Natural Gas

Subscribe to Natural Gas via RSS

On January 24, 2025, FERC withdrew its 2022 draft Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Policy Statement and terminated the associated proceeding. FERC determined that, after reviewing the entire record, issues concerning GHG emissions are better analyzed on a case-by-case basis when raised by parties in proceedings. Commissioners Phillips, Rosner, and Chang issued a joint concurrence noting that, although FERC is withdrawing its draft GHG Policy Statement, FERC still considers GHG emissions under its National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) analysis and balances project benefits with potential adverse consequences under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”).

On December 20, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) upheld FERC’s order authorizing Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (“Stingray”) to abandon a portion of its pipeline system on the condition that before doing so, Stingray either restore service or obtain a shipper agreement that the damaged pipeline segment remain out of service.

On July 30, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) issued an opinion vacating and remanding FERC’s order approving Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s (“Transco”) Regional Energy Access Expansion Project (“Project”) determining that FERC failed to consider environmental consequences and evidence suggesting…

On September 12, 2024, FERC’s Chief Accountant issued a notice of proposed accounting release (“NOPAR”) to modify the transferability of income tax credits (“ITCs”) related to certain energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), which allows entities to monetize such ITCs via transfers to independent third parties…

On July 16, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) found that FERC failed to adequately consider a liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) project’s greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and failed to properly assess the cumulative effects of the LNG project’s nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) emissions. While the D.C. Circuit remanded to FERC for further consideration, it did so without vacatur.

On July 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) declined to stay a new Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) rule that seeks to limit methane emissions in the oil and gas industries (“Methane Rule”), thereby allowing the Methane Rule to remain in effect while litigation proceeds.

On June 14, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) denied Food & Water Watch’s environmental challenges to the FERC’s order granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (“Tennessee Gas”) for its East 300 Upgrade Project (“Project”).

We are pleased to announce the release of our latest whitepaper, Fueling Up: How to Make U.S. Clean Hydrogen Projects Happen. This comprehensive report explores the critical steps needed to unlock the potential of clean hydrogen in the U.S., and the related challenges faced by developers and utilities.

On April 18, 2024, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) introduced the Making Pipelines Accountable to Consumers and Taxpayers Act (“MPACT Act”) (S. 4171) that, if adopted, would grant FERC authority to order refunds under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”). Specifically, the MPACT Act amends section 5 of the NGA to give FERC authority to order a pipeline to issue retroactive refunds for charges FERC determines are unjust and unreasonable. The MPACT is intended to align FERC’s authority over the gas and electric industries and protect customers from unjust and unreasonable rates. At this time, a companion bill has not been introduced in the House of Representatives.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (“D.C. Circuit”) recently upheld two FERC orders granting natural gas pipeline developers’ requests to extend their construction deadlines. The D.C. Circuit denied the Sierra Club’s petitions for review of the extension orders because the court determined that FERC’s decisions were reasonable and adequately supported by the record. The D.C. Circuit further provided that FERC has broad discretion in determining whether a developer has demonstrated good cause for an extension and whether circumstances have changed enough to warrant revisiting FERC’s original findings.