FR 2021-01347

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC has submitted a request to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for authorization to abandon five injection/withdrawal wells and associated pipelines located in West Virginia. This action is part of the 2021 Coco B and Coco C Wells Abandonment Project. Columbia Gas assures there will be no impact on its existing customers or storage operations as a result of the abandonment, and the total cost of the project is estimated at approximately $2.8 million.

Significant Issues

One key concern is the cost estimate of $2.8 million for the project, encompassing the abandonment of only five wells and associated facilities. The absence of a detailed breakdown makes it difficult to assess whether the spending is prudent. For individuals and organizations interested in understanding the financials or assessing the project's cost-effectiveness, this could pose a challenge.

Another issue is the language used in the document regarding public participation in the FERC proceedings, which might be complex and overwhelming for individuals without legal expertise. Terms such as "protests," "motions to intervene," and "comments" are not explained in simple terms. This complexity could discourage public involvement, which is vital for transparent decision-making.

Additionally, the document does not discuss potential environmental impacts or other effects the abandonment might have. For communities in Kanawha County, West Virginia, as well as environmental groups, such information would be highly relevant. Acknowledging potential environmental implications would contribute to a more informed public assessment of the project.

Broad Public Impact

The importance of public participation in such projects cannot be overstated. Allowing the community to express their voices ensures that all concerns, including those about potential environmental impacts or economic prudence, are heard. The process outlined permits interested parties to submit comments or motions by a specified deadline, which is crucial for inclusive decision-making. However, the complexity of the described procedures may pose barriers to effective public engagement.

The ability to submit comments via mail is provided, but this could present challenges for those without digital access. While this inclusion is significant, it may seem outdated as more people rely on digital submissions. Nevertheless, FERC's encouragement of electronic submissions, along with the assistance program for electronic filings, demonstrates efforts to accommodate different preferences.

Impact on Stakeholders

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC investors and stakeholders are likely to view the prompt approval of the abandonment as a favorable movement in maintaining efficient operations without affecting existing customers. However, stakeholders expecting detailed financial clarity might raise concerns over the lack of detailed cost analysis.

Public stakeholders, especially those in the vicinity of the wells, might express concerns about the absence of environmental assessments, leading to possible apprehensions about unforeseen consequences. Environmental advocacy groups could view this as a missed opportunity for thorough public accountability.

In conclusion, the abandonment project presents various challenges and potential impacts on different stakeholders. While the document provides mechanisms for public participation, clearer explanations and transparency, particularly regarding cost and environmental considerations, would enhance public understanding and trust. As such, those involved are encouraged to engage in the process and advocate for the clarity and thoroughness necessary in these proceedings.

The Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's recent notice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has brought attention to the planned abandonment of several wells and associated facilities in West Virginia. As detailed in the filing, the project's estimated cost stands at $2.8 million. This figure is a crucial aspect of the proposal and merits close examination given its implications for both Columbia's operations and the broader regulatory and economic context in which it operates.

Financial Overview

The document outlines an estimated cost of $2.8 million for the abandonment project, which involves decommissioning five injection/withdrawal wells and their corresponding pipelines and facilities at two storage fields. This figure is recorded as a total sum covering all the related activities and expenses, providing an overarching view of the financial commitment required to complete the project.

Lack of Cost Breakdown

A prominent issue arising from this financial allocation is the absence of a detailed breakdown of the $2.8 million estimate. This lack of transparency can make it difficult for stakeholders, including the general public, regulatory bodies, and potential intervenors, to evaluate the prudence of this expenditure. A more granular account of costs, such as the division between labor, equipment dismantling, environmental compliance, and administrative fees, could enhance understanding and support informed commentary or objections.

Cost-Effectiveness Concerns

The estimated figure prompts consideration of whether the expenses are justified for the task described, specifically the abandonment of only five wells. The lack of detailed financial documentation could raise concerns about whether the funds are being utilized effectively and efficiently. Stakeholders may therefore question the cost-effectiveness of this project and whether alternative approaches might be considered that utilize fewer resources or achieve better outcomes.

Accessibility and Participation

Additionally, the document encourages public participation through comments, interventions, and protests but predominantly emphasizes digital avenues such as eFiling on FERC’s website. While the mention of mailing options acknowledges those without internet access, the process may still present barriers if individuals seek to scrutinize the project’s financial aspects. Simplifying and broadening access to such participatory mechanisms could be beneficial, ensuring that all interested parties can engage with the financial and administrative facets of this project meaningfully.

In summary, while the $2.8 million estimated cost is the clearest financial reference, it underscores several potential issues, chiefly concerning transparency and cost justification. Addressing these concerns would likely improve stakeholder engagement and confidence in the regulatory process.