On Sabal Trail, FERC Again Earns ‘Rubber Stamp’ Reputation

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Late yesterday, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order reinstating certificate authorization for the fracked gas Sabal Trail pipeline. This decision effectively means the pipeline can continue operating. The Sierra Club and others argued the pipeline should have been shut down because its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) did not fully consider the downstream effects of burning the gas transported by the pipeline, which is its intended use.

The decision was split 3-2, with Commissioner Richard Glick dissenting and Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur dissenting in part. In his scathing dissent, Commissioner Glick wrote, “Willful ignorance of readily available analytical tools to support an enhanced qualitative assessment for the single largest environmental threat in our lifetime will undermine informed public comments and informed decision making. Furthermore, the void in evaluating indirect environmental impacts from [greenhouse gas] emission while simultaneously concluding there is no significant impact means the Commission remains in the unstable position of granting certificates of public convenience and necessity without fully considering the public interest under the [Natural Gas Act].”

The pipeline was the subject of a landmark court decision that forced FERC to start considering the effects of burning the gas transported by pipelines when assessing the environmental impacts of a project. Previously, when deciding whether to approve a project, FERC only analyzed the environmental impacts of building the pipeline and the expected rate at which it would leak gas.

In response, Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign Director Kelly Martin released the following statement:

"Today's decision shows that the majority of the federal commission tasked with protecting Americans from the dangers of fracked gas pipelines is nothing but a rubber stamp for polluting corporations. We agree with Commissioner Glick’s dissent when he said, ‘the void in evaluating indirect environmental impacts from GHG emission while simultaneously concluding there is no significant impact means the Commission remains in the unstable position of granting certificates of public convenience and necessity without fully considering the public interest.’  These dirty, dangerous pipelines threaten our health, climate, and communities, and it's irresponsible to build them at a time when clean, renewable energy is abundant and affordable."