Projects and Liabilities: What Two Cases Reveal About FERC’s Higher Stakes
From fast-tracking a Texas LNG terminal to weighing $1.7B in wildfire damages in the West, FERC is deciding the future of energy — and who pays for it.
In recent days, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) greenlit a request to build a facility on the Texas coast that will take natural gas from pipelines, cool it into liquid form, and load it onto ships for overseas sale. The project — Glenfarne’s Texas LNG export terminal — received early approval to move ahead.
At the same time, in the West, FERC began reviewing a request from PacifiCorp — a utility facing billions in liabilities from destructive wildfires in Oregon and California. One decision fast-tracks the development of a massive new energy project; the other could allow a utility to recover $1.7 billion in wildfire damages from its customers, some of whom have sued the company for negligence.
For households and businesses, these choices shape how much appears on the monthly bill, how reliable the grid is in extreme weather, and ultimately, who pays the price when natural disasters strike. Taken together, the rulings underscore FERC’s dual role in today’s energy system — as an accelerator of new infrastructure and as an arbiter of who pays for climate-driven risks.
Positive Current explored both cases, what’s at stake, and FERC’s role in refereeing the future of U.S. energy.
Texas LNG Moves Forward
Last week, FERC reissued its final order for Glenfarne’s Texas LNG project, three months ahead of schedule. The approval clears the way for the construction of an LNG facility at the Port of Brownsville.
Glenfarne states that the site will be one of the cleanest LNG terminals in the world, designed with electric motor drives to reduce emissions. Engineering firm Kiewit is signed on to build the project, and Glenfarne is expected to reach a final investment decision by the end of the year.
Why it matters: For the U.S., LNG exports are a major piece of energy security and trade, particularly for Europe and Asia. For South Texas, the project means jobs and billions in new infrastructure. But it also sharpens debate about LNG’s place in the energy transition: is it a short-term bridge fuel, or a long-term lock-in for fossil fuels? For FERC, the accelerated approval signals how the commission can shape timelines for massive projects — speeding up investment decisions and giving developers a clearer runway to build.
PacifiCorp and the Price of Wildfires
In the West, Berkshire Hathaway–owned PacifiCorp has asked FERC to dismiss challenges to its plan to fold $1.7 billion in wildfire-related liabilities into customer bills. The costs stem from lawsuits in Oregon and California, where juries have found the utility negligent for failing to shut off power or maintain equipment during extreme fire conditions. Those rulings left PacifiCorp with billions in damages to pay survivors.
Now the company wants FERC’s permission to treat those payouts as part of its “transmission costs” — the portion of rates overseen at the federal level. Other utilities and power agencies are fighting the request, saying wildfire damages aren’t a normal cost of running the grid and shouldn’t be passed to customers.
Why it matters: If FERC allows the costs, households across six states could see higher bills tied directly to wildfire damages. If regulators push back, it could force utilities and their shareholders to absorb more of the financial risk — raising the stakes for how companies prepare for, and manage, climate-driven disasters.
The Bottom Line
The cases highlight FERC’s significant influence in today’s energy market. In Texas, the commission acted as an accelerator, moving faster than expected to clear a multibillion-dollar export project. In the West, it is acting as an arbiter, deciding whether wildfire damages should be carried by utilities and their shareholders or spread across customer bills.
That authority isn’t new — FERC has long overseen pipelines, transmission rates, and major energy infrastructure. But with climate disasters more frequent and expensive, global demand fueling a surge of new LNG projects, and the Trump administration pushing the commission to move faster on fossil fuel approvals, the stakes are higher than ever.