FR 2025-02710

The document at hand is a notice from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding a request by the National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation. This request pertains to the plugging and abandonment of an injection/withdrawal well and its associated pipeline in Pennsylvania due to corrosion issues. The proposal indicates no anticipated impact on current customers or operations, and it includes an estimation of approximately $958,000 as the cost to construct similar facilities today.

General Summary

This notice serves as a formal communication to inform the public and stakeholders about the planned decommissioning of a natural gas facility. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation seeks FERC's permission to abandon Well 2430 and its pipeline, asserting that continued operation is not feasible due to corrosion. The notice outlines the procedural steps for public involvement, offering options to file protests, interventions, or comments about the project. It sets an April 14, 2025, deadline for such filings, providing instructions and contact information to assist those interested in participating.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues and potential areas of concern arise from this document:

1. Cost Transparency: The document mentions an estimated cost of $958,000 for constructing similar facilities but lacks a detailed breakdown. This could prompt questions about what exactly the cost entails and whether it reflects prudent financial management.

2. Complex Regulatory Language: The notice can be challenging to comprehend for individuals unfamiliar with regulatory jargon, especially when referencing specific sections of the Commission’s regulations such as 157.205 and 214. This complexity may hinder effective public engagement.

3. Unclear Filing Procedures: For those wishing to become parties to the proceeding, the document specifies that merely filing a comment isn’t sufficient, and intervention is necessary. However, the explanation about intervening, particularly regarding late filings needing ‘good cause,’ could be obscure to some readers.

4. Multiple Contact Points: The presence of different addresses and emails for submitting various types of documents might create confusion, especially for first-time participants in such regulatory processes.

Impact on the Public

This notice is part of a broader regulatory process that encourages public involvement, allowing individuals and organizations to express their views on proposed actions. The implications of the document are twofold:

• Broad Public Impact: By facilitating public participation, FERC aims to ensure that any action taken reflects a balanced consideration of interests and impacts. The deadline-driven nature emphasizes urgency, pushing the public to understand and engage with the technical and legal aspects expediently.

• Specific Stakeholder Impact: Stakeholders such as local residents, environmental groups, and affected businesses might feel varying degrees of impact. For residents and community organizations, the decision could influence local environmental and economic conditions. Legal or energy-focused entities may experience direct consequences depending on how the regulatory approvals play out.

Conclusion

While the notice is an essential vehicle for transparency and regulatory compliance, the effectiveness of public engagement hinges on clear communication and accessibility. Addressing the issues identified could enhance the public's ability to participate meaningfully in FERC’s decision-making process, thus ensuring that all relevant perspectives inform potential environmental and economic outcomes.

In reviewing the document's financial references, there is a specific mention of approximately $958,000 as the estimated cost to construct similar facilities today. This amount is associated with National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation's proposed action to plug and abandon a well and its associated well line due to localized corrosion, making continued operation economically unreasonable.

Summary of Financial References

The document mentions a specific financial figure—$958,000—which is presented as the estimated contemporary cost to replicate facilities similar to those being abandoned by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation. The reference to potential costs aims to provide context regarding the financial implications if such infrastructure needed reconstruction today. This serves to underscore the cost-effectiveness of the proposed abandonment as opposed to potentially reworking the existing but damaged infrastructure.

Relating Financial Allocations to Identified Issues

1. Lack of Cost Breakdown: The document does not provide details on what contributes to the $958,000 estimate, such as labor, materials, or other logistical considerations. This lack of specificity can lead to questions or confusion regarding the accuracy or scope of this estimate, highlighted in the identified issue regarding the absence of a cost breakdown.

2. Understanding Through Simplification: For individuals unfamiliar with regulatory processes, legal jargon, and specific rules referenced, understanding the implications of financial figures—such as how they compare to regulatory standards or historical costs—can be confusing. The document could benefit from simplifying or clarifying these sections for broader comprehensibility.

3. Clear Communication: There's potential ambiguity in how financial references might influence decisions or actions required by stakeholders. For instance, the estimated cost might be used to justify a decision, but without clear explanation, stakeholders might not grasp why abandonment versus intervention is financially prudent. Clear and accessible communication about financial impacts supports informed public participation in Commission proceedings.

Despite these areas of potential improvement, the financial reference aims to support transparency by indicating that modern equivalents of the facilities would require significant investment, suggesting that the decision to abandon the deteriorated infrastructure is both pragmatic and cost-effective in current economic terms.