Speaker 1: Sometimes life comes at you fast. A year ago, Richard
Speaker 1: Glick was chairman of a federal energy commission, empoised to
Speaker 1: get renominated to another term. Now he's out of a job.
Speaker 1: On today's episode, we break down what went wrong and
Speaker 1: what it means for the Biden administration's climate goals. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome back once again to Parts per Billion, the
Speaker 1: environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law. I'm your host David Schultz
Speaker 1: in Washington. You can survive making a few enemies, but
Speaker 1: you can't survive making the wrong enemies. That's one of
Speaker 1: the lessons of the career of Richard Glick, who until
Speaker 1: recently was the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Speaker 1: Click assumed this world shortly after President Biden took office,
Speaker 1: and the President renominated him to another term in May
Speaker 1: of two, but that nomination never even came up for
Speaker 1: a vote in the Senate Energy Committee because the chairman
Speaker 1: of that committee, West Virginia Democrat, Joe Mansion, was not
Speaker 1: a Glick fan. In March, he hauled Click before his
Speaker 1: committee for a dressing down, and the issue was a
Speaker 1: proposal Click was pushing that would have made it harder
Speaker 1: for gas pipeline projects to win FIRK approval and it
Speaker 1: didn't go well. Did you all have a lengthy discussion
Speaker 1: and work about try to work your differences out at
Speaker 1: all as a group five of you? Yes, so a
Speaker 1: couple of things. First of all, yes, we did, as
Speaker 1: we do all the time. We did have a very
Speaker 1: lengthy discussion. Um, this issue has been dispirited for a
Speaker 1: couple of years, so yes, it's been very spirited. I
Speaker 1: want to say that first of all, ultimately Mansion single
Speaker 1: handedly block clicks renomination, and now at the start of
Speaker 1: the new year, FIRK is moving on without him. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law reporter Daniel Moore actually spoke to Glick shortly before
Speaker 1: his time when the commission ended and asked him why
Speaker 1: he thought things went south. I brought Daniel into the
Speaker 1: podcast to hear what Click told him, But first I
Speaker 1: started off by asking what exactly it is that FIRK.
Speaker 1: Does you know? FURK overseas um wholesale electric rates, It
Speaker 1: overseas the construction of certain natural gas pipelines, It reviews hydropower,
Speaker 1: damn licenses. It's got kind of this wide ranging regulatory
Speaker 1: oversight in the energy sector that's really really important. A
Speaker 1: lot of people don't know about it, but a lot
Speaker 1: of this stuff does get baked into your retail utility bill. Uh.
Speaker 1: They you know, they have an Office of Enforcement that
Speaker 1: goes out and make sure that utilities and certain companies
Speaker 1: are following the rules and not manipulating the market. So
Speaker 1: it's got this really important role UM and its members
Speaker 1: are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Speaker 1: So there's this idea that you know, you want to
Speaker 1: make sure that firk is is somewhat insulated as much
Speaker 1: as possible from political interference. Yeah, that's what I was
Speaker 1: going to ask you. You know, why does FIRK need
Speaker 1: to be this sort of independent body. Why can't we
Speaker 1: just have the Department of Energy do this? And it
Speaker 1: sounds like it's because the rationalities we don't want electric
Speaker 1: power generation policy to be politicized. Is that it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the idea is that it should be insulated
Speaker 1: for a many political pressure. And you know, the Energy
Speaker 1: Department as a whole obviously spends a lot of money
Speaker 1: on research and development and sets energy policy in that
Speaker 1: way UM, which can kind of the political pendulum can
Speaker 1: swing back and forth pretty quickly depending on who's the
Speaker 1: Energy Secretary. And Firk doesn't in theory swing back and
Speaker 1: forth as much. So let's get into click. He joined
Speaker 1: Firk in h and at that point the the commission
Speaker 1: was dominated by the Republicans, and I get the sense
Speaker 1: he was mainly known for writing these sort of very
Speaker 1: blistering dissents for the policies that Firk was enacting. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was in the minority um and he was his
Speaker 1: own commissioner, and so when you're in the minority on
Speaker 1: one of these commissions, you're usually writing pretty fiery dissents
Speaker 1: on a lot of issues and criticizing the chair. UM.
Speaker 1: One prominent issue that he was dissenting on over and
Speaker 1: over involved gas pipelines, and involved the mission's review of
Speaker 1: gas pipelines and you know, pressing for for strict reviews
Speaker 1: of some of these proposed projects. I mean, these are
Speaker 1: these are interstate pipelines that Furk overseas so often they're
Speaker 1: bigger projects. Not always, but you know, there's significant projects
Speaker 1: that result in the disruption of land and and right
Speaker 1: away issues. And so you know, he he dissented on
Speaker 1: a lot of those cases. And so he did. He
Speaker 1: made his name, you know, as any minority commissioner would
Speaker 1: opposing kind of the direction of the majority. But it's
Speaker 1: interesting you mentioned the gas pipeline issue because you actually
Speaker 1: spoke to another former commissioner on Firk, who worked with
Speaker 1: with Click, and he actually said he privately advised Click, like, hey,
Speaker 1: maybe sort of back off on, you know, writing these
Speaker 1: descents so forcefully, because you know you might be boxing
Speaker 1: yourself in even when you become in the majority. And
Speaker 1: sure enough, that's exactly what happened. He was not only
Speaker 1: in the majority, he was nominated to be chairman. Uh,
Speaker 1: and then he kind of what went really really hard
Speaker 1: against this gas pipeline thing. Can you you know, lay
Speaker 1: at the whole story here? Yeah, yeah, it's it's kind
Speaker 1: of interesting and there are a couple of different UM
Speaker 1: theories and explanations I guess for it depending on who
Speaker 1: you talk to. But yeah, former UM, the former Firk
Speaker 1: chair Republican FIR chair Neil chatter Gee Um spoke with
Speaker 1: me a little bit about UM and he's been talking
Speaker 1: with me over the last year about gas policy. You know,
Speaker 1: he's he's been critical of what the former chair Rich
Speaker 1: Click has been doing. And UM, Yeah, it's kind of
Speaker 1: an interesting point because you know, when you're in the minority.
Speaker 1: You're your own commissioner, you're writing for yourself, and then
Speaker 1: when you become chair you you know, you have a
Speaker 1: lot of power, and you are drafting kind of these
Speaker 1: initial orders and sending them around to other commissioners trying
Speaker 1: to get support. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: you do need support, and you need at least three
Speaker 1: commissioners if you're on a five member commission, but ideally
Speaker 1: you want to get bipartisan support. And so you know
Speaker 1: what ended up happening, essentially was that UM click. When
Speaker 1: he became chairman, started pursuing a number of different policies,
Speaker 1: but one of them was, you know, updating this more
Speaker 1: than two decade old Gas Policy Statement, which basically guides
Speaker 1: the Commission's review of gas pipelines, and he wanted to
Speaker 1: update it, he said, in response to recent court rollings
Speaker 1: where environmental groups had been successful in challenging Commission decisions
Speaker 1: on pipelines. UM the gas industry saw it as you know,
Speaker 1: a political move, UM, an unfair move against their industry
Speaker 1: that would slow down projects. And basically, I mean it's essentially,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's a very complicated proposal, but ultimately
Speaker 1: the one of the main effects of this would be
Speaker 1: slowing down the process of approving new pipelines to take
Speaker 1: natural gas from point A to point B. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it would. It would scrutinize these applications, um
Speaker 1: and and require more of the applicants. It's it's fair
Speaker 1: to say. And and Glick's argument all along was, look,
Speaker 1: this is we're responding to court decisions. There have been
Speaker 1: there have been prominent cases in recent years that have
Speaker 1: vacated FIRS pipeline approvals, um that have then caused delays,
Speaker 1: right um. And so you know, Glick's argument was, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm creating certainty for the industry. The industry should ultimately
Speaker 1: want this because you know, our approvals will be legally
Speaker 1: durable and you won't be as delayed in the long run.
Speaker 1: The industry, you know, often did not see it that way.
Speaker 1: That that's kind of a understatement, I think, right yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: And you know there again there it's it's complicated. But um,
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't help that days after Click went
Speaker 1: forward with this and finalized this gas policy, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I mean it was it was days after that happened. Um.
Speaker 1: And so there was this intense blowback for that reason.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think the I think the main
Speaker 1: reason was you have, um, you know, very powerful Senator
Speaker 1: a Mansion who is chair of the Senate Energy and
Speaker 1: Natural Resources Committee, who um is very supportive of gas pipelines,
Speaker 1: and he saw for as essentially slowing things down when
Speaker 1: he wanted to for to speed things up, and and
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration in general to speed things up.
Speaker 1: And and that was kind of the basis of you know,
Speaker 1: calling Click and the rest of the commission before his
Speaker 1: committee in March and haranguing them for doing this and
Speaker 1: urging them to pull back, which they ultimately did um
Speaker 1: just days after, you know, weeks after that that committee hearing. UM.
Speaker 1: And so it was huge political blowback. Yeah. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what I think is so interesting is that these
Speaker 1: are the kinds of things that happened when you have
Speaker 1: a Senate is that, you know, the most conservative member
Speaker 1: of the majority, who in this case arguably as Joe Manchon,
Speaker 1: can can do these kinds of things where he can
Speaker 1: single handedly block a nomination from from moving forward. I
Speaker 1: wonder what Glick thought of this, though, because you know,
Speaker 1: do you think he was surprised by all of this.
Speaker 1: Do you think he was blindsided by what happened? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean it's a really good question because, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Glick is not unfamiliar with how these things work. I mean,
Speaker 1: he came directly from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Um,
Speaker 1: he was a staffer on the committee. He one of
Speaker 1: his top advisors was hired from Mansion staff on that
Speaker 1: committee and was trying to shepherd his renomination through the process.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's one of those one of those
Speaker 1: questions that that doesn't have an easy answer. But you know,
Speaker 1: I asked the I asked Glick last month, you know,
Speaker 1: do you have any regrets with how you approach it?
Speaker 1: And he said absolutely not. Um, I may have made
Speaker 1: these draft policies and to kind of soften the blow
Speaker 1: instead of just immediately finalizing it, but you know, we
Speaker 1: need to move We we needed to move on this
Speaker 1: because of these court orders and we can't defy the courts. Um.
Speaker 1: So he's sticking by his decision. But you know, I
Speaker 1: just I think part of it is, Yeah, he was
Speaker 1: dissenting for a long time on these issues and felt
Speaker 1: a lot of pressure by what he had said in
Speaker 1: the past and maybe you know, some of the people
Speaker 1: who supported him to go out and and tackle gas
Speaker 1: policy right away and not you not wait for any
Speaker 1: anything else. Um, I think Ukraine, the Ukraine invasion at
Speaker 1: a field of the fire. But you know, ultimately it
Speaker 1: seems like purely political reasons. Mansion is in cycle, he's
Speaker 1: running for he may run for re election in term
Speaker 1: is up. Um. It was days after Mansion eviscerated President
Speaker 1: Biden for making a comment about UM wanting to close
Speaker 1: down coal plants, and so it just it's it's strongly
Speaker 1: suggested that you know, Mansion really surprised everyone. I mean,
Speaker 1: Glick wasn't the only person blindsided by this. A lot
Speaker 1: of people I've talked to follow for pretty closely expected
Speaker 1: Click to get his hearing, and it just was abruptly
Speaker 1: canceled in November. That's really interesting because sometimes I feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, having been reported on the Hill in the past,
Speaker 1: that a lot of the things that happened there that
Speaker 1: appear to be surprises really aren't. That everything kind of
Speaker 1: is planned out, even though it's sort of you know,
Speaker 1: seems like it's not. You know a lot of times
Speaker 1: a markup or or a committee vote, it's pretty clear
Speaker 1: that the outcome of that has decided well in advance.
Speaker 1: But I guess every now and then there are surprises where,
Speaker 1: you know, things like this can happen, and you know,
Speaker 1: it sounds like Glick genuinely and click and the Biden
Speaker 1: administration just genuinely didn't see this coming. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I heard from Mansion's office first in November that they
Speaker 1: weren't going to support Chairman clicks renomination or hold a hearing.
Speaker 1: They weren't comfortable holding a hearing for him at that time.
Speaker 1: And it seemed like genuine surprise from everyone that I
Speaker 1: was calling about it that day. And and yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean I've been surprised in a number of times this year, um,
Speaker 1: and most of it's have been in Mansion has been
Speaker 1: involved in most of those things, and including you know,
Speaker 1: pushing you know, the climate bill. Um, the climate bill
Speaker 1: was dead and then it came back and it was resurrected,
Speaker 1: and so it's yeah, it's been a very surprising year.
Speaker 1: But I think this is one good example of of
Speaker 1: where people were genuinely surprised and a few people really
Speaker 1: expected that to happen. Well, let's move away from Glick
Speaker 1: himself and you know, I well, you know, his future
Speaker 1: I guess is uncertain, although I'm sure he'll land on
Speaker 1: his feet somewhere. UM and talk about the Biden administration's
Speaker 1: climate policy because you know, uh Glick was a footsoldier
Speaker 1: in implementing that policy. Do you think that the Biden
Speaker 1: administrations overall climate goals are threatened by this and that um,
Speaker 1: you know, this may actually prevent them from reaching their goals.
Speaker 1: Or do you think that ultimately this is just a
Speaker 1: speed bump in you know, a much larger process. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, certainly there's much, so much more to combating
Speaker 1: climate change beyond Firk and and who is the chair
Speaker 1: for UM. And you know, even in the Energy Department
Speaker 1: you have billions of dollars now being told out for
Speaker 1: clean energy technology that that could really move the needle
Speaker 1: on climate change. UM. But you know, I would argue,
Speaker 1: you know, where firk is is most powerful is in
Speaker 1: actually getting projects in the ground, um, in the clean
Speaker 1: energy space. And so you know, the Firk chair such
Speaker 1: the agenda, they run the meetings as we know. UM.
Speaker 1: But and there's a there's a handful of really complex,
Speaker 1: um somewhat controversial rulemakings involving transmission planning. It's a huge one,
Speaker 1: regional transmission planning, and the rules around that, the rules
Speaker 1: around connecting more generation to the grid, which you have
Speaker 1: a bunch of renewable energy and batteries just you know
Speaker 1: in theories sitting there waiting to connect to the grid.
Speaker 1: They're ready to go, they're ready to be developed, um,
Speaker 1: but the grid can't support it quite yet. And there
Speaker 1: are a bunch of other rules too, and obviously the
Speaker 1: gas policy statements which are sitting there in draft right
Speaker 1: now and nobody expects those to move anytime soon. So
Speaker 1: so just as three examples, I mean, you have these
Speaker 1: rulemakings that um, you know, many would argue are are
Speaker 1: really crucial to getting like actual tangible projects connected to
Speaker 1: the grid. So you have all this money coming out
Speaker 1: from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Bill, but FIRK
Speaker 1: is kind of like that that permitting and regulatory piece
Speaker 1: that has been causing delays over the years for a
Speaker 1: lot of these projects. So that's where that's where you
Speaker 1: may see you know, the needle move a odd and
Speaker 1: if you have a two to commission that's split between
Speaker 1: the parties, much like the sun it was, you may
Speaker 1: have you may have delays, or you may have final
Speaker 1: rules that are not you know, maybe as aggressive as
Speaker 1: climate advocates would like. All right, well that was Daniel
Speaker 1: Moore talking about the very bad, no good, horrible two
Speaker 1: for Richard glick Um. Be interesting to see where when
Speaker 1: he winds up in the future. Daniel, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for talking. Yeah, thanks for having me on. And
Speaker 1: that's it for today's episode of Parts Brivilion. If you
Speaker 1: want more environmental news, check us out on our website
Speaker 1: news dot Bloomberg Law dot com. That webisode, once again
Speaker 1: is newstt Bloomberg Law dot Com. Today's episode of Parts
Speaker 1: B Billion was produced by myself, David Schultz. Parts Brivilion
Speaker 1: was created by Jessica Comba and Rachel Diggle and is
Speaker 1: addited by Zack Shrwood and Renee's show. Our executive producer
Speaker 1: is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening. Those nine justices
Speaker 1: in Washington can be hard to keep track of. That's
Speaker 1: where we commit on our podcast cases and controversies. We
Speaker 1: give you a week by week accounting of the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: the filings, the arguments, the opinions, and much much more.
Speaker 1: Check in on Fridays with Bloomberg law's cases and controversies
Speaker 1: to find out what's coming up on the horizon of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.