FR 2025-01868

Overview

The document announces that the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for permission to undertake the Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project in Harrison County, Texas. This project aims to boost the capacity of a natural gas storage field by converting cushion gas to working gas and adding new facilities, including a compressor unit and a pipeline. Stakeholders and the public are invited to participate in the review process by submitting comments, protests, or requests to intervene by February 13, 2025.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several notable issues within the document. First and foremost, while the project’s financial estimation of approximately $97 million is disclosed, the absence of a detailed cost breakdown limits transparency and hinders public understanding of the financial aspects, potentially obscuring areas where inefficiencies or overruns might occur.

The procedural instructions for involvement, especially concerning the submission of comments, protests, and interventions, are couched in technical jargon. This complexity could discourage public participation due to the perceived difficulty. Furthermore, the reference to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) without context or explanation decreases accessibility for the general public who may not be familiar with legal references.

Although the document sets a clear deadline for motions to intervene, it does not elaborate on the consequences of missing this deadline. Providing such details would underscore the importance of timely action for interested parties.

Another concern is the lack of information about the project's subscribers. Transparency about who stands to benefit from this project would offer insights into whether it prioritizes particular interests, raising questions of equity and fairness.

Broad Public Impact

The project could have several implications for the public. On the one hand, increased storage capacity might stabilize or reduce natural gas prices in the region, ultimately benefiting consumers. On the other hand, the environmental footprint of the project, including potential impacts on local ecosystems and water resources, remains a concern that warrants careful consideration.

Moreover, the public's ability to participate meaningfully in the project's review process is critical. The technical nature of the document may act as a barrier to informing and engaging a broad audience, thus limiting equitable participation and discourse.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For local communities in Harrison County, the project could bring economic opportunities, such as job creation during the construction phase. However, potential environmental risks might disproportionately affect these communities, especially if they are not adequately addressed or mitigated.

Energy companies and natural gas stakeholders are likely to view this development favorably as it might enhance their capacity to secure energy supplies. Conversely, environmental organizations and advocacy groups may express concerns regarding possible ecological impacts and advocate for stringent regulatory scrutiny.

In conclusion, while the Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project by the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC presents significant opportunities for energy storage improvements, the document points to multiple areas of concern, particularly around transparency, public participation, and stakeholder impact. Ensuring clear communication and robust engagement will be essential in balancing developmental goals with public and environmental interests.

The Federal Register document outlines a proposed project by the Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, which involves an estimated expenditure. The Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project aims to increase the peak day withdrawal level at the North Lansing Storage Field from 1,240 million cubic feet per day to 1,420 million cubic feet per day. The financial estimate given for this project is $96,871,349.

The document does not provide a detailed breakdown of how this nearly $97 million is allocated across various components of the project, such as the installation of a new compressor unit, the construction of a pipeline loop line, and other appurtenances. This lack of transparency can make it challenging for stakeholders and the public to understand potential areas where efficiency might be improved or costs could be optimized. Knowing specific allocations could help assess whether the spending is justified and if there are potential areas for cost-saving measures.

Furthermore, the document mentions that the project is already fully subscribed. However, it does not elaborate on the identities of these subscribers or how the financial aspects of the subscription meet the needs of both the shippers involved and the broader market demand for storage services in the Gulf Coast region. Providing this information could help readers understand if the financial benefits gained from this project are equitably distributed and whether they genuinely address regional needs or simply favor specific entities.

The complexity in the language regarding how to engage with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, through comments or interventions, might deter public participation from individuals unfamiliar with regulatory processes. This is pertinent because effective public input could influence financial oversight, ensuring that nearly $97 million spent addresses broader public interests, not just those of the entity proposing the project.

Finally, while the document has noted that comments and motions to intervene must be submitted by a specified deadline, it does not clarify the financial implications of missing this deadline. For instance, it would be helpful to understand the potential financial or project delays, should timely public input not be adequately gathered.

In summary, the financial commitment of $96,871,349 for the Gulf Coast Storage Expansion Project presents significant investment in infrastructure, emphasizing the need for transparency and public engagement in understanding and potentially influencing how these funds are allocated.