FERC Should Be Independent, Not ‘Green’ Activist Judy Chang should not be a FERC commissioner
Much of the blame rests with former FERC Commissioner Richard Glick. He was political to his core, though he chaired an independent agency that is supposed to be technical, objective, and even-handed
FERC Should Be Independent, Not ‘Green’
Activist Judy Chang should not be a FERC commissioner
March 20, 2024
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is one of those wonky regulatory agencies with an innocuous acronym, and yet, like most things in Washington, D.C. these days, has become a political hot potato, especially with U.S. Senate confirmations looming for President Joe Biden’s latest nominees.
Much of the blame rests with former FERC Commissioner Richard Glick. He was political to his core, even though he chaired an independent agency that is supposed to be technical, objective, and even-handed. Media reports indicate that he met regularly with White House officials, using personal emails and cell phones to communicate with outside groups.
Glick’s actions incurred the wrath of Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), the chair of Senate Natural Resources Committee, who blocked his renomination to the commission. Thankfully, the current FERC Chair, Willie Phillips, has avoided Glick’s political shenanigans, but that isn’t stopping the Biden Administration from using FERC to do its green bidding.
Biden recently nominated three FERC commissioners, including Judy Chang, whose record is troubling to say the least. A longtime activist in the green movement, Ms. Chang played a leading role setting the energy policy of deep blue Massachusetts, long considered one of the most aggressive states in the rush to “de-carbonize.”
As a former Massachusetts undersecretary of energy and climate solutions, Ms. Chang has a background in the energy industry, and yet Massachusetts residents are buried in high energy costs, paying much higher than the average American. Ms. Chang’s response is to attack the industry for the “low price” of natural gas as “the wrong” signal to markets. She has urged the Bay State to raise the cost and called on New England to cease investing in gas infrastructure.
Massachusetts is suffering precisely because of Chang’s views, which became state law. Chang should not be allowed to impose this disaster on the entire country.
Unsurprisingly, natural gas demand in New England is higher than ever, providing nearly half the region’s power. With abundant natural gas reserves in nearby Pennsylvania, pipelines should be built to supply New England with affordable energy, and such a proposal would undoubtedly come before FERC. There is little chance that Ms. Chang would allow such a proposal based on her own ideology and her history of labeling pipelines “fiscally irresponsible.”
In a 2009 interview with Climate Wire, Chang expressed interest in cutting utilities to make up for the inevitable shortcomings with renewable energy. Her willingness to accept the inadequacies of renewable energy is alarming. When New England needs energy most during the winter, both wind and solar are unreliable options and require backup from fossil fuels. However, instead of supporting more reliable forms of energy, such as natural gas, she has called on utility companies to limit power to consumers to cap usage during periods of high demand. This type of energy rationing is common in the developing world. And California. The rest of America certainly doesn’t need any of this.
We have witnessed three years of the Biden Administrations’ attacks on American energy, and what are the results? Whether or not climate change is being “fixed” or “tackled” is merely feel-good political rhetoric. What we can measure is the cost to America families: groceries are more expensive, utilities are higher, consumer goods are more expensive. Life in America 2024 is nearly 20% more expensive than in 2020, and we have not received a 20% cost of living adjustment. Energy policies like the ones Ms. Chang has advocated are the root cause.
Making energy expensive has made life expensive. We need to reverse course, not double down.
FERC is supposed to above the political fray of the politics dividing “red and “blue.” FERC is not even supposed to be “green.” FERC must independently regulate and authorize the multiple energy infrastructure projects which come before it so America can flourish. Ms. Chang is simply the wrong choice at the wrong time. The American people deserve regulators who leave their political agendas at home.
Daniel Turner is the founder and executive director of Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs. Contact him at daniel@powerthefuture.com and follow him on Twitter @DanielTurnerPTF