TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION, LP

915 N. Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100

Houston, TX 77079
(713) 627-5400

April 5, 2023

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426

Re: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Docket No. CP22-15-000

Venice Extension Project
Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Ms. Bose:

On November 10, 2021, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (“Texas Eastern”) submitted to

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) an abbreviated
application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and for related authorizations for
its proposed Venice Extension Project (“Project”). On February 17, 2023, the Commission Staff
issued a final environmental impact statement (“FEIS”) for the Project. 1 On March 22, 2023, the
United State Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) submitted comments on the FEIS. 2 On
March 27, 2023, RESTORE submitted comments on the FEIS. 3 Texas Eastern provides herein its
responses to EPA’s and RESTORE’s comments.

Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.2010, Texas Eastern is contemporaneously serving copies of

this filing to those persons whose names appear on the Official Service List in this proceeding.

If you have any questions regarding this filing, please contact Gabriel Gonzalez, Specialist,
Rates and Certificates at (713) 627-4198 or the undersigned at (713) 627-5116.

Sincerely,

/s/ Arthur Diestel

Arthur Diestel
Director, Regulatory
Attachment

cc: Andrea Bloomfield (FERC)

All parties (CP22-15)

1
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Texas Eastern Transmission, LP’s Venice Extension Project, Docket No.
CP22-15-000 (Feb. 17, 2023) (“FEIS”).
2
Comments of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Docket No. CP22-15-000 (Mar. 22, 2023) (“EPA
Comments”).
3
Comments of RESTORE, Docket No. CP22-15-000 (March 27, 2023) (“RESTORE Comments”).
Texas Eastern’s Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on FEIS
April 5, 2023
Page 1

Response to EPA Comment on CEQ Interim Climate Guidance:

The FEIS’s discussion of GHG emissions and climate change in the FEIS is consistent with the
Council on Environmental Quality’s (“CEQ’s”) recent interim guidance on consideration of GHG
emissions and climate change as part of NEPA reviews (“Interim Climate Guidance”). 4 As an
initial matter, CEQ’s Interim Climate Guidance is neither a rule nor regulation and is nonbinding
on the Commission. 5 In any event, the FEIS is consistent with CEQ’s recommendations. Where
CEQ provides general guidance that does not directly apply to the Project, the FEIS explains why
FERC’s approach, based on the law and its expertise and experience, is appropriate.

The Interim Climate Guidance recommends that agencies quantify the reasonably foreseeable
GHG emissions of a proposed action and disclose the social costs of those estimated emissions
using the Interagency Working Group’s (“IWG’s”) social cost metrics (“SC-GHG”). 6 The FEIS
does precisely this and more. The FEIS estimates the reasonably foreseeable direct emissions of
the Project, 7 including emissions associated with the facilities operating at “full-burn,” a
conservative assumption that overstates actual operations and potential emissions. 8 The FEIS then
uses the SC-GHG tool and IWG-recommended discount rates to calculate social cost estimates
over an assumed 20-year project lifespan and discloses those estimates for informational
purposes. 9

The Interim Climate Guidance recommends undertaking a similar process for reasonably
foreseeable indirect downstream and upstream GHG emissions. 10 Here, though, the FEIS
rightfully declines to do so given its lack of jurisdiction over downstream liquified natural gas
(“LNG”) exports, combined with FERC’s inability to adequately identify the upstream sources of
the natural gas transported by the Project. 11 With respect to potential downstream emissions, the
FEIS notes that the natural gas transported by the Project will ultimately be liquified and exported
overseas as LNG by another entity. 12 The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) possesses
jurisdiction over authorizations of imports and exports of natural gas, meaning that the downstream

4
See CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate
Change, 88 Fed. Reg. 1,196 (Jan. 9, 2023) [hereinafter “Interim Climate Guidance”].
5
See Interim Climate Guidance at 1,197 n.4 (“This guidance is not a rule or regulation, and the recommendations it
contains may not apply to a particular situation based upon the individual facts and circumstances. This guidance does
not change or substitute for any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement, and is not legally enforceable.”).
6
Id. at 1,201–03.
7
See FEIS at 142; see also id. at 101 (Table 4.8-7), 103 (Table 4.8-9), 105 (Table 4.8-11).
8
Under the analyzed “full-burn” scenario, the FEIS assumed that “the permanent Project facilities are operated at
maximum capacity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and include fugitive emission.” Id. at 142. This approach is
comparable to the Interim Climate Guidance’s recommended “full burn” approach when defining the upper bound of
potential emissions. See Interim Climate Guidance at 1,205 & n.92.
9
FEIS at 143–44.
10
Interim Climate Guidance at 1,204 & n.84.
11
See also Abbreviated Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and for Related
Authorizations, Resource Report 1, at 1-20 to 1-21, Docket No. CP22-15-000 (Nov. 10, 2021) (“Abbreviated
Application”).
12
FEIS at 142.
Texas Eastern’s Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on FEIS
April 5, 2023
Page 2

environmental effects caused by an authorization for export fall outside of the Commission’s
authority, and therefore outside of the FEIS’s scope. 13 Or as the FEIS puts it, the DOE’s export
decision “breaks the NEPA causal chain and absolves the Commission of responsibility to include
in its NEPA analysis considerations that it could not act on and for which it cannot be the legally
relevant cause.” 14 This is the appropriate outcome under governing Supreme Court precedent
regarding an agency’s NEPA analysis. 15 And courts have agreed with the Commission’s specific
approach, 16 as the FEIS duly recognizes. 17 Thus, with respect to consideration of downstream
GHG emissions, the FEIS appropriately explains why CEQ’s general guidance regarding estimates
of downstream GHG emissions does not apply to emissions of transported gas following LNG
export.

Similarly, the FEIS reasonably explains why it need not consider potential upstream GHG
emissions, as the environmental effects resulting from natural gas production are neither caused
by the Project nor are reasonably foreseeable consequences of FERC’s approval of this Project. 18
The FEIS recognizes that the supply source of the natural gas to be transported by the Project is
unknown and likely to change throughout the Project’s operation. 19 Without details about the
upstream sources of supply (e.g., location, whether it is new or existing production, additional
upstream development), any potential upstream environmental effects cannot be said to be caused
by or reasonably foreseeable consequences of a pipeline project. 20 This approach to upstream
emissions, like with downstream emissions, conforms with court and Commission precedent.21
Again, the Interim Climate Guidance’s general suggestion that agencies consider upstream
13
Id.; see id. at 6–7, 144–45. The DOE has delegated to the Commission only limited authority over the construction
and operation of certain LNG facilities, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(e); see New Fortress Energy Inc. v. FERC, 36 F.4th 1172,
1174 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (describing limitations on Commission authority), while retaining for itself authority over the
export of natural gas as a commodity, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(a). See DOE Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A (effective
May 16, 2006), https://www.directives.doe.gov/delegations-documents/s1-del-ferc-2006/@@images/file.
14
FEIS at 144–45 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 180 FERC ¶ 61,206,
at P 78 (2022) (similarly concluding that DOE’s export/import authorization decision “breaks the NEPA casual chain”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
15
See Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 767-68 (2004).
16
See EarthReports, Inc. v. FERC, 828 F.3d 949, 955–56 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 59, 62,
68–69 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 36, 46–49 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
17
FEIS at 142.
18
See id. at 144.
19
Id.; see Abbreviated Application, Resource Report 1, at 1-21 (“Texas Eastern does not have specific information
regarding the location or source of natural gas supply for the Project; whether any of that supply would be sourced
from new production; or whether development of additional natural gas exploration and production infrastructure
would be developed to supply the Project.”).
20
FEIS at 144.
21
See Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. FERC, 45 F.4th 104, 109 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Birckhead v. FERC, 925 F.3d
510, 517–18 (D.C. Cir. 2019); E. Shore Nat. Gas Co., 181 FERC ¶ 61,233, at P 24 (2022) (“The environmental effects
resulting from natural gas production are generally neither caused by a proposed pipeline project nor are they
reasonably foreseeable consequences of our approval of an infrastructure project, as contemplated by CEQ regulations,
where the supply source is unknown.”); Spire Storage W. LLC, 179 FERC ¶ 61,123, at P 157 (2022) (“Here, the
specific source of natural gas to be stored and transported via the Clear Creek Expansion Project is currently unknown
and may change throughout the project’s operation. Accordingly, we affirm that the GHG emissions associated with
upstream production of gas are not a reasonably foreseeable impact of this project.”).
Texas Eastern’s Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on FEIS
April 5, 2023
Page 3

emissions does not apply when those emissions are not caused by or reasonably foreseeable
consequences of agency action. 22

The Interim Climate Guidance also recommends that agencies explain how the proposed action
will help meet or detract from federal, state, or regional climate goals. 23 Here, the FEIS compares
the Project’s estimated GHG emissions with total emissions at both the national and state levels. 24
The FEIS then contextualizes the Project’s estimated GHG emissions contribution in light of
Louisiana’s Climate Action Plan. 25 The FEIS is consistent with CEQ’s recommendations in this
respect.

To the extent EPA reiterates its previous comment that this contextualization should also examine
the Project’s impact on Louisiana’s Climate Action Plan “in conjunction with the cumulative
impacts of other LNG and natural gas projects in the state,” 26 the FEIS’s analysis of the Project’s
estimated emissions in comparison to Louisiana’s total annual emissions and its Climate Action
Plan necessarily incorporates emissions from existing LNG and natural gas projects. Further, the
FEIS responds to this comment by observing that “Commission staff have not been able to find an
established threshold for determining the Project’s significance when compared to established
GHG reduction targets at the state or federal level.” 27 The Interim Climate Guidance, for its part,
does not provide a recommendation as to how the Commission could compare conformance with
a state climate target across projects. Put differently, the Interim Climate Guidance does not
explain how the Commission, if even authorized to do so, should pick and choose which natural
gas or LNG projects conform to a target and which do not, making the approach in the FEIS all
the more reasonable.

The FEIS is also consistent with the Interim Climate Guidance’s recommendation that agencies
cite to available scientific literature to help explain the real-world effects associated with an
increase in atmospheric GHG emissions. 28 The FEIS describes the potential environmental
impacts associated with climate change in the Gulf Coast region of the United States, relying on
analysis from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. 29 In particular, the FEIS incorporates findings on existing impacts (e.g., increases
in annual average temperatures, fluctuations in precipitation event frequency and intensity, sea
level rise) and projected future impacts (e.g., continued increases in average annual temperatures,

22
See Interim Climate Guidance at 1,204 (discussing potential upstream and downstream emissions as indirect effects,
defined as those that are “caused by the action” and are “reasonably foreseeable” (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g)(2)).
Such emissions are not categorically defined as indirect effects, a conclusion implicit in the Interim Climate
Guidance’s use of qualifying language. See, e.g., id. at 1,204 (noting that indirect emissions are “often” reasonably
foreseeable since certain criteria “frequently” exist).
23
Interim Climate Guidance at 1,203.
24
FEIS at 143.
25
Id.
26
Id. at 145.
27
Id. at 142.
28
Interim Climate Guidance at 1,203.
29
FEIS at 140–42.
Texas Eastern’s Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on FEIS
April 5, 2023
Page 4

increased frequency of “hot days and warm nights,” changes in tropical storm frequency and
intensity, effects on groundwater recharge) in the Gulf Coast region. 30

In sum, the FEIS is consistent with the CEQ’s recommendations in the Interim Climate Guidance,
and more importantly, the FEIS satisfies the Commission’s NEPA obligations, as outlined by the
Commission itself. 31

Response to EPA Comment on Stormwater NPDES:

The FEIS addresses the issues raised by EPA regarding National Pollutant Discharge Effluent
System (“NPDES”) permit coverage under Clean Water Act Section 402 for stormwater
discharges from the construction activities not covered by Section 404 permits. As EPA notes,
NPDES permit coverage for an oil or gas operation is triggered only upon a discharge of a
“reportable quantity” of oil or hazardous substances, or a contribution to a violation of a water
quality standard. 32 On this point, the FEIS explains that Texas Eastern has developed a Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (“SPCC Plan”) that meets the requirements of the
Clean Water Act, among other environmental statutes, and reduces the probability and risk of a
spill or release of oil and hazardous materials. 33 The FEIS similarly describes Texas Eastern’s
numerous measures to address erosion, including implementation of the its own Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan (“E&SCP”), as well as the Commission’s Upland Erosion Control,
Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation
Procedures. 34 Those plans include strict erosion control requirements, restoration and revegetation
requirements, and disposal requirements. The combination of these plans and Texas Eastern’s
SPCC Plan and the E&SCP (and related preventive and protective measures) would ensure that no
reportable quantity of oil or hazardous materials is discharged and that no water quality standard
is violated. The FEIS also includes in its response to EPA’s NPDES comment the fact that
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued a Section 401 water quality certification
for the Project, 35 which further reinforces the conclusion that the Project will not violate any water
quality standard.

In sum, the FEIS explains how Texas Eastern’s preventative measures will ensure that the
requirements for NPDES permit coverage are not triggered. In any event, the FEIS notes that Texas

30
Id. at 141–42.
31
See Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, Docket No. CP21-94-001, 182 FERC ¶ 61,148, at P 106 (2023) (“Further,
we find that the Commission met its NEPA obligations and appropriately declined to label the emissions as significant
or insignificant because it (1) fully disclosed the reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions associated with the project’s
construction, operation, and downstream emissions; (2) placed them in context; (3) identified climate impacts in the
region; and (4) is actively conducting a generic proceeding to determine whether and how the Commission will
conduct significance determinations going forward.” (citing Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Nat. Gas
Infrastructure Project Reviews, 178 FERC ¶ 61,108 (2022), changed to draft status, Certification of New Interstate
Nat. Gas Facilities, 178 FERC ¶ 61,197, at P 2 (2022))).
32
EPA Comments at 2; see 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1)(iii).
33
FEIS at ES-5, 36, 38–41.
34
Id. at ES-3, 17, 35, 39, 41.
35
Id. at C-9.
Texas Eastern’s Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on FEIS
April 5, 2023
Page 5

Eastern is responsible for obtaining all required permits and approvals, including those required or
that may be required under the Clean Water Act. 36 Although the FEIS may not address EPA’s
NPDES permitting requirements in the precise terms that EPA may wish, the FEIS nevertheless
discusses the relevant considerations that would require NPDES permitting coverage, as well as
the extensive measures Texas Eastern will take to ensure that permitting is not ultimately required.
No further clarification is required.

Response to RESTORE Comment on Electric-Driven Compressor Units:

RESTORE, as it readily acknowledges, did not raise any issues regarding electric-driven
compression during scoping or in response to the draft environmental impact statement (“DEIS”)
that FERC published. 37 As CEQ has observed, those two points in time—scoping and between the
releases of the DEIS and FEIS—are the ideal times for interested members of public to identify
issues and provide recommendations regarding a proposed project, so that the reviewing agency
has time to fully address and potentially resolve any substantive concerns or recommendations
prior to issuing an FEIS. 38 Had RESTORE submitted its comments regarding electric-driven
compressor units prior to the release of the FEIS, the FEIS could have addressed RESTORE’s
concern in either the DEIS or the FEIS, incorporating the Texas Eastern analysis that was already
in the record.

Texas Eastern thoroughly analyzed the electric-driven compressor unit alternative in Resource
Report 10 attached to its Application. 39 Texas Eastern ultimately declined to propose electric-
driven compressor units for several reasons. As explained in Resource Report 10, natural-gas-
driven compressor units are preferable from a reliability perspective because the fuel supply is
inherently available from the connected pipeline system, as compared to electric-driven units that
would have to rely on a third party for delivery or operation. 40 Given the decreased reliability of
electric-driven compressor units in providing uninterrupted gas supplies to delivery points, the
units failed to meet the Project purpose and need.

Additionally, existing high-voltage transmission infrastructure (e.g., power lines, substations) near
the compressor stations would be insufficient to power the units. If those units were used,
additional infrastructure would need to be constructed and installed, increasing the potential
environmental impacts of the Project. 41 Alongside the capital costs associated with additional
electric transmission infrastructure, Texas Eastern estimated that the use of electric-driven

36
Id. at 8–10.
37
See RESTORE Comments at 1.
38
See CEQ, A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard 12 (2021), https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/get-
involved/citizens-guide-to-nepa-2021.pdf (“The scoping process is the best time to identify issues, determine points
of contact, establish project schedules, and provide recommendations to the agency.”); see also 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a)
(stating that “[a]n agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall consider substantive comments
timely submitted during the public comment period”).
39
See Abbreviated Application, Resource Report 10, at 10-5 to 10-6.
40
Id. at 10-5.
41
Id.
Texas Eastern’s Response to EPA and RESTORE Comments on FEIS
April 5, 2023
Page 6

compressor units, versus natural-gas-driven units, would increase operating costs by over $5
million annually. 42

Moreover, Texas Eastern concluded that the use of electric-driven compressor units would not
result in a significant environmental advantage over the proposed natural-gas-driven units. 43 This
is the case because the emissions rates for the natural-gas-driven units would be appreciably lower
than the emissions rates of Louisiana’s power generation sector, which would be powering the
electric-driven units: “Specifically, CO2 emission rates are 10 percent lower, NOX emission rates
are 90 percent lower, and SO2 emission rates are 97 percent lower for natural gas-fired compression
when compared with the statewide emission rates.” 44 Thus, when factoring in power generation,
electric-driven compressor units are unlikely to provide the air-quality and climate-related benefits
that RESTORE alludes to its comments. 45

42
Id. at 10-6.
43
Id.
44
Id.
45
RESTORE Comments at 2.