The Trump administration has confirmed its intention to nominate James Danly to one of two open seats on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, though the choice has already provoked strong opposition.
The White House said Monday it would nominate Danly, who currently serves as the Commission's general counsel, for the remainder of a five-year term expiring on 20 June 2023. The nomination is subject to Senate approval.
Before joining the Commission, Danly was a member of the energy regulation and litigation group at law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, and he previously worked as law clerk to Judge Danny Boggs at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
His nomination comes as pressure mounts on the administration to fill the empty seats on the panel, which oversees construction of pipelines and liquefied natural gas export facilities. Industry watchers have pinned delays in Ferc granting authorisations for some liquefied natural gas facilities on a lack of commissioners.
But US President Donald Trump did not tie the nomination of Danly, a Republican, with that of a Democrat, as has been done in the past. The Senate Democrats, which make up the chamber's minority, had previously recommended energy lawyer Alison Clements for one of the seats.
If Danly's nomination is approved, the five-member panel would be composed of one Democrat and three Republicans, with one seat open.
Trump's break with tradition has already met with strong opposition from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which called Danly "woefully unqualified for the job".
"President Trump’s decision not to pair the Republican commission nomination with that Allison Clements, the Senate’s suggested choice to fill the open Democratic seat, is a misguided move that would be a disaster for consumers, the climate and any remaining vestiges of independent and informed federal decision-making over the nation’s energy sector," said Union senior energy analyst Sam Gomberg.
"This is a dangerous precedent for either political party and will only add legal uncertainty to impending and future Ferc decisions."
