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 text doesn’t really go there because it seems to be taking CSR at face value - so it’s saying the corporation isn’t really doing CSR. Author isn’t arguing that CSR forecloses anything but that the corporation’s actions foreclose any “real” social responsibility.

They rename the things that people accuse them of, even as they acknowledge the accusation. They keep using the term “biosolids” instead of “hazardous waste” or “toxins”. They produced reports that denied each allegation. From their Our Environmental Values 2003 report: “In our opinion, the balance of evidence including testing and analysis by independent laboratories and the Indian government shows that the allegations against Coca Cola have not been substantiated.” They also tried to show progress against the accusations with their CSR initiatives - including reduction of water use ratio, rainwater harvesting, HIV AIDS projects - cooperating with USAID and UN. They also build up an image of corporate philanthropy with sponsoring sports, especially the Olympics and FIFA, and just branding by having their vending machines on college campuses. 

They tried to suppress a report that shows how toxic their waste is, and that it is useless as fertilizer (I did like the “extraordinary practice of distributing toxic wastes to the farmers as fertilizers” quote on 108). 

There’s no exploration of what corporate actors are thinking. Or really the villagers either. The corporation here is portrayed as willfully and knowingly destroying the lives and livelihoods of the marginalized people of India. The CSR reports are mostly empty and incorrect responses to the accusations coca cola faced, so they don’t really claim any help.

The corporation really denies its responsibility here… simply refusing to put on their labels the chemical makeup of their product. They do perform an extent of responsibility about the water usage, though they twist the words of the report commissioned by High Court of Kerala to make it seem like it’s really just the low rainfall that’s making a water shortage, and that the court endorses their continued use of the groundwater. The author says “independent study” in quotes - but doesn’t get into to what extent and the study was compromised. 

The article points out the differences in how Coca Cola behaves in the US and UK versus in India - the US products don’t contain pesticides and do comply to laws about levels of toxic materials in beverages. In the UK, complaints about the product led to recalls. In India they deny that the consumer has the right to know what poison chemicals are in the beverage even though Indian law does grant this right to consumers, even after the court has found there to be harmful and illegal levels of toxins in the beverages.

The corporation just doesn’t listen to the court demands that the state courts rule in India. The High Court of Rajasthan ruled that coca cola had to test the beverages and disclose on the labels the full composition, including chemicals that were found in the drink. Coca Cola just refused - they said it was not required by law, and didn’t even brand their action as CSR. Elsewhere they claimed that their levels complied with the law or were better. (Even though it was just not true in this case). “Not bound by law to make such a disclosure, and that if the water it uses does contain pesticides, the company could hardly be held responsible for it… ...Divulging information with regard to the presence or absence of DDT from its beverages was not relevant to the debate. It even went so far as to question the material relevance of such information imparted to the consumers, denying that the consumers had any right to an informed choice before selecting, buying, and consuming the products…. Refused to comply…” p114. They just complained this was part of trade war