President Donald Trump last week nominated Kathleen Hartnett White, a former Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) commissioner, to serve as head of the Council on Environmental Quality. If confirmed, White who is presently a distinguished senior fellow in residence and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, would head a key White House office that coordinates environmental and energy policies across the government.
Prior to Governor Rick Perry’s appointment of White to the TCEQ in 2001, she served as then Gov. George Bush’s appointee to the Texas Water Development Board. She has served on the Texas Economic Development Commission and the Environmental Flows Study Commission and sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Regulatory Science, the Texas Emission Reduction Advisory Board, and the Texas Water Foundation.
Nomination of White, originally a contender to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seems to follow the pattern of other Trump cabinet members: she denies climate change and has questioned the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
At the Texas Public Policy Foundation, White works on the Fueling Freedom project, which seeks to “explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels.” In a Q&A with the Orlando Sentinel she discussed the superiority of fossil fuels over renewables.
“At this point in time, there are no alternative energy sources capable of providing the endless goods and services that fossil fuels now handily provide,” said White. “Our abundant, concentrated, affordable, versatile, reliable, storable and controllable energy from fossil fuels is far superior to renewable energy . . . Adding more and more variable, uncontrollable renewables to the electric grid will serve only to necessitate backup power from reliable coal or natural gas to stabilize the mix.”
FERC Chairman Speaks on Department of Energy Directive
Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Rick Perry has received criticism from lawmakers and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff following last month’s proposal that FERC establish reliability and resilience pricing for certain power plants in regional trading organization markets.
“This proposal is just a first step in seeking to ensure that we truly have an energy policy that first and foremost protects the interests of the American people,” Perry told the House Energy Subcommittee about the change that would mandate increased payments for plants capable of storing 90 days of fuel supplies. “Following the recommendations of the Staff Report, the department is continuing to study these issues and, if, necessary, will be prepared to make a series of additional recommendations to improve the reliability and resiliency of the grid.”
Neil Chatterjee, acting FERC chairman, pledged not to “blow up the market” as FERC acts in the prescribed 60-day window on the proposed rule, which would benefit coal and nuclear plants and which some have said could upset decades of electricity market reform.
Chatterjee suggested to GreenWire that FERC could do an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or a notice of proposed rulemaking superseding the DOE proposal. FERC could also extend the comment period, convene technical conferences, or initiate Federal Power Act Section 206 review proceedings.
“There are many tools available to the commission to act within 60 days to address and put a process in place … determining whether or not there are attributes that need to be properly valued, in a legally defensible manner, that doesn’t blow up markets,” Chatterjee said.
The proposal adds complexity to ongoing discussions of whether and how FERC-regulated wholesale electricity markets should evolve in light of a changing generation mix and evolving state policy objectives. In recent years, some states have sought to subsidize some generation sources to meet their particular energy and environmental goals, raising questions about what such policies mean for FERC-regulated wholesale markets. Last month the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions hosted a workshop examining challenges and recent proposals for harmonizing state policies and regional market design in the PJM region.
Atlantic Coast, Mountain Valley Pipelines Approved
FERC has issued separate orders granting approval permits for the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in two 2–1 votes. The two projects are among a collection of pipeline projects proposed or under construction that are intended to take advantage of the Marcellus gas boom, but they are not without critics.
FERC rejected calls for more public comment on the proposals, writing “all interested parties have been afforded a full complete opportunity to present their views to the commission.”
The Mountain Valley Pipeline would run through West Virginia and is proposed to span 303 miles and cost $3.7 billion.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a $5 billion project by Duke Energy and Dominion Energy, will carry gas through West Virginia, Virginia, and eight counties in eastern North Carolina, crossing 600 miles of the Southeast to transport about 1.5 billion cubic feet a day of natural gas to customers in North Carolina and Virginia.
“Natural gas from the pipeline will increase consumer savings, enhance reliability, enable more renewable energy and provide a powerful engine for statewide economic development and job growth,” said Duke Energy CEO Lynn Good. “It also supports our plan to produce cleaner energy through newer, highly-efficient natural gas plants and allows more capacity for Piedmont Natural Gas to serve new homes and businesses.”
Cheryl LaFleur was the dissenter, highlighting the projects’ potential environmental impacts.
“I recognize that the Commission’s actions today are the culmination of years of work in the pre-filing, application, and review processes, and I take seriously my decision to dissent,” LaFleur wrote in a statement. “I acknowledge that if the applicants were to adopt an alternative solution, it would require considerable additional work and time. However, the decision before the Commission is simply whether to approve or reject these projects, which will be in place for decades. Given the environmental impacts and possible superior alternatives, approving these two pipeline projects on this record is not a decision I can support.”
The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.