FR 2024-31437

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC has submitted a request to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking approval to plug and abandon three wells and related facilities in Ohio. This project, referred to as the 2025 Benton Wells Abandonment Project, is expected to cost around $2 million and aims to reduce integrity risks in line with federal guidelines established by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

General Summary of the Document

The document serves as an official notice from FERC regarding Columbia Gas Transmission's request under the Natural Gas Act. The company plans to abandon certain gas wells and facilities, which involves plugging the wells and dismantling the associated infrastructure. The notice outlines procedural details about how the public can engage with the Commission's review process through protests, motions to intervene, and comments, with a deadline for participation set for February 21, 2025. Extensive guidance is offered to navigate the Commission's filing process.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One of the notable issues in the document is the lack of detailed justification for the $2 million cost associated with the project. The document broadly aligns the proposed work with compliance to PHMSA guidelines; however, it does not delve into specifics about the cost rationale. This could lead to public concern or skepticism regarding the potential for wasteful spending.

Additionally, the document contains references to specific legal sections and regulatory procedures that might not be easily understood by all readers. Legal jargon and procedural specificity can pose comprehension challenges, particularly for individuals without a background in regulatory or legal matters, thereby potentially hindering effective public participation.

Impact on the Public

The public at large is given the opportunity to participate in the Commission's review process, which is an essential aspect of democratic engagement in regulatory matters. By offering avenues for protests, interventions, and comments, FERC empowers citizens and affected parties to provide input, ensuring that various perspectives are considered in the decision-making process.

However, the complexity of the document, with its reliance on technical language and legal references, might intimidate or alienate those unfamiliar with FERC's procedures. This complexity may inadvertently limit participation to those already well-versed in such regulatory processes, thereby excluding potentially valuable public input.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders directly impacted by the project, such as local residents in the Ohio counties where the wells are located, landowners, and environmental groups, the document provides a clear channel to voice concerns or support. These stakeholders have a critical role, as potential environmental, economic, or social impacts could directly affect their communities.

Similarly, for energy companies and others in the natural gas industry, the document sets a precedent for adherence to safety and environmental regulations, potentially influencing future business practices and regulatory compliance.

Overall, while the document aims to facilitate public involvement and ensure regulatory transparency, the inclusion of a more straightforward explanation and cost justification might enhance understanding and participation, ultimately leading to more informed and inclusive decision-making.

In the Federal Register document concerning Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's request for authorization related to the Benton Storage Field, a $2 million cost estimate is highlighted. This financial reference is crucial as it indicates the projected expenditure for the planned abandonment of three injection/withdrawal wells, along with associated pipelines and facilities.

The $2 million figure is mentioned in the context of aligning with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Storage Final Rule. However, the document does not provide a detailed breakdown of this cost, nor does it elaborate on the specific activities or justifications that demand such an expenditure. This lack of detailed financial information could lead to concerns about whether the project is financially justified and efficient, potentially raising questions about wasteful spending. Individuals analyzing the document may seek more clarity on how these funds will be utilized and whether they represent a prudent financial decision.

Moreover, the financial reference is tied to larger issues regarding the document's overall accessibility. The document assumes a degree of familiarity with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) processes, potentially limiting broader public understanding and engagement. The mention of a $2 million project cost without detailed context might not fully convey the rationale or necessity for those unfamiliar with FERC's procedures or Columbia's operational mandates.

By focusing on the financial figure without elaborating on its components or necessity, the document may inadvertently add to the complexity and accessibility issues. The lack of financial transparency could be perceived as a barrier to informed public participation, especially when paired with the legal jargon and procedural references prevalent throughout the notice. This situation underscores the importance of clear and comprehensive financial reporting in regulatory documents to facilitate better public insight and confidence in governmental and corporate actions.