Search

Strategic plans generated every four years include and highlight FERC motivations, goals, and emphasize key priorities the organization plans on focusing on. The newest FERC Strategic plan FY 2022-2026 demonstrates the organizations shifting focus on environmental implications and environmental justice. Compared to the previous Strategic plans from 2009 till 2022, there have been zero mentions of “environmental justice” or “environmental justice communities”. In the newest 2022-2026 strategic plan there were 24 mentions of “environmental justice” and 11 mentions of “environmental justice communities”. The newest strategic plan focuses on better examining greenhouse gas emissions by revising the analytical framework for evaluating effects of natural gas infrastructure. The newest strategic plan includes an outline to address energy security and reliability given extreme weather events, climate change and new cyber security threats. An additional priority includes improving participation in proceedings, including landowners, environmental justice communities, tribal nations, and members of the public. Their report also includes an emphasis on regulation and compliance with industry. 

The structure in which the FERC is funded is one of particular controversy, which was brought to court in 2016 by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network. The DRN alleged that the way in which the FERC was funded was inherently biased in favor of industry and violated the public's 5th amendment right. The FERC has an appropriated budget set by congress. The FERC raises revenue through the industry it regulates to reimburse and generate funding.  The lawsuit legally sided with the FERC giving the following reasons: the FERC budget has remained consistently the same, the FERC is statutorily required to eliminate under and over recovery of money, and the opposition failed ot prove it's case.

This organization works with the EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Coast Guard, US Department of Energy, US Fish and Wildlife Services and other agencies on Environmental Impact Statements for new Infrastructure.

As of April 2022 the commissioners include, Commissioner James Danly, Commissioner Allison Clements, Commissioner Mark C. Christie, and Commissioner Willie L. Phillips, and Chairman, Richard Glick. Chairman and Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners and Chair serve staggered five year terms and not more than three of the five commissioners, including the chair, can be from the same political party. Additional staffers include ~1500 employees (based on FY 2019). Staffers fulfill supplemental positions such as lawyers, engineers, economists, biologist, ecologist etc. The chairman and commissioners are at the top of the organizational structure. Administrative, Regulatory, and Litigation functions all follow. There are 13 specific departments such as the Office of Administrative Litigation, Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Office of the External Affairs etc. all fall into one of the three functions.

FERC's mission According to the FERC government website: “Assist consumers in obtaining reliable, safe, secure, and economically efficient energy services at a reasonable cost through appropriate regulatory and market means, and collaborative efforts.” This organization as of April 2022 is operational.

The case study findings in the text have been discussed with senior staff at the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and members of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. It has also been presented at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and the Yale Center for the Study of Race, Indigeneity, and Transnational Migration during a Scoping Analysis workshop with California policymakers and advocates.

“Despite these disadvantages, the state of California has failed to map wildfire vulnerability based on socioeconomic status. Without an accurate identification and mapping process, the state is unable to provide local governments and community-based groups with a reliable rendering of the populations most vulnerable to the impacts of wildfire. Most importantly, by failing to identify socially vulnerable communities across California, government entities are unable to understand in advance where to target limited resources and programs (Sadd et al., 2011).” (Mendez 57)

“To further ensure participation and strengthen capacity, federal, state and local governments should provide appropriate funding to community-based organizations working directly with vulnerable populations.Community-based organizations have stronger cultural competency in engaging with communities of color and immigrants,

greater levels of trust, and more flexibility to explicitly assist these populations. In community-based planning processes, vulnerable communities are actively engaged in the identification, analysis and interventions, monitoring, and evaluation of disaster risks. This approach helps reduce their vulnerabilities and enhance their capacities.” (Mendez 59)

This text highlights the importance of a mixed methods approach to disaster planning. Specifically, the importance of incorporating qualitative research methods as a way to anchor the voices of marginalized communities within disaster planning and provide context to emerging trends observed in climate related risks.  Regarding disaster planning and undocumented immigrant communities for example, Mendez (2020) stresses that practitioners must go beyond addressing the contextual vulnerability of these communities and consider how to address systemic problems perpetuated by the agricultural industry. The lack of accountability and disregard for human life within the industry, coupled with the lack political power within undocumented immigrant communities, particularly those belonging to the Mixteco/ Indigena indigenous groups, are systems of oppression which must be addressed if climate disaster risks are to be truly addressed.

Mendez (2020) stresses that the intersectionality of race, class, gender, indigeneity, and many other dimensions of identities coalesce to shape the lived experiences of people in their local environments. Traditional quantitative methods, though useful in providing snapshots of disaster vulnerability, can do little in capturing the social environmental conditions which determine responses to extreme weather and climatic events. At best, it can serve to provide an obscured understanding of disaster risks, at worst, this one-dimensional methodology approach may exacerbate existing inequalities perpetuated by systems of racism, classicism, and sexism by rendering whole communities invisible simply by virtue of sampling biases (Mendez, 2020). The case study by which Mendez frames his central argument focuses on how Indigenous immigrants were systematically ignored in emergency response and alleviation efforts following the Thomas Fire in California’s Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. 

META: Water seems to be one important medium through which NOLA envisions the “impacts” of the Anthropocene—scarcity, abundance, temporalities and spatial distributions, management of, and hazards that emerge in its context. Less is said about the causal or attributional aspects of the Anthropocene. How might water function as an entry point into the assemblages of local anthropocenics?

I found the NOLA Hazard Mitigation Plan for 2018, which frames the impacts of the Anthropocene as an intersection of weather extremes amid climate change and evolving vulnerabilities of its people. Four of seven items in the executive summary note water as central to local interventions: flood awareness, flood repair, flood mitigation, flood infrastructure. Too much water or water in the wrong places and the aftereffect of water on infrastructure and lives. One expression, then, is preparedness.

MACRO: Mitigation is an interesting analytic for the Anthropocene. In the US mitigation plans are shaped by the 1988 Stafford Act (which amended the 1974 Disaster Relief Act). Constraints on communities come through rules, regulations, policies, (dis)incentives, and surveillance by state and federal authorities. Much of this is bound by economic and administrative discourses.

Goals are set in this document—broken out by timelines, activities, priorities, and capabilities. Another expression is classification of anthropocenics by subfields and accounting metrics. How do we measure progress and what is deferred to the future, 5-10 years out from today, a goal that has no tangible accountability but is named and acknowledged. What are the practices of naming, responsibility, and making (in)visible in the Anthropocene?

BIO: One new initiative, Ready for Rain, in particular is of interest to me as it highlights the more neoliberal vision for how the public should self-regulate risk and mitigate harm. I hear this as an extension of a government agency program to make the nation Weather Ready. Other bullets highlight “green” buildings, energies, and infrastructures. These could be examples of how the city envisions the Anthropocene feedback loop of humans changing/planning for climate alterations, which is a fairly typical lens.

Some questions: What does the water do? What does the water know? If we trace water in all its instantiations (e.g. historical water, flow of water, chemistry of water, application of water, temperature of water), what do we learn about the future imaginaries of what NOLA will / could / ought to become?