On October 9, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted a request from the Mountain Valley Pipeline for a two-year extension of the project’s certificate to complete construction of the pipeline. The existing certificate was to expire October 13, 2020. Many organizations and individuals had opposed MVP’s request.

The vote was 2-1, with Commissioner Glick dissenting. Read the FERC decision here. Note especially the last two pages where Commissioner Glick registers his partial dissent, and delivers a scathing criticism of FERC for their decision to deny intervenor status to a number of landowners who had not been formal intervenors in the original Certificate process, but who had attempted to intervene in the time extension request proceeding.

Glick writes, “Time and time again, landowners do their very best to navigate the complexity of FERC proceedings. And, time and time again, the Commission relies on technicalities to prevent them from even having the opportunity to vindicate their interests. When it comes to protecting landowner interests, we should look at what the Commission does, not what it says. With that in mind, today’s order tells you everything need to know about how much the Commission cares about landowners.”

Glick’s dissent indicates the “care” landowners may expect in upcoming ACP extension decision. ACP’s original Certificate of Public Convenience and Need expires on Oct. 13, 2020. That means they can do nothing after that date – including cleaning up the mess they made on many people’s properties. So, ACP asked for a one-year extension to complete necessary “stand down” activities, remove pipe that has been staged but not buried, stabilize and restore the abandoned construction sites, etc.

Many organizations (including Friends of Nelson), the lawyers from SELC, and many individuals submitted comments to FERC this summer requesting that certain conditions be met as part of the process of such an extension being granted. A couple of notable conditions were 1) that all landowners be released from the easement agreements they signed and 2) that there be a formal opportunity for landowners and other stakeholders to submit further comments to FERC delineating exactly what kind of restoration or other things are needed to restore impacted lands and make impacted property owners “whole” so that those needs could be taken into account in whatever orders FERC gives to ACP as the “stand down” process begins.

We expect to hear FERC’s decision about the extension — and thus on whether they will require conditions that would help landowners — any day now.