FR 2025-03926

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC has presented a proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to build a new booster compressor station in Ottawa County, Ohio. This project, known as the D74 Booster Compressor Project, aims to enhance the delivery capabilities of the existing pipeline system to better align with customer needs. The estimated cost for the project is $16 million, and stakeholders are invited to offer feedback, such as protests, motions to intervene, or comments, by May 5, 2025. The FERC's Office of Public Participation is available to guide individuals through this process.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One major issue surrounding this proposal is the project's estimated cost. At $16 million, there is a need for oversight to ensure that this significant financial outlay is warranted and not excessive. This brings into question the allocation of resources and whether the benefit justifies the investment.

Additionally, the notice provides the specific contact details for an individual, David A. Alonzo, which could raise concerns about privacy and whether such direct lines to project managers create a perception of favoritism or bias in the procedural process.

The notice is laden with technical jargon and references to specific regulatory codes, which may pose comprehension challenges for the general public. For individuals without a legal or regulatory background, understanding how to effectively participate in the review process can be daunting and may deter engagement.

Further complicating matters is the dual submission process. There are options for both electronic (eFiling) and paper submissions, each with distinct mailing addresses. This bifurcation could easily lead to confusion or filing errors, particularly for those unfamiliar with such procedures or without routine access to postal services.

Broad Public Impact

The document's complexity, coupled with a preference for electronic communication, could particularly disadvantage those without reliable internet access. This issue disproportionately affects rural and low-income communities, potentially limiting their ability to participate in a process that may directly impact their environment or local infrastructure.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders such as local communities in proximity to the proposed site, the project might mean increased industrial activity, which could have various local environmental and social implications. It might result in beneficial economic opportunities, such as job creation during the construction phase, but could also lead to environmental concerns such as noise pollution or emissions.

On the other hand, businesses and organizations that rely on the increased pipeline capacity might see improvements in service delivery, leading to potentially lower costs or increased supply reliability. It's also important to note that formal intervenors in the process—those who file timely motions to intervene—have the exclusive right to request a rehearing or appeal commission orders, granting them a significant influence over the project's approval.

In summary, while the proposed booster compressor project by Columbia Gas aims to meet evolving customer demands, its financial, procedural, and environmental implications merit careful review and equitable public participation. FERC’s role in facilitating a transparent process is crucial in balancing these considerations for a fair outcome.

In reviewing the Federal Register document concerning the application from Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, some financial matters are worth discussing, especially in light of the issuance by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Summary of Spending and Financial Allocations

The document indicates a significant financial commitment for the proposed project by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC. The estimated cost for constructing and operating a new booster compressor station and related facilities in Ottawa County, Ohio, is quoted at $16,000,000. This booster station is designed to enhance the delivery capacity on Columbia Gas' Line D74 and associated pipelines by 10,843 dekatherms per day. This cost will cover the necessary infrastructure to adjust their systems to meet shifting customer requirements without altering their mainline capacities.

Financial Allocation Issues

When evaluating the financial expenditure of $16,000,000, there are considerations about whether this expenditure is justified and meticulously evaluated to preclude any excessive or unnecessary spending. Given the magnitude of the financial commitment, stakeholders and regulatory bodies must ensure that the proposed budget aligns with industry standards and provides value to both the company and its customers. The consideration of whether such a large investment is necessary given the purported non-impact on Columbia Gas's overall mainline capacity is essential.

There are also implications regarding transparency and accountability when specific individuals, such as David A. Alonzo, are named as contact persons, potentially raising fairness and privacy concerns. The presence of specific contact details might suggest preferential access, which in financial terms could lead to an opaque process where financial decisions are not adequately scrutinized by all stakeholders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the reference to a $16,000,000 project cost necessitates careful scrutiny to ensure efficient and justified use of funds. The complexity of regulatory and procedural language may obstruct effective oversight from lay stakeholders, making the issue of financial oversight particularly challenging. It is essential that FERC, along with other oversight authorities, ensure transparency and accountability in such significant financial undertakings to foster trust and equitable participation from all concerned parties.