How a Federal Regulator Is Hijacking Energy Policy

The mule of interest here is not a drug smuggler, but instead the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose legal mandate is straightforward: "Economically Efficient, Safe, Reliable, and Secure Energy for Consumers ... at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts." In other words, FERC is supposed to maintain a decided stance of neutrality and objectivity with respect to the complex choices among competing forms of energy to be delivered to consumers.

Some of the FERC commissioners believe in the climate "Crisis" narrative, and are determined to do something about it, notwithstanding the absence of any attendant legal mandate.

So we now observe a growing penchant on the part of FERC's majority to implement favoritism toward unconventional energy, wind and solar power in particular, combined with a real bias against fossil fuels whatever the competitive advantages of the latter.

More in Energy Biden's Pathetic Energy Theater Another Low Blow - Wind Energy Falters Biden: Only Putin Gets Pipelines The latest example of this trend is the recent decision by FERC to approve a request from ISO New England - an independent system operator managing the power grid in six northeastern states - to terminate its contract with the proposed Killingly Energy Center, a 650 megawatt power plant in Connecticut to be fired with natural gas.

Precisely where in FERC's legal mandate is there any reference at all to such "New questions?" FERC is supposed to focus on efficiency, safety, reliability, and security.

The new focus on "Environmental justice communities" - three words whose definitions are infinitely elastic - is so amorphous and so open-ended that FERC will be able to define any constraints it chooses on applications for gas pipeline approvals, in a manner essentially independent of the actual legal mandate that Congress has promulgated.

Is such a process proper in a nation supposedly governed by the rule of law? Will FERC now expand its "Mandate" to include analysis of the climate impacts not only of the proposed pipelines themselves, but also of the natural gas to be transported? The answer is far from obvious, a reality that does not bode well for investment in basic energy infrastructure.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/01/how-a-federal-regulator-is-hijacking-energy-policy/