Reporters press FERC on Constitution pipeline petition; chair declines to prejudge pending proceedings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Reporters asked whether Williams’ petition to reissue a Constitution pipeline certificate requires a new application after environmental groups said courts vacated prior orders. Chair Sweat said the matter is pending before the Commission and he would not prejudge it, noting the need to consult colleagues.
Carlos Anchondo of ENE News asked whether Williams’ petition to have its Constitution pipeline certificate reissued would require a new application after environmental groups argued that a vacatur by the Second Circuit obligates a fresh proceeding.
Anchondo cited FERC’s February 9 NESE order and recent litigation interpretations, asking whether the Commission would apply the same logic or require a new application. He said environmental groups have maintained that a vacated authorization cannot be reissued without a new record.
Chair Sweat declined to answer the specific legal question on the record, saying both proceedings remain pending before the Commission and that he could not prejudge matters that are before his colleagues and the agency. "We look forward to acting on them as soon as we can," he said.
Why it matters: The exchange underscores a recurring legal issue for pipeline certificates—whether a vacatur of an earlier order requires an entirely new proceeding or whether a previously developed record can support reissuance. Chair Sweat did not commit to a legal interpretation and emphasized that Commission action will follow internal deliberation and not be pre-judged in a press setting.
Next steps: The Commission will address the pending filings through its administrative processes; Chair Sweat repeatedly declined to offer a personal ruling ahead of Commission action.