projects. We have paused federal lands for a year, 
permitting on federal lands and doing new leasing on that. So 
the pause for a year, and then this rule was announced, and it 
is an interim rule.
    Mr. Danly, how long does an interim rule last?
    Mr. Danly. Senator, there's really no such thing as an 
interim rule. This rule isn't interim in that it applies 
immediately and, of course, the Commission can always hear 
comments and listen to what people have to say, but nothing 
makes the Commission as a body do anything about those later 
requests.
    Senator Lankford. So let me just ask a question, 
Commissioner Danly. Does FERC have the authority to regulate 
flaring natural gas at the production of the wellhead?
    Mr. Danly. No.
    Senator Lankford. Does FERC have the authority to regulate 
the combustion of that gas at the power plant?
    Mr. Danly. No.
    Senator Lankford. Does FERC have the authority to regulate 
my stove top at my house?
    Mr. Danly. No.
    Senator Lankford. Or my water heater at my house?
    Mr. Danly. No, it doesn't.
    Senator Lankford. But this pipeline conversation, the 
transport device, is now going to have to say for the pipeline 
company, show where you are mitigating all sources and your 
total environmental impact of greenhouse gases of actually 
moving this molecule?
    Mr. Danly. That is correct. The idea is that the 
transportation service provider is requested to mitigate the 
emissions that occur upstream and downstream. They're 
encouraged, to use that word again, to give that mitigation 
plan.
    Senator Lankford. So what it sounds like FERC is doing is 
to say, I don't have the authority to regulate those things, 
but I do have the authority to regulate you, and so I'm going 
to encourage you, as an entity, to go to them and put pressure 
and to make changes because I can't do that, but I also don't 
have to give you a permit until you put pressure on somebody 
else.
    Mr. Danly. It is, in my opinion, a classic case of doing 
indirectly what can't be done directly.
    Senator Lankford. It is what it reads like, and it is what 
it feels like.
    Commissioner Christie, let me ask you a question here, and 
again, this goes back to our certainty conversation we are 
trying to be able to have on this and how it is going to handle 
what a case-by-case mitigation proposal is going to be for any 
entity that already has approval by the Commission now for 
their project. They already have approval. They are already 
done. They come back to request a minor change, let's say a 
timeline change, a date change or something. If they come back 
to be able to make a minor change on that, are they going to 
have to go through this process all over again? Those that are 
in process that have started long ago, will they have to go 
through this if they ask for a timeline change?
    Mr. Christie. It applies to all future and pending 
applications, and we actually have already approved facilities 
that are asking for route changes, minor route changes. And 
they're pending right now, and they're not being brought in 
front of us to vote on. And my assumption is, this whole policy 
is going to apply to those as well. So my answer to you would 
be, based on what I know, yes, it applies to everything, even 
when you've been approved five years ago and you come back in 
for a route change, you're going to have to do this.
    Senator Lankford. Chairman Glick, is that correct?
    Mr. Glick. Thank you, Senator.
    So that actually isn't necessarily correct. It depends on--
--
    Senator Lankford. Well, this would be helpful to everyone 
listening right now to be able to know because everybody is 
trying to get certainty.
    Mr. Glick [continuing]. Right and I think this is all about 
certainty, as I said earlier. I think it depends on what's 
filed before the Commission, but if it's a major request for a 
significant change, then yes, we're going to have to look at 
the environmental impacts. But you said earlier----
    Senator Lankford. Hold on, hold on. Can I just clarify 
this?
    Mr. Glick. Sure.
    Senator Lankford. Because everybody's listening. Who knows 
what is significant and minor is in that sense--a date change, 
a timeline change, a route change--how significant of a route 
change is now significant and has to go through this process 
all over again?
    Mr. Glick. We are presented with that question every single 
day. We have been presented with that, FERC has been presented 
with that question, the Federal Power Commission before that, 
ever since 1938, as to what kind of change. We have amendments 
that come that are considered minor amendments, and we have 
amendments that come to the Commission that are considered a 
major amendment, amendments to the licenses. And the fact is, 
is that we look at these issues, we do these issues all the 
time, and we assess, on a case-by-case basis, as you 
referenced, whether those issues are significant, whether it 
be--the greenhouse gas is just one of many. All you have to do 
is look at our environmental impact statements or even our 
environmental assessments before we move forward with the 
projects. We look at every single case on a case-by-case basis 
and determine, by voting--the Commissioners determine by a 
majority vote whether any particular item is significant. And 
even when we find those items are significant, we often--and 
often meaning 99 percent of the time--still find the project is 
in the public interest. So this is not----
    Senator Lankford. But this is different. This is trying to 
be able to set a whole new set of standards for them. If there 
is a deadline change or a route change, that is still going to 
be a case-by-case decision on a vote of this, five members of 
this body to be able to determine if they are going to have to 
go through this whole process all over again, even though they 
have already been approved for the project.
    Mr. Glick. As has always been the case.
    Senator Lankford. No, this is new. So that is what I am 
trying to figure out.
    Mr. Glick. No, what's new is that we're looking at one 
additional environmental impact, but we've always determined on 
a case-by-case basis whether that particular proposal, the 
amendment to the license, for instance, is significant enough 
that it requires additional environmental review or not.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. I have gone past my time. Thank 
you.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I spent a good deal of my life permitting energy projects 
and also with FERC. And I find this whole discussion sort of 
weird because I remember in the 1980s doing an exemption for a 
hydro project, which was a very small one- or two-megawatt 
project, but we had to do environmental analysis of wetlands. 
We had to work with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. We had to look at 
the effects on the water surrounding the project and fish 
passage and all of those issues, and here we are saying that 
the FERC cannot require the examination of the most serious 
environmental threat that this country and world has ever 
faced. I think that is preposterous. Plus, it strikes me that 
what you have done is to try to develop more certainty than is 
the case today because all of these projects are going to go to 
court, and you keep losing them because you do not have the 
environmental analysis of the effect on greenhouse gases.
    So isn't that true, Mr. Chairman, that you are trying to 
put more certainty into the--I mean, everybody is talking about 
certainty here, but you do not have it. If you are an applicant 
you do not have any certainty if you go through the whole 
permit process and then your permit gets bounced in the federal 
court, which is what is happening.
    Mr. Glick. Thank you, Senator. You're 100 percent right.
    Senator King. Let the record show that please. He just said 
100 percent right.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. I want to be sure.
    Mr. Glick. When we sign off on each project, we have to say 
whether the project is going to have significant adverse 
impacts to the environment and what my two colleagues----
    Senator King. And that is required by law. That is NEPA.
    Mr. Glick. That is correct.
    Senator King. Right. This is not something that is nice to 
do. NEPA says that any federal agency shall identify and 
develop methods and procedures which will ensure that presently 
unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given 
appropriate consideration and that the environmental impact of 
proposed actions--you have to do that. That is the law, and is 
greenhouse gas an environmental impact?
    Mr. Glick. That is what the courts tell us, so, yes.
    Senator King. So the courts tell us that, and common sense 
tells us that, and the thing that troubles me about this is, I 
have talked to representatives of the industry. They say, don't 
worry about methane. We have it under control. If they have it 
under control, what are they worried about? Why are we having 
this big hoorah to try to pressure you guys to back off what to 
me is a common-sense regulation?
    Mr. Glick. That is exactly right. And I want to point out 
that in many cases a proposed project, when it comes to us, the 
applicant will say whether the project is actually going to 
reduce a dirtier fossil fuel, like in electric generation, for 
instance. And we consider that a benefit. So what's wrong with 
taking a look at that if it's actually going to benefit our 
consideration of the project because the project is actually 
going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and my colleagues 
don't want us to look at greenhouse gas emissions at all.
    Senator King. Well, it seems to me that there is an 
argument that you could clarify the order. You could work with 
stakeholders and try to make it to provide more clarity, but 
the fundamental premise is that this is an environmental 
impact. Methane is 80 times worse than CO2, and it 
is the low-hanging fruit of climate change, and we have to do 
something about it, and it involves the transport of natural 
gas. And by the way, Mr. Christie, you say, this is a 
transport. This is transport. NEPA applies to highways. And 
don't say NEPA is a procedural law. NEPA is one of the most 
important substantive laws that we have in this country to 
protect our environment. You act like it's something that's, 
you know, it's just sort of where you check a box or something. 
This is a major substantive premise and what we are arguing--I 
want to keep New Orleans above sea level. I want to keep New 
Orleans from being sunk. And we are talking about a foot of 
sea-level rise in the next 30 years. That is where--that is the 
latest work. And I think it may actually be more than that.
    So this is not some abstract thing. It is not an effort to 
delay, Mr. Chairman. It is not an effort to delay, it is an 
effort to actually mitigate the delays that are inevitable if 
we don't take this step because the courts are going to keep 
kicking your decisions back if you don't comply with NEPA. 
Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Glick. Yes, that is correct, and we've seen it just in 
the last several weeks. The Fourth Circuit decision in the MVP 
case, the agency said, well, we're not going to look at 
greenhouse gas emissions, and the court said you can't do that. 
And then, I think it was in the D.C. Circuit in the Dakota 
Access case, said we're not going to do an EIS, and the court 
said you can't do that. So in both cases now we've just delayed 
the projects further, added hundreds of millions, if not 
billions of dollars.
    Senator King. Well, I want to ask a couple of the minority 
members. Is it Mr. Daily?
    Mr. Danly. Danly.
    Senator King. Danly. Is the drainage situation on a ditch 
adjacent to a pipeline more environmentally significant than 
methane releases?
    Mr. Danly. No, not necessarily.
    Senator King. I am delighted you gave that answer.
    Mr. Danly. Well, I don't know how much methane leakage 
you're talking about, but the only reason I hesitated there was 
because I don't have enough facts to answer the question 
properly.
    Senator King. But do you see--what I am getting at here is, 
my mother used to say, you are straining at gnats and 
swallowing camels. You are doing this, you know, you are saying 
it's okay to do a detailed environmental impact statement, 
which I had to work on when I was doing these projects on, you 
know, the riparian wetlands.
    Mr. Danly. Yes.
    Senator King. But not on greenhouse gases, which is the 
major environmental issue that we now face. Are you just saying 
that's just off the table? We don't need to talk about that?
    Mr. Danly. What I am saying is there is prevailing Supreme 
Court precedent on Public Citizen that describes what the 
proximate and legal causes of environmental effects are that 
are properly examined under NEPA. There is a carve-out from 
that very broad requirement of Public Citizen in the form of 
Sabal Trail, which has a narrow holding, as I have discussed 
already during this hearing and that the Commission does not 
have, either from its organic statutes or its obligations under 
NEPA, the privilege of regulating things for which it is not 
the proximate legal cause.
    Senator King. All right, well, I understand the argument, 
but it seems to me if you build a pipeline and there are 
associated with the pipeline either at the back end or the 
other end are methane leaks, then that is an impact of the 
project.
    Mr. Danly. I agree. And so all of the emissions that are 
the direct result of the construction and the operation of the 
pipeline, those, FERC is definitely the proximate legal cause 
for. I have no doubt about that.
    Senator King. So perhaps----
    Mr. Danly. I am talking about--I'm sorry, Senator.
    Senator King. No, no, you go ahead.
    Mr. Danly. I was going to say I am referring more broadly 
that we cannot simply encompass all emissions. That is to say, 
the emissions burned downstream in every case because they're 
not necessarily reasonably foreseeable and they are not 
necessarily caused by----
    Senator King. So this is an area where you are suggesting 
this order might be tightened and clarified.
    Mr. Danly. I would love to see it tightened and clarified.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator King. I hated that you were not here.
    The Chairman. Oh, I was listening right through the door.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator King. I should have started with ``all due 
respect.'' That really means that is just before the knife goes 
in.
    The Chairman. I know. I have plenty of holes.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. I want to yield to Senator Cassidy.
    The Chairman. Oh, okay. That is very kind of you.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Yes, so, I have a couple of quick 
questions, and then I have a kind of more extended question.
    Mr. Glick, Mr. Lankford just went through kind of a litany, 
and it was not even complete of the kind of multi-front ways 
this Administration is going after fossil fuel. Senator 
Heinrich said something along the lines that he does not want 
anyone bullied into a political agenda on these matters. Has 
anyone higher up in the Administration ever spoken to you in 
regards to how slow-walking or otherwise impeding or otherwise 
accentuating policy would have the effect of impeding the 
development of natural gas pipelines?
    Mr. Glick. Absolutely not----
    Senator Cassidy. Okay, that is fine.
    Ms. Clements, you had mentioned, and I will just go to you 
just to kind of spread my questions around. Mr. Glick said 
that, in a sense, we have to do this to provide certainty in 
order to make it easier for people to get things permitted. But 
Senator Barrasso entered a letter from a guy who says he is a 
pipeline guy who hates it. I have been getting my phone blown 
up with people that hate it. It kind of reminds me, I think Mr. 
Danly had kind of an interesting analogy. We have to burn the 
village to save it. So it seemed like the people who 
potentially benefit from the certainty are the ones who are 
complaining the loudest. Can you quickly tell me, how do you 
connect the disconnect?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator.
    To continue your analogy, the village has been burning, and 
that is not in the global warming sense. There has been 
uncertainty for the gas industry related to pipeline 
applications since at least 2013.
    Senator Cassidy. But these guys don't want it. They are 
objecting to what the majority is doing, so it seems like they 
would be the ones, if they were enlightened by your analysis, 
that would be welcoming this sort of certainty being granted.
    Ms. Clements. Sure, you know, I respect the concerns from 
individual companies about what this policy framework, which is 
now in place, might mean for any potential investment. That is 
the reality of making investments and the need to change. It 
hits at some point, right? Some projects are going to be 
implicated. What we think we are doing here, and I genuinely 
believe this is a reasonable, balanced approach to allowing 
these projects to go forward with more legal certainty, with 
less stakeholder----
    Senator Cassidy. So in a sense, the people who are most 
directly affected, the pipeline builders, just don't have your 
insights. And I don't mean that kind of snidely, I just mean 
that they just don't have the fullness of your insight.
    Ms. Clements. Yes, I have worked hard to engage with 
Williams----
    Senator Cassidy. Okay, let me stop you.
    Mr. Glick, Mr. Danly makes a pretty good case. You are 
asking a pipeline guy to figure out how to mitigate. Now, I 
think I saw you maybe shaking your head no, but if a pipeline 
guy, how is the pipeline person supposed to mitigate that at 
the wellhead and at the consumption, and Mr. Danly suggests 
that the word ``encourage'' is a latent pregnant phrase. Do you 
agree? Disagree? And by the way, how do they mitigate? Because 
that seems to inject the uncertainty that Ms. Clements says we 
are trying to avoid.
    Mr. Glick. So we ask and sometimes require companies to 
mitigate all sorts of environmental impacts.
    Senator Cassidy. No, that is different because if I am 
building a pipeline and I mess up a wetlands, I must mitigate.
    Mr. Glick. Right.
    Senator Cassidy. But if I am pumping gas, and the guy 
burning it down at the end does it inefficiently, then that is 
not my mess. That is his mess.
    Mr. Glick. Well, I understand the legal distinction. The 
point is, the court told us that it is his mess, it is the 
pipeline's mess.
    Senator Cassidy. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. My 
understanding was the decision--am I wrong on this?--that you 
had to do an inventory of it, but you did not necessarily have 
to require mitigation?
    Mr. Glick. That is correct. But the court also said that if 
the greenhouse gas emissions were significant, including if the 
downstream gas emissions were significant, the Commission could 
reject a project based on that.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, ``could'' is not ``shall.''
    Mr. Glick. That is exactly right because it depends on a 
case-by-case basis.
    Senator Cassidy. But I am getting a sense from Mr. Danly 
and Mr. Christie that you all are kind of interpreting a 
``shall,'' and that is certainly how it is being perceived by 
the people doing the $6 billion financing, as opposed to 
``could.''
    Mr. Glick. Yes, and I think you are right. I think there is 
a misunderstanding about what ``shall'' is versus ``could,'' 
and I think that is exactly right. And I want to make it clear 
that we actually say that for downstream emissions we're not 
going to require you to do it, to mitigate, and I said----
    Senator Cassidy. And then what about upstream? If the guy 
at the wellhead is flaring, are you going to require mitigation 
for that?
    Mr. Glick. The same--we're not going to require that. 
Upstream is very difficult to find--I'm not saying you can't 
ever do it, but the Commission has never found upstream 
emissions----
    Senator Cassidy. So just to put a point on it, the only gas 
that you are going to require them to mitigate would be the 
fugitive gas associated with the pipeline operation itself?
    Mr. Glick. And construction, yes.
    Senator Cassidy. And construction.
    Now, Mr. Danly, that actually seemed like that would give 
certainty. Okay, I am not having to worry about the guy burning 
at downstream, the guy pumping at the upstream. It is only my 
fugitive gas and my construction. How would you react to that?
    Mr. Danly. Those are not the terms of the policy statement 
as issued.
    Senator Cassidy. So hang on. We have a question of fact 
here. I am a gastroenterologist, okay, and so I am just trying 
to figure this out. You are saying we got a certainty policy, 
which to me seems reasonable, and you say that's the not the, 
kind of, statement of the policy?
    Mr. Danly. That's correct.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Christie, who's right?
    Mr. Christie. Mr. Danly is right on that one because what 
the policy says is, if you expect to get this thing approved, 
you've got to propose mitigation. It's not a choice.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Glick, this is--help me out here, 
brother.
    Mr. Glick. There are two types of mitigation we're talking 
about. Mitigation on direct emissions and construction and 
operation. Yes, exactly right, Commissioner Christie, the 
policy statement says you have to propose it if it's going to 
be significant, as we require all these other environmental 
impacts, but if it's downstream emissions, you do not have to 
propose it, and we say that explicitly in the policy statement.
    Senator Cassidy. Now wait a second. How do I mitigate the 
fact that a guy is burning a diesel truck in order to haul 
material to a pipeline site and a bulldozer is leveling the 
ground and, you know--you follow my example?
    Mr. Glick. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. The pipeline operator has to mitigate that 
cost of construction?
    Mr. Glick. The courts have not directed us on that point. 
So I would argue that----
    Senator Cassidy. But you just included that as part of your 
example. You said both the fugitive and the emissions 
associated with construction.
    Mr. Glick. If it's associated with the construction of the 
pipeline and the operation of the pipeline.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, the construction--I just gave you 
three examples--the diesel truck, the bulldozer, and the crane. 
Yes or no, they have to mitigate that emission?
    Mr. Glick. Well, maybe I misunderstood your hypothetical, 
but if it actually relates to the construction of the project 
then yes.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, we don't do that for roads.
    Mr. Glick. We don't?
    Senator Cassidy. No, when you build them, when you build a 
highway, if I build a highway to Maine, I am not required to 
mitigate the emission profile of my diesel truck hauling 
gravel.
    Mr. Glick. That is not related to construction of the 
project. I mean, as I said before, if the court were to find or 
the Commission were to find that it's related to construction 
of the project, then yes.
    Senator Cassidy. That is pretty broad. Now, how many 
degrees do you go out? Does that include the manufacturer of 
the bulldozer?
    Mr. Glick. I know this isn't going to be satisfactory, but 
it's on a case-by-case basis. You have to----
    Senator Cassidy. No, but there has to be some guideline and 
I want to be firmly on these two guys. If it is going to be 
only first degree, the gasoline you burn, that is one thing. 
But if it is going to be second degree, the energy required to 
bring the crane to the site, okay, that is second degree. And 
then third degree would be the people pushing the paper, and 
how much is the electricity?
    Mr. Glick So it's not, as I understand, as we've been 
applying it to date, the impact associated with bringing 
material to the site is not considered a direct environmental 
impact. If you're actually talking about the trucks onsite that 
are digging up the ground, for instance, and using fossil fuel 
to power their equipment, then yes, that is considered a direct 
emission.
    Senator Cassidy. So this is kind of a back door way to get 
them to buy electric vehicles?
    Mr. Glick. No.
    Senator Cassidy. Well, it works out to be that way 
functionally.
    Mr. Glick. I don't know how it's going to work out. All I 
can tell you is----
    Senator Cassidy. Because that, you know, theoretically you 
have an emission that is first degree if it's an electric 
bulldozer as opposed to a diesel bulldozer.
    Mr. Glick [continuing]. All I can tell you is that we're 
trying to apply the law here as the courts have interpreted.
    Senator Cassidy. No, but it does not seem like the courts 
told you to include the cost of the gasoline in the gas tank. 
The courts--I can see fugitive leaks from a pipeline. I totally 
get that. I totally get that, but not upstream, not downstream, 
which you say is not part of it. So that is good. But then the 
bulldozers and the tractors, I have to admit, I am a little 
confused by, but on the other hand, I am way over my time, and 
you have been very forbearing.
    The Chairman. Now we know why you are a gastroenterologist.
    Senator Cassidy. Passing gas, brother. Methane.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cassidy. But I do think that going back to what 
Senator Hickenlooper said, if this is just an issue of us 
passing a law that you were to consider only those emissions 
associated with fugitive leaks and/or a criteria that would 
otherwise be similar to that required to build roads, that 
could be common ground between these two sides if what they are 
telling us is true that they are not requiring upstream and 
downstream. And the only thing that seems to be a variable here 
is the bulldozers, tractors, and cranes. Maybe that is our 
middle ground, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We are going to find out before this meeting 
is over, sir.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, and I am all about finding 
middle ground, and I think we can. So let me just clarify what 
I have heard in this important discussion.
    Commissioner Christie, is it your position that FERC does 
have the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or not?
    Mr. Christie. FERC has the authority, and Senator King 
mentioned methane. If the pipeline facility that is the subject 
of the certificate is leaking methane or has the potential to 
leak methane, FERC has the authority to mitigate the leakage of 
the methane from the pipeline facility. What this policy 
statement does though, is say something infinitely bigger than 
that.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Well, can I stop you there? That is 
after the fact.
    Mr. Christie. Okay, sure.
    Senator Cortez Masto. That is after the pipeline is built.
    Mr. Christie. Yes, they can attach conditions to the 
certificate to control methane emissions during the operation 
of the pipeline.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, and which you would, I would 
assume, try to do because the goal here is to prevent 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    Mr. Christie. Yes. In my dissent I said that that is the 
kind of thing that FERC could do and should do.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. So what is your concern then 
with the policy?
    Mr. Christie. Because the policy went way beyond that and 
said, after the gas has left the pipeline, globally, which FERC 
has no jurisdiction over global use, we don't have jurisdiction 
over combustion and use in the United States, much less 
jurisdiction over Europe or Asia or another part of the world. 
What the policy says is because global climate change is a 
major policy question, a major threat, we're going to require 
pipeline developers--we're not going to tell them they have 
to--but we're going to say if you really want to get this thing 
even considered for approval, you are ``encouraged'' to propose 
mitigation of downstream global impacts.
    How can a transportation service mitigate the use of the 
gas way beyond the pipeline?
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And let me say, I only 
have so much time. Chairman Glick, do you interpret the policy 
that way as well?
    Mr. Glick. The courts have required us to examine the 
impact of those greenhouse gas emissions even downstream. So we 
said if you want to propose mitigation, and some companies have 
proposed mitigation already to do that, you can do that, but 
we're not going to require that.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And Mr. Danly, is your interpretation 
that the courts have not required that?
    Mr. Danly. They certainly have not required mitigation. In 
fact, they have been explicit that no mitigation is required. 
What is required is an upward-bound estimate and an explanation 
for why we cannot assess the actual amount of damage done to 
the environment by discrete project.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And Commissioner Christie, do you 
agree with that interpretation that the courts have not 
required that?
    Mr. Christie. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And then, Mr. Glick, do you agree?
    Mr. Glick. No, Sabal Trail----
    Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, that is why we are here. Yes, 
as an attorney, somebody who, I think there needs to be this 
common ground--we figure out here this common ground.
    The Chairman. You are a prosecutor.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Yes, and so I just thank you for this 
conversation because we clearly see. I actually do agree with 
Senator Heinrich. Thank you all for being independent. I think 
you should be and stay that way. It is so important, but we do 
have a role to play here in Congress, after hearing, clearly, 
look it, clearly the courts are going to weigh in, one way or 
the other and slow these down if there is a stakeholder or 
somebody that has concerns. It is just going to happen. I 
understand what you are trying to do to take those court cases 
into consideration, and based on what we are all talking about 
is reducing our carbon footprint. We are all talking about 
reducing carbon footprint. How do we protect the greenhouse gas 
emissions?
    So it is not unreasonable for this policy to come forward. 
I do think it sounds like there is the potential to narrow it, 
clarify it a little bit more in this conversation. So I am 
going to stop there because I think we have talked this to 
death right now, but thank you so much, all of you, for your 
comments today.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman.
    Chairman Glick, we will start with you. Can you put any 
type of a price range increase you think these rules will have 
on consumers? Is it going to increase the cost to consumers one 
percent to five percent?
    Mr. Glick. No, Senator. As a matter of fact, arguably, it's 
actually going to reduce costs for consumers by reducing legal 
uncertainty.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    Mr. Danly, we live in a time when our European allies are 
struggling to get natural gas, and one of the options, besides 
coming from Russia, of course, is coming from the United 
States. Do you think this rule will impact our ability to 
compete against foreign producers?
    Mr. Danly. Yes, it will chill investment in LNG facilities.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. Okay.
    Mr. Christie, how do you feel about that? Do you feel like 
it will impact our ability to compete in foreign markets?
    Mr. Christie. Well, it will reduce supply. Let me just say, 
in terms of the price and relative to the Chairman's statement, 
you know, Econ 101 says that price is set by supply and demand, 
and what this is going to do is to deter the creation of 
supply, and the transportation of supply, so when you strangle 
supply you get a higher price. That's just Econ 101.
    Senator Marshall. Could you see the price going up on a 
range of one percent, two percent, and five percent because of 
the strangling of the supply?
    Mr. Christie. Oh, I wouldn't dare make a prediction like 
that, but if you look at prices in Europe, they have 
skyrocketed, and largely because Europe has followed policies 
for a decade of strangling the supply of natural gas----
    Senator Marshall. And I am not sure if I got your answer on 
the question if you thought this would impact our ability to 
export gas to our European allies.
    Mr. Christie. Again, if you reduce supply, you don't have 
enough, you reduce the supply to export or use domestically. So 
you reduce use both ways.
    Senator Marshall. So that is a yes.
    Mr. Christie. Yes, sir.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. All right.
    I am trying to word my next question here. We will go back 
to Mr. Danly. Do you think that this could have a significant 
impact--these rules could have a significant impact on 
competition, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete?
    Mr. Danly. Yes.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    Mr. Danly. When you chill investment on the front end for 
major capital-intensive projects that is always going to cause 
everybody in the value chain from production down to 
consumption to have problems, and it's going to cause scarcity, 
and it's going to raise prices. Every time. It's the 
ineluctable physics of the way economics functions.
    Senator Marshall. Go ahead, Chairman.
    Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Senator.
    You know, you talked about LNG facilities and the need to 
export to Europe, and obviously we're well aware of what's 
going on. I think we need to ask ourselves a question. I wish 
we actually were really debating this issue because it's much 
more, I think, essential. FERC has approved 18 LNG facilities. 
Only nine of them have been built. I think we need to think 
about it. FERC, Congress, other policymakers, why those other 
nine haven't been built. There's a lot of demand out there. 
There's a lot of need for U.S. gas to be exported, and they're 
not being built. I think a lot of it has to do with contractual 
issues and getting financial certainty.
    Senator Marshall. I think it is a great question, and I 
wish the White House would answer that question. I will tell 
you right now that people in the oil and gas industry are 
scared to death to invest money in this field because the White 
House has declared war on the oil and gas industry. We cannot 
get the banks to loan us money. We cannot get people to invest 
in it because we are so scared of the future that this White 
House is painting for oil and gas. And the concern is, do these 
rules, you know, accentuate that or not?
    Mr. Glick. I would think that if the project has already 
been approved, and the White House and the Department of 
Energy, in this case, have already approved the export of that 
gas; it's a financial issue, absolutely. I don't think it 
necessarily has to do with existing policy related to 
production or not.
    Senator Marshall. I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is pretty clear to me that FERC cannot keep making its 
decisions the way it has been because you have a court and 
maybe other courts telling you that you can't. And so I see the 
need for a change in how FERC is going to operate.
    So I have a question for Commissioner Clements. You have 
heard the criticism today that it is beyond FERC's authority to 
incorporate greenhouse gas emissions on these projects into 
FERC's determination of a need and public interest in the 
project. So, you know, the public convenience and need, that is 
a term of art, isn't it? Isn't that a legal term that is 
supposed to be applied by FERC in making its decisions?
    Ms. Clements. Yes, it's understood to be a broad standard 
that exists in Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
    Senator Hirono. Yes. So we should apply the words, ``there 
should be a public need, and there should be public 
convenience.'' So for FERC to have operated as though the 
public need was evidenced by the fact that there was a contract 
for this kind of facility to be built, even if the contract was 
between companies that were corporate affiliates, that that 
presumptively meant the public need is, in my view, outrageous. 
So the court has told you that you have to look at greenhouse 
gases, and so you have revised the FERC's approach. Do you find 
it puzzling to be told that on the one hand FERC has the 
discretion under the Natural Gas Act to effectively narrow its 
assessment of need to the existence of a contract against being 
simultaneously told that FERC cannot consider climate change 
impacts when determining the public need and necessity for the 
project?
    Ms. Clements. Thank you, Senator.
    You raise an important point that I fear is getting lost in 
this conversation a bit, and that is that the new policy 
provides increased specificity around the evidence that project 
sponsors can provide to the Commission to demonstrate need. So 
there is more opportunity to be clear that your proposed 
project has a reliability need or some sort of energy security 
implication that will be balanced in the process. Nothing in 
the revised policy statement takes away the half of the 
proposal that is the benefits of the proposal. Those are right 
up front in the needs determination.
    Senator Hirono. I agree with you, and for the Commissioners 
who take the position that somehow that FERC should not be 
considering greenhouse gases in its determination, I don't know 
how that kind of position can be sustained based on what the 
courts are telling you folks. And for you, for FERC to narrow 
its own authority is also somewhat puzzling to me.
    For Commissioner Phillips, you mentioned your support for 
including environmental justice and equity concerns in FERC's 
decision-making. So that says to me that these kinds of 
concerns are not particularly considered or adequately 
considered. So what does the updated policy statement do to 
improve FERC's engagement with these communities?
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    It is clear from recent court precedent that the Commission 
has not done enough. The court in Vecinos just last year told 
us that we did not properly consider environmental justice 
communities. And this policy gives a real opportunity for those 
communities to be heard on the front end. And what happens 
often in these projects is that if you have a disadvantaged 
community, they don't have an opportunity to weigh in until 
after the project is complete. This, I believe, is something 
that is very valuable and one of the reasons why I support 
modifying the 1999 Policy Statement.
    Senator Hirono. I would say that allowing these community 
voices to be heard also is very much a part of a showing of 
convenience and need for the facility to be built in the first 
place.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Best for last.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    Well, and it is good, actually, in this case to be last 
because there is a lot of wrap-up to do. I think this has been 
a particularly important hearing and a particularly important 
time. We are all captivated with the situation on the ground 
right now in Ukraine. We are trying to figure out what some of 
these policies are and how the United States can be most 
helpful. It is very frustrating to many of us that this 
Administration has almost effectively taken the weapon of 
choice that Putin has used to help fund his effort and to gain 
an advantage, and that is with energy and energy supplies.
    And so, when we are talking about the current events of the 
day, this is a pretty timely discussion, but for me and my 
state as a producing state and as a state that has some of the 
highest energy costs for our consumers out there, Ukraine is 
occupying our attention now, but we have long struggled with 
this. And I want to follow on with the question that Senator 
Hirono has raised with regards to environmental justice in 
balancing this because we are in a situation right now where 
you have a very resource-rich state, but a very infrastructure-
poor one. And one reason is that it is super-expensive to 
operate and construct projects in rural Alaska, we know that, 
but when you have guidance out there that is putting in place, 
or will put in place new barriers for basic infrastructure to 
the point where it is going to be out of reach--out of reach 
not only for many of the rural communities that, quite 
honestly, right now are powered by diesel generation, but for 
some of those communities that are not so rural.
    And so at what point in time is it an environmental 
injustice to make it impossible for communities to complete 
projects that would lower their emissions, lower the cost of 
electricity, and increase their reliability, because right now 
that is what Alaskans are looking at--they are looking at this 
and saying this is taking us in exactly the wrong direction 
where we do not have a lot of ready, affordable alternatives. 
We have the natural gas. We just need to be able to access it.
    And so, Mr. Phillips, I will direct this question to you 
because you and I had a long conversation, and you spoke at 
your confirmation hearing about what it meant to be growing up 
in a household where you are making those tradeoffs with 
affordability. Tell me how this is actually going to help 
either those families that you are familiar with, or the 
families that I represent, because I don't see this taking us 
in the right direction.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for the 
question.
    With regard to environmental justice communities, to be 
clear, the policy is not intended to use EJ communities as a 
means to block projects. The intent is to make sure that we 
have the voices heard of these real people--low-income, middle-
income, tribal communities. My focus is making sure that we 
have a process. I have already begun working with our Office of 
Public Participation at the Commission, especially with regard 
to our government-to-government tribal community consultation 
processes to have that conversation on the front end, and what 
it will do, Senator, is it will help us avoid protracted 
litigation on the back end, avoid the pain on the back end 
which, quite frankly, we have seen these cases sent back to the 
Commission on remand, and it just creates further delay and 
further cost.
    Senator Murkowski. So, sir, I appreciate conversation on 
the front end, but again, if you have those conversations on 
the front end and it is clear that what we have put in place 
are barriers to those communities who need these alternatives, 
and it is almost feasibly impossible to address them. You have 
not done anything other than have a conversation. And what I 
think people are asking for is, they want to see it translate 
to them, to their families and their communities.
    I want to quickly in my remaining time ask about the 
ability for the United States right now, in light of all that 
is going on with Russia's war in Ukraine--this policy could not 
come at a worse time, I believe, when we are trying to improve 
the United States' ability to respond to international events, 
acts of war, and to provide alternative sources of LNG to our 
allies abroad. And I, maybe that is not a question, my time is 
over, but I think we have to recognize that you are putting in 
place policies or guidelines or a framework, to use your term, 
that for the long-haul are going to be harder and harder on 
communities like I represent, and then for the immediate term 
when we are dealing with a truly international crisis, our 
ability, as a producing nation, to respond, we are handcuffing 
ourselves and our ability to provide a level of support that, I 
think, other countries look to us and say, what is happening in 
the United States? Why would you throttle not only yourself 
back, but your ability to help your allies at a time of war? I 
think I have not posed a question, Mr. Chairman, and I 
apologize for that.
    Mr. Chairman. We expect no less.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. It was very good.
    I am going to take a little privilege here, if I can, 
because I have to go to an energy call, and then Senator 
Barrasso will take over, and Senator Daines, you will be right 
after I say something.
    Senator Daines. Of course, you bet.
    The Chairman. I just want to say one thing. The only thing 
I want to ask you all, first, I want to thank you all. We see 
the differences. We see, you know, you are independent, should 
be independent.
    Did you all have a lengthy discussion and work about trying 
to work your differences out at all as a group, the five of 
you? And was there any compromise at all? And I will give you 
the one compromise that seems very, very easy, which is just 
delaying your effective date. Why did you think it was so 
necessary to go back? Whoever wants to say anything.
    Mr. Glick. Mr. Chairman, if I can?
    The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Glick. So a couple things. First of all, yes, we did, 
as we do all the time, we did have a very lengthy discussion. 
We have----
    The Chairman. Was it dispirited?
    Mr. Glick. This issue has been dispirited for a couple 
years, so, yes. It has been very spirited. I wanted to say that 
first of all we vote together 88 percent of time.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Glick. I was doing some analysis. Commissioner Christie 
and I vote together 94 percent of the time. So most of the time 
we do get along, and I try to work as closely as I can with my 
colleagues. Sometimes we have honest disagreements, which we 
clearly do today.
    I want to answer the question about why we didn't just 
wait, why we didn't defer this, and the reason is because we 
have a number of orders that were pending that, as I said, 
we'll get the orders out when we have the votes. We didn't have 
the votes. I can't go into more detail about why that is the 
case, but we didn't have the votes. And because of that, we 
needed to provide greater----
    The Chairman. You didn't have the votes, the five of you 
did not have the votes in order to make----
    Mr. Glick. We had four for a long time, and we didn't have 
the votes.
    The Chairman. Okay, I got you.
    Mr. Glick. But you know, I am not permitted to go into the 
details.
    The Chairman. No.
    Mr. Glick. But nonetheless, the point being is that we are 
trying to move these orders and, you know, we have gotten a 
number of letters from Senator Barrasso, and a point has been 
made time and time again, we shouldn't be delaying these cases. 
And so we're not trying to delay these cases. That is why we 
put this policy statement out to provide guidance for everyone 
so we could move forward and hopefully meet what the courts 
have told us to do.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Christie. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Christie. You know, on the question of voting, Chairman 
Glick sent a letter to Senator Barrasso just two days ago and 
answered the question, will you reconfirm that the Commission 
will not put any application under review on hold, and the 
answer was yes, I reiterate my commitment to put up certificate 
orders when there are votes to prove them. It sounds like a 
standard. We are only going to get to vote if the three members 
in the majority want to vote on a pipeline project. Otherwise, 
we're not going to get to vote on them, which, of course, 
denies the applicant who loses on a 3-2 vote the ability to 
appeal.
    Mr. Glick. Can I answer that just quickly, Mr. Chairman?
    That is completely untrue. I have put orders up that I have 
disagreed with. As a chair I would never--I am not going to 
stand in the way, even if I disagree with the majority of the 
Commissioner votes. I am always going to put the orders up for 
a vote, even if I disagree with the order.
    The Chairman. Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just want to note that your concerns about both consensus 
as well as the impact of our decisions, they are my concerns. 
We share the same concerns, especially when you talk about what 
Senator Murkowski was mentioning about Ukraine. I understand 
the geopolitical implications of our decisions and I believe, 
Senator, that our decisions aren't made in a vacuum. It's not 
lost on me, the impact. And so, as we go forward, I am 
committed to making sure that if there's a better framework, if 
there are reasonable, legally durable modifications that we can 
make to these policies, I am committed to doing so.
    The Chairman. I just want to make one final statement, if I 
can. I differ with my party, and I differ with my 
Administration and the President on this issue on energy. The 
world is weaponizing energy. Putin is not backing off. He has 
weaponized energy, and he will continue. And if you are going 
to be the superpower of the world, you have to be able to 
deflect that and be superior in that, and the only thing I 
would say to all of you, when I was Governor, I said our job as 
government is to be your best partner, not your provider, but 
your partner. In a partnership, it is a two-way street. And I 
said, so when my Department of Environmental Protection went 
out to address environmental concerns, I said, try to help 
companies make the changes to their environmental practices so 
they will be compliant, rather than letting them go through the 
timelines and the cost and then turn them down at the end.
    And I think that is the uncertainty that goes on in 
government today. I think all of you made a point here, but we 
know the uncertainty is extremely costly. I am going to give 
you one example that I am very much involved in because I know 
what is going to happen. If the Mountain Valley Pipeline is not 
completed, and it is 95 percent done, over $5 billion, twice 
the cost because of court battles and rejections. If that one 
is not built, there will not be another investment taking the 
most abundant, plentiful gas reserves out of an area that can 
basically backfill domestic gas supply so that we have surplus 
LNG to export, to be able to defend our great country, and to 
help our allies have the freedoms they want.
    So it looks like Chairman Glick, and to my Democratic 
Commissioners here, that this is an impediment. Industry is not 
going to invest if they don't have certainty. They are done. 
They are walking away, and all you have done is accelerate the 
walk-away. I am going to have an energy call right now. I am 
asking, I am begging the major producers to step up production 
because we are going to shut off all petroleum, all fossil 
projects, all fossil energy coming from Russia to the United 
States. We should at least do that to support the Ukrainians 
and to support the rest of the world so Putin does not have the 
amount of resources that he would like to have to use against 
us and the Western world and the freedoms that we enjoy.
    And I know exactly what is going to happen. There are going 
to be people in America who say it is going to raise American 
gas and gasoline prices. There is no way in the world it 
should, and I have to make sure that these companies do not put 
profit and their shareholders above what the necessary needs 
are that we have. And I think they will step up to the plate. 
But if we don't, you know, right now have the gas, we are not 
going to have the LNG. We are not going to be able to do what 
we need to do. That is my concern. I want an all-in energy 
policy. The transition is going to happen. I am all for the 
transition. It is going to happen. But with that, I am not 
going to accelerate it to get rid of the reliability that we 
have. I am just not going to do it.
    So I know I spoke to a few of you, and I got very upset. I 
feel this so personally that this is self-inflicted. And I 
guarantee you one thing, the public will not stand for that. So 
I would ask you all to really, truly consider--just consider 
delaying the policy statement. Consider the input you received 
today, and I am sure you will hear from the public. Just give 
them a chance. I think that is your responsibility. I really 
do. I hope you would consider that.
    And with that, I am going to turn it over to Senator 
Barrasso to take over, and I think you have Senator Daines 
next.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Yes, let's go to Senator Hoeven here. So 
thank you.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Senator Daines, and I appreciate 
your deferring to accommodate timelines. So thank you very 
much.
    For Commissioners Christie and Danly, some projects still 
pending a decision from FERC were filed over two years ago with 
final environmental impact statements already completed. Is it 
fair to move the goalpost and subject existing project 
applications to new requirements?
    Mr. Danly. I think it is not only unfair, I think it is 
economically catastrophic. You are telling the entire private 
investment community, upon whom we rely to pay for this 
infrastructure, that none of the assumptions that they base 
their investment decisions on, none of the assumptions that the 
basic economics, the fundamental economics of their projects 
can be relied upon.
    Senator Hoeven. Commissioner Christie.
    Mr. Christie. I think changing the rules in the middle of 
the game is patently unfair, and I also think as a legal 
matter, it's arbitrary and capricious.
    Senator Hoeven. So will these environmental impact review 
statements have to be done again? And what does that mean in 
terms of timeline and cost, and to the Chairman's point, people 
at some point throwing up their hands and walking away from 
projects?
    Mr. Danly and then Mr. Christie.
    Mr. Danly. There's no particular reason why once a NEPA 
document is completed it has to be done again. Though, 
unfortunately, over the last year, we've seen that happen in 
several cases.
    Senator Hoeven. Commissioner Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Senator, by the terms of the policy it does 
apply to pending applications. So yes, the requirements are 
applicable to pending applications.
    Senator Hoeven. And then, what does that mean in terms of 
costs for consumers?
    Commissioner Danly and Commissioner Christie.
    Mr. Danly. I think probably the most startling part of 
these policy statements is that as far as I can tell, none of 
the cost to consumers as a subject actually factored into the 
consideration of the issuance of these. There's no discussion 
in the policy statements about calculations or research as to 
what it was going to cost consumers, though, there are some 
vague references to, you know, greater certainty of the future. 
Those are all first-principles questions, and we did not 
conduct that analysis before issuing the statements.
    Senator Hoeven. Commissioner Christie.
    Mr. Christie. Senator, we're going down the same road 
Europe went down 10 years ago. We are strangling supply of 
natural gas. And just like Europe, when you strangle supply, 
you're going to drive up the price. And Europe right now is 
suffering through skyrocketing energy prices for gas and in 
consumer's bills for electricity. And it's just supply and 
demand. When you strangle supply, the price goes up.
    Senator Hoeven. To pick up on your point, Commissioner 
Christie, let's talk about New England. New England lacks 
pipeline capacity. Not long ago, 10 of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle sent a letter to the Administration 
saying do not export LNG because we are worried about LNG 
capacity in America. In my state we have stranded natural gas. 
We can't get it to markets because we don't have pipeline 
capacity. New England maybe being the best example of 
constraints, which is why the Senators wrote saying do not 
export at the very time we should be exporting more to Europe 
so that they don't have to depend on natural gas from Russia.
    Talk to me about--and maybe Commissioner Christie go first, 
if you would--talk to me about New England as an example of 
constrained capacity because of pipelines.
    Mr. Christie. Well, there is constrained capacity, and ISO 
New England, which is a system operator in New England, has 
cited that very constraint due to pipeline constraints for 
threatening ultimately the reliability of the electric grid. So 
I think it's a very serious issue. Gas is the major source 
today of our electric generation in the United States. And if 
we cut off the supply of gas, obviously, that is going to 
affect electric reliability, and it's going to drive prices up.
    Senator Hoeven. And it forces us to rely on home heating 
oil transported by vehicle with poorer environmental standards 
than using natural gas. Would you agree with that, Commissioner 
Christie?
    Mr. Christie. Yes, I would, because remember, the 
pipeline--I mentioned this earlier--a pipeline is a 
transportation service. It doesn't produce gas. It doesn't 
consume gas. It transports gas. And if you can't transport gas, 
then obviously, it renders it useless. And I think that is the 
whole point of this national campaign of bringing lawsuits 
against every single natural gas pipeline, is to cut off the 
ability to transport gas from the production to the 
consumption.
    Senator Hoeven. Commissioner Danly, talk about this 
balancing test. What is the point of this balancing test, and 
what are the real-world ramifications of it going to be?
    Mr. Danly. So I think as a general premise, and this shows 
you my judicial minimalist streak, every time you get a 
multifactor balancing test that is going to be done on a case-
by-case basis by an administrative agency, what you effectively 
have is the irrigation of power to pick winners and losers at 
the whim of the decisionmaker. And that will be the case here. 
I predict that we are going to see favored parties being given 
the nod, and those who aren't will have their applications 
rejected, and the real-world consequences will be supply 
constraints and rising prices.
    And I'd like to point one thing out about the LNG export 
thing you raised earlier, sir. I am very sympathetic to the 
concerns about rising prices. And of course, when you export, 
that changes the total supply and demand. If we had a properly 
functioning economic system and regulatory system, that 
wouldn't be a problem.
    Senator Hoeven. Right.
    Mr. Danly. Because prices would rise that would incentivize 
investment in new infrastructure that would then increase 
supply, and prices would drop again. That cannot happen when 
you chill investment from the beginning. We will never be able 
to approve the number of pipelines, the Section 7 applications 
that weren't filed, right? This is a hypothetical that we will 
never know, but it will chill investment, and we have already 
had submissions in the docket saying just that.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you to both of you, I appreciate it.
    Senator Barrasso. Senator Daines.
    Senator Daines. Chairman Barrasso, thank you.
    I am deeply disappointed in FERC's recent partisan decision 
to make it more difficult, more costly, and more convoluted to 
build new natural gas pipelines in the United States. On 
September 30th I had Ukrainian leaders in my office who were 
pleading with us to shut down the Nord Stream 2 project and 
continue to build out U.S. capacity because they saw what was 
going to happen. That was well before the buildup on the 
Ukrainian border was happening with the Russians. What we are 
talking about here is not just hypothetical think-tank, New 
Green Deal ideology. This is reality. And the consequences the 
world is facing right now are severe, and it is hitting the 
American people as well, our pocketbooks, and this is a warning 
shot. Do not, please don't follow the path that Germany went 
down with green ideology to shut down nuclear plants, shutting 
down 11 nuclear plants. They have three more they are going to 
shut down, and what did that do? Despite policymakers, some, 
who saw the reality of energy saying you can't do this, they 
yielded to green ideology zealots, and now Germany is paying a 
price. The world is paying a price. And please don't allow 
America, for the sake of our kids and our grandkids, to end up 
because of policies here that are going to constrict U.S. 
energy transport as well as production.
    The U.S. should be removing roadblocks to supply ourselves 
and our European partners with reliable and affordable American 
natural gas, not putting up new ones. These recent actions by 
FERC are the next chapter in the Biden Administration's efforts 
to roll back American energy production. Anyway, you can say 
what you like to try to spin it, but that's what is actually 
happening. As Chairman Manchin mentioned, it is chilling 
capital markets. It is chilling long-term investment, and these 
pipelines are long-term investments, and you are chilling the 
investment, and we are going to pay even a more severe price as 
the years continue to go on. If Biden was serious about 
stopping Putin, he would unleash American energy production. I 
would have liked to have heard that in the State of the Union 
Address. He should have stood up there and said we need unleash 
more made-in-America energy, increase oil production three to 
five million barrels a day, get the Keystone Pipeline operating 
again. And I recognize the Keystone Pipeline is not going to be 
the one thing that is going to save us. We have 70 pipelines 
coming into the United States from Canada.
    But for heaven's sake, why would he want to kill that 
pipeline? Why? It sent a message, is the issue. It is sending 
message to investors. You basically are putting them on notice 
saying you better not be putting investments because of ESG 
requirements and so forth into more oil and gas production. It 
is wrong. FERC has been and should remain an economic and 
safety regulator, not a climate panel. Not only will FERC's 
actions make it more difficult to expand natural gas 
distribution, it will threaten and delay existing projects, 
putting on the line high-paying jobs and revenue for some of 
these rural communities. The United States should be promoting 
domestic development, promoting transportation of natural gas, 
removing barriers to that end, to supply ourselves and our 
allies, not kneecapping energy providers.
    Commissioner Christie, in your dissent you say, and I 
quote, ``the new policy threatens to do fundamental damage to 
the nation's energy security.'' Could you further explain to 
this Committee how damaging this action will be for U.S. energy 
security, especially in light of what is going on at this very 
moment in Ukraine?
    Mr. Christie. Well, Senator, you made a reference to 
Germany. The German government, just last week, announced a 
major fundamental change in their policy that they followed 
over the last decade. The German government said they were 
going to build two new LNG import facilities on the Baltic 
Coast. This is a radical change for Germany, which has been 
shutting down gas production, basically, for more than the last 
decade. And interestingly enough, the German government 
includes the Green Party, which has been one of the leaders in 
trying to shut down gas production. So they have come face to 
face with reality in the last couple weeks.
    But where is that LNG going to come from that Germany is 
building these LNG facilities? Well, I am sure they'd like it 
to come from the United States. So, if gas is a resource that 
we have, you either exploit it, as Chairman Manchin has 
mentioned repeatedly today, or you strangle it. And I am afraid 
this policy is really about strangling supply of natural gas.
    Senator Daines. Yes, and we can't let, you know, the 
Democrat Party is becoming the Green Party in this nation. I 
grew up, my Grandpa Daines was a die-hard Democrat. He would be 
rejecting these policies today that lack common sense to what 
is going on. And the problem is, once you get to a point of a 
war, the damage is done, and we need to be--these are long-term 
strategic directions we are setting for our country right now. 
And I am not opposed to renewable energy. We just want an all-
of-the-above energy portfolio. We are proud of the fact in 
Montana, we have solar. We have wind. We have hydro. We also 
have coal, natural gas, and oil. And if we lose this balance 
and allow this country to shift, embracing, basically, the 
Green New Deal, and you can spin it how you want, but that is 
what's actually happening. It is very, very dangerous for our 
country and for the entire world. And just turn on the cable 
news right now, look at your--and when you see the tragic 
outcomes when you allow a dictator to start having energy 
dominance in the world and it threatens our country, it 
threatens the entire world.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator 
Daines.
    And I would point out that I think I repeatedly heard 
President Biden say, build it, made in America, this, that, and 
the next thing, and it must have been eight or nine different 
things during the State of the Union, but energy was not one of 
them, to your very point. Thank you.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Well, I left and I came back after 
meditating on what I heard.
    Mr. Glick, I felt like I made progress and that it appears 
that according to your analysis, although I think my two 
minority would disagree, this only pertains--the mitigation--to 
fugitive and to construction-associated greenhouse gases. I 
will come to that in a second.
    But then as Cortez Masto was asking and asked about the 
mitigation and then I think this kind of pivots on the word 
``encourage'' because my minority members feel like that is a 
coercive, pregnant--you have a lot of ``encourage''--you better 
do it, sort of thing, if you want to get it done. And you are 
kind of soft pedaling as in no, it is very limited here.
    But when Cortez Masto asked what about people mitigating 
and you said, kind of with a triumphant voice, or at least a 
very pleased voice, yes, there are some operators who have 
already offered plans to mitigate downstream emissions. Now, 
that tells me they did not understand it is only the fugitive 
and the construction-associated emissions, and it also makes me 
think that Mr. Danly is right in terms of his interpretation as 
this is a word pregnant with the potential for coercion and 
denial of a permit.
    So I got a little bit of disconnect between what I have 
been told and what I heard.
    Mr. Glick. Thank you, Senator. I don't know about the 
triumphant voice, but I will try to explain further. There are 
an enormous number of environmental impacts that we look at, 
the Commission looks at for every proposed natural gas project, 
all the way from wetlands and water quality and air quality. I 
mentioned a whole bunch of them earlier. I am not going to do 
that again for the record. But the point is, sometimes we 
encourage companies for all those potential impacts to come in 
and mitigate those impacts to the extent they can, and if they 
can't, sometimes we require--if they don't come in with the 
proposed mitigation--sometimes we require additional mitigation 
and sometimes we don't, depending on, again, a case-by-case 
basis, depending on how significant we think the impact is 
versus how beneficial we think the project is. And that, again, 
we have to do that on the facts of the particular case.
    So again, for downstream emissions we are not going to 
require--and we say this explicitly--greenhouse gas emission 
reductions. That doesn't mean companies can't come in and 
propose it.
    Senator Cassidy. But why would they do so? Why would they 
take on that extra expense? It makes me think they felt they 
were more likely to be approved if they presented a plan to 
mitigate, which gives me a thought that Danly may be right 
after all.
    Mr. Glick. So when the Commission considers a project, as 
the courts have told us, we have to consider the adverse 
impacts versus the benefits. The greater the benefit of the 
project, the less the concerns are about the adverse impacts to 
the extent there aren't significant benefits with the project 
or there are some benefits, but not significantly, they don't 
significantly outweigh the adverse impacts, then it's more 
likely companies come in and try to mitigate those adverse 
impacts. So it depends, again, on a case-by-case basis.
    Senator Cassidy. That actually seems to start veering more 
toward Danly. What you told me was very saccharine--only 
fugitive and construction--but if you make a judgment that the 
downstream impact outweighs the benefit, and I don't know how 
in anything but a centrally planned economy you can imagine 
that, since markets would substitute. There may be a downstream 
use that you have no clue, ultimately no clue what it is going 
to do. It may be a downstream and the market will decide, and 
that will be regardless of what your consideration is.
    Mr. Glick. If those downstream emissions are not reasonably 
foreseeable, and the court say they're not always reasonably 
foreseeable, then we can't consider them.
    Senator Cassidy. Lastly, I am struck about the construction 
aspect because we don't require that on roads, and we don't 
require it on bridges, but you are requiring it here. Are you 
requiring it on the greenhouse gas impact of making cement? For 
example, if cement is required as a base for a support system 
for the pipeline, is the greenhouse gas profile of the 
manufacturing of the cement part of the consideration?
    Mr. Glick. We don't do that, sir. And I would say that with 
regard to construction projects, we always look at other 
environmental impacts associated with those construction 
projects, such as NOX emissions, such as 
SOX emissions, particulate matter related to the 
equipment that is brought upon, like, for instance, to do the 
construction.
    Senator Cassidy. That is a very local effect though. That 
is not a global effect.
    Mr. Glick. In most cases, that is correct.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Danly, I would just like--and the 
Chair is being so forbearing--the last word to you. If it is 
only fugitive emissions and only construction, whatever I think 
of that, is that a more manageable regime than having to 
mitigate upstream and downstream?
    Mr. Danly. That is more manageable. That is not what the 
policy statements call for. What it says is that the Commission 
encourages--and we can load that with however much coercion you 
want as you read it--it encourages the project sponsors to 
propose mitigation for reasonably foreseeable downstream 
emissions, and it then states that the Commission will take 
that into account in its public interest determination. So I 
think you'd have to be pretty innocent in your outlook to 
believe that that is not going to weigh heavily on the minds of 
any potential project sponsor. One doesn't typically go to 
one's regulator and flout the regulator's expectations. 
Expectations are strong things, and so are encouragements, and 
let's not allow the financiers that pay for our infrastructure 
and invest in it to be subject to this soft, vague coercion. I 
don't like it.
    Senator Cassidy. I think you are probably right. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Cassidy.
    Look, let us close this out. Commissioner Danly, in 
Chairman Glick's written testimony, he explains that the 
Interim Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement ``encouraged applicants 
to propose greenhouse gas mitigation measures limited to the 
direct emissions caused by the project, not indirect 
emissions.'' But the Interim Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement 
says, ``the Commission encourages project sponsors to propose 
mitigation of reasonably foreseeable indirect emissions.'' I 
cannot square the two statements. What is it? Is the Commission 
encouraging applicants to propose measures to mitigate indirect 
emissions or not?
    Mr. Danly. That is a good question, and I am sure that the 
entire pipeline industry is wondering the same thing. 
Certainly, if you think you have a project that is potentially 
economically viable, wouldn't you try to do a belt-and-
suspenders approach, which is going to end up costing more to 
consumers and be harder to get financing on commercially 
reasonable terms? You know, this idea that you can--I'm sorry, 
but I have to say cynically--avoid responsibility by placing it 
instead on the project sponsor and say, you come up with 
something, and if it pleases us--if it pleases us--we will 
approve it, right? But if it doesn't please us, we may either 
deny or demand unilaterally more mitigation. That is not, in 
anybody's view who watches what we do, it cannot possibly 
produce more certainty on the part of the project proponents. 
It can't.
    Senator Barrasso. So in your dissent you state the Interim 
Greenhouse Gas Policy Statement is ``deliberately drafted so as 
to evade judicial review.'' Could you talk a little bit more 
about that?
    Mr. Danly. Yes. So we were just talking about the major 
examples of this where project proponents are expected and 
encouraged to do things. They are not given a command. This is 
hortatory. It is not an obvious command. That means then, along 
with the declarations repeatedly throughout the policy 
statements, that this will be done on a case-by-case basis down 
the road, that it purports by its own terms not to be binding. 
I would argue that this sets absolutely clear requirements 
because the fear that it is going to descend upon the project 
proponents to achieve these unstated goals is real. I think it 
changes the declaration of our jurisdiction, and I think that 
when you phrase things like that to avoid judicial review, 
you're kicking the can down the road so that you can get a few 
approvals. This was something that Commissioner Christie 
referenced, this Potemkin village of a few approvals to get 
this in the record and done and precedent set, so that then 
later the more aggressive requirements for mitigation can be 
applied.
    Senator Barrasso. So even before Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine, Europe was undergoing an energy crisis. European 
families have been paying record prices for natural gas and 
electricity for at least the last year due to Europe's 
overreliance on renewable energy and Russian gas, among others. 
So what should the Commission learn from the events taking 
place in Europe?
    Mr. Danly. I think that Europe offers us a startling object 
lesson in how important energy independence and energy security 
are. LNG export and our own internal pipeline system are 
geostrategic assets that are fundamental to America's position 
in the world and the prosperity and well-being of the American 
people. Commissioner Christie referenced the decision for LNG 
terminals in Germany. In fact, France, also, has now begun 
having second thoughts regarding the decommissioning of the 
nuclear plants.
    There is absolutely no reason, having watched what is going 
on in Europe--in the center part of Europe, but also in the 
periphery--right in front of us day by day. There is no reason 
not to take that object lesson. We should not wait to let those 
consequences reach America.
    Senator Barrasso. Yes, so I have letters from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, Interstate Natural Gas Association of 
America, TC Energy, The American Gas Association, and others, 
including companies with operations in my home State of 
Wyoming, and a warning about the disastrous effects that these 
specific policy statements are going to have on American 
energy. Examples--TC Energy stated in their letter, ``Lower gas 
prices, increased resiliency and reliability, greater domestic 
and international energy independence and security, and 
environmental benefits all flowed from FERC's stable, 
predictable, and bipartisan framework. FERC's recent departure 
from this approach endangers these gains.''
    And without objection, these will be included in the 
record.
    [The letters referred to follow:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    
   
    
    Senator Barrasso. Let me just end with Chairman Glick.
    You claim these policy statements are going to bring more 
certainty and that they will help the Commission's decisions 
survive litigation. People who actually build natural gas 
infrastructure or depend on natural gas, they do not agree. 
They think the orders are going to make things worse, much 
worse. They point out that these two orders go well beyond what 
the courts actually require. They think this is a thinly veiled 
effort to grind the permitting of natural gas pipelines to a 
halt.
    So my question is basically this. How are you going to fix 
this?
    Mr. Glick. So thank you very much for the question, Senator 
Barrasso.
    I would first say that I speak to those same companies, and 
I am meeting with a group, a bunch of them, next week. I would 
say that first of all, they have been complaining for some time 
now, and they know that the previous Administration didn't do 
the proper environmental analysis on Mountain Valley, ACP, 
Dakota Access, Spire, a whole bunch of others, and they 
complain about it. They know that it needs to be done right. 
Now, whether they agree with specifically what we're proposing, 
we can certainly talk about it, and we will talk about it. And 
if they want clarification, we'll further clarify so we can get 
a majority of Commissioners to clarify, and I assume we will.
    But this is not some, you know, you mentioned earlier 
partisanship, and I heard zealotry from somebody else and so 
on. This is not, as I said before, I don't have any other 
agenda besides making sure that we are following the law and we 
are applying the facts of each case, and I am going to stick 
with that because that is what we're doing here. And, you know, 
different people have different views, and I certainly 
appreciate that and we try, as much as possible. That is why we 
split this thing up into two policy statements because we were 
hopeful to be able to get at least four votes on one of them, 
but unfortunately that didn't work, but we're going to continue 
to try to reach consensus as much as we can.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, I will just say that what you just 
said gives me no confidence that you will actually fix this, 
and this Committee should be prepared to use every tool 
available at our disposal to clean up this mess.
    Thank you for being here today.
    Members are going to have until the close of business 
tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record.
    This Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]