Proposed Rule2026-10498
Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 27, 2026
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to revise its blanket certificate regulations to expand the scope and scale of projects that interstate natural gas pipelines may construct without a case-specific authorization order and to increase the cost limits for such projects, among other changes.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31371-31392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-10498]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 27, 2026 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31371]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 157 and 380
[Docket No. RM25-12-001]
Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Program
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to revise its blanket certificate regulations to expand the scope and
scale of projects that interstate natural gas pipelines may construct
without a case-specific authorization order and to increase the cost
limits for such projects, among other changes.
DATES: Comments are due July 27, 2026.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>, is
preferred.
<bullet> Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
<bullet> For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
[cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
[cir] Hand (Including Courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures section of this document contains more
detailed filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Danielle Elefritz (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8767
Nicole Huang (Technical Information), Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8410
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Paragraph
Nos.
I. Background............................................... 2
II. Discussion.............................................. 6
A. Increasing the Blanket Certificate Cost Limits....... 6
1. Comments......................................... 8
2. Commission Determination......................... 16
B. Annual Cost Adjustments.............................. 20
1. Comments......................................... 22
2. Commission Determination......................... 26
C. Rate Treatment for Blanket Certificate Projects...... 28
1. Comments......................................... 30
2. Commission Determination......................... 36
D. Protest Procedures for Prior Notice Projects......... 39
1. Comments......................................... 41
2. Commission Determination......................... 44
E. Extension of the One-Year In-Service Requirement..... 47
1. Comments......................................... 48
2. Commission Determination......................... 49
F. Cost Limits for Receipt Points....................... 51
1. Comments......................................... 52
2. Commission Determination......................... 53
G. Cost Limit of Abandonment Project.................... 54
1. Comments......................................... 55
2. Commission Determination......................... 56
H. Abandonment of Storage Wells......................... 57
1. Comments......................................... 58
2. Commission Determination......................... 60
I. Temporary Workspaces Under Sec. 2.55............... 61
1. Comments......................................... 62
2. Commission Determination......................... 63
J. Automatic Authorization of Mainline Projects......... 64
1. Comments......................................... 65
2. Commission Determination......................... 67
K. Removing Cost Limits for Expansions of Existing 68
Compressor Stations....................................
1. Comments......................................... 69
2. Commission Determination......................... 71
L. National Historic Preservation Act Compliance........ 73
[[Page 31372]]
1. Comments......................................... 74
2. Commission Determination......................... 75
M. Reporting Requirements............................... 78
1. Comments......................................... 79
2. Commission Determination......................... 80
N. Expanding Public Notification........................ 81
1. Comments......................................... 82
2. Commission Determination......................... 84
O. Additional Proposed Revisions........................ 88
1. Endangered Species Act Compliance................ 89
2. Landowner Notification........................... 90
3. Removal of Outdated Cross Reference.............. 91
4. Updating the Procedure for the Withdrawal of 92
Protests...........................................
5. Construction of Facilities Near Nuclear Power 93
Plants.............................................
6. Synthetic and LNG Facilities..................... 94
7. Abandonment of Delivery Points................... 95
8. Correction to Condition Regarding Sensitive 97
Environmental Resources............................
9. Correction to Categorical Exclusion for Blanket 98
Certificate Projects...............................
10. Engineering Information......................... 99
11. Severability.................................... 100
III. Request for Comments................................... 101
IV. Regulatory Requirements................................. 105
A. Information Collection Statement..................... 105
B. Environmental Analysis............................... 110
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act........................... 111
D. Regulatory Planning and Review....................... 113
E. Document Availability................................ 114
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to revise its Part 157, Subpart F blanket certificate regulations \1\
to expand the scope and scale of projects that interstate natural gas
pipelines may construct without a case-specific authorization order and
to increase the cost limits for such projects, among other changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 18 CFR pt. 157, subpt. F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
2. Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717f, provides that
no natural gas company may engage in the transportation and sale of
natural gas in interstate commerce for resale, the construction of
facilities to be used in those activities, or the abandonment of any
jurisdictional service or facilities, without first obtaining prior
Commission approval for such activities. To fulfill this statutory
responsibility, the Commission has implemented a number of different
certificate programs, including various generic determinations of
public convenience and necessity. In 1982, the Commission instituted a
blanket certificate program, pursuant to which interstate pipelines
that hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity under
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \2\ may obtain a one-time
blanket certificate under Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's
regulations to undertake, without a case-specific authorization order,
certain activities automatically and certain other activities after
prior notice.\3\ The blanket certificate program was designed to
``provide streamlined procedures which increase flexibility and reduce
regulatory burden'' for a generic class of routine activities, with
particular conditions and procedures to ensure consistency with the
Commission's statutory obligations under the NGA and environmental
statutes.\4\ The Commission explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 717f(c).
\3\ 18 CFR pt. 157, subpt. F.
\4\ Interstate Pipeline Certificates for Routine Transactions,
Order No. 234, 47 FR 24254 (June 4, 1982), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
30,368, at 30,201 (1982) (cross-referenced at 19 FERC ] 61,216); see
also Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Reguls. & Clarification
Regarding Rates, Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074, at P 7 (2006)
(``The blanket certificate program was designed to provide an
administratively efficient means to authorize a generic class of
routine activities, without subjecting each minor project to a full,
case-specific NGA section 7 certificate proceeding.'').
[T]he final regulations divide the various actions that the
Commission certificates into several categories. The first category
applies to certain activities performed by interstate pipelines that
either have relatively little impact on ratepayers, or little effect
on pipeline operations. This first category also includes minor
investments in facilities which are so well understood as an
established industry practice that little scrutiny is required to
determine their compatibility with the public convenience and
necessity. The second category of activities provides for a notice
and protest procedure and comprises certain activities in which
various interested parties might have a concern. In such cases there
is a need to provide an opportunity for a greater degree of review
and to provide for possible adjudication of controversial aspects.
Activities not authorized under the blanket certificate are those
activities which may have a major potential impact on ratepayers, or
which propose such important considerations that close scrutiny and
case-specific deliberation by the Commission is warranted prior to
the issuance of a certificate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,200.
3. The last major modification to the blanket certificate program
occurred in 2006, when the Commission, among other things, increased
the cost limits,\6\ made mainline facilities eligible for the blanket
certificate program, and expanded the environmental conditions and
notice provisions.\7\ The Commission reiterated that it continued to
apply the framework and principles expressed in the 1982 rulemaking to
distinguish those types of activities that
[[Page 31373]]
may be conducted under an interstate pipeline's blanket certificate
authority from those that merit closer, case-specific scrutiny due to
their potentially significant impact on rates, services, safety,
security, competing natural gas companies or their customers, or on the
environment.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ When evaluating whether a project meets the cost limits, the
Commission considers the total capital cost of the proposed
facilities, which includes the cost of construction, right-of-way,
damages, surveys, materials, labor, engineering and inspection,
administrative overhead, fees for legal and other services,
allowance for funds used during construction, and contingencies. See
18 CFR 157.14(a)(14).
\7\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074.
\8\ Id. P 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. On June 18, 2025, the Commission issued an order granting in
part a petition by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA),\9\ finding good cause to temporarily waive the Commission's
regulations to increase the cost limit for projects that can be
constructed pursuant to the prior notice provisions of Part 157,
Subpart F of the Commission's regulations from $41,100,000 to
$61,650,000 if constructed and placed in service by May 31, 2027.\10\
The Commission found good cause for the waiver ``[g]iven the pressing
nationwide near-term demand for expanded natural gas transportation
capacity, as well as the reliability concerns associated with
maintaining the existing natural gas system.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ INGAA is an incorporated, not-for-profit trade association
representing interstate natural gas pipeline companies operating in
the United States.
\10\ Interstate Nat. Gas Ass'n of Am., 191 FERC ] 61,206 (Waiver
Order), order on reh'g, 193 FERC ] 61,055 (2025).
\11\ Waiver Order, 191 FERC ] 61,206 at P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. To ensure that infrastructure projects can continue to be
developed in a timely manner without undue regulatory review, the
Commission concurrently issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) in this
proceeding, requesting stakeholder comments on whether, and if so how,
the Commission should modify the blanket certificate program to adjust
the cost limitations for projects.\12\ The NOI was published in the
Federal Register on June 24, 2025,\13\ and provided a 60-day comment
period. By Secretary's notice on August 14, 2025, the comment deadline
was extended to September 24, 2025. The Commission received 17
comments--nine from pipeline companies and related trade associations,
four from pipeline customer groups, one from a non-governmental
organization, one from a state government official, and two from
individuals.\14\ The comments addressed a variety of issues, including
the appropriate cost limits, the scope of projects that may be
constructed, reporting requirements, and the rate treatment for blanket
certificate projects.\15\ Additionally, Energy Transfer LP (Energy
Transfer) filed supplemental comments, and the Natural Gas Supply
Association (NGSA),\16\ American Gas Association (AGA),\17\ American
Public Gas Association (APGA),\18\ and the Process Gas Consumers Group
(PGC) \19\ and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) \20\
filed reply comments.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Blanket Certificate Cost Limitations, 90 FR 26776 (June 24,
2025), 191 FERC ] 61,207 (2025) (NOI).
\13\ 90 FR 26776 (June 24, 2025).
\14\ Additionally, Ms. Diana Dakey filed comments in Docket No.
CP25-208-000 generally opposing alteration or waiver of the
Commission's regulations. Diana Dakey, Comments, Docket No. CP25-
208-000, at 2 (filed July 21, 2025).
\15\ Energy Transfer LP supports the Commission allowing minor
LNG projects to proceed under the blanket certificate program. This
topic is the subject of a separate notice of inquiry, and is
accordingly not discussed further herein. See Authorizations for
Certain Activities at Liquefied Nat. Gas Plants, 193 FERC ] 61,141
(2026).
\16\ NGSA represents integrated and independent companies that
supply natural gas and is the only national trade association that
solely focuses on producer-marketer issues related to the downstream
natural gas industry.
\17\ AGA represents more than 200 local energy companies that
deliver natural gas throughout the United States.
\18\ APGA is a trade association for more than 730 communities
across the U.S. that own and operate their retail gas distribution
entities.
\19\ PGC is a trade association that represents energy-intensive
large industrial and manufacturing natural gas consumers.
\20\ IECA is a nonpartisan association of manufacturing
companies for industries including chemicals, plastics, steel, iron
ore, aluminum, paper, food processing, fertilizer, insulation,
glass, industrial gases, pharmaceutical, consumer goods, building
products, automotive, independent oil refining, and cement.
\21\ Although the NOI did not provide for reply comments, we
accept the pleadings because they have assisted our development of
this notice of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
A. Increasing the Blanket Certificate Cost Limits
6. Since the blanket certificate program's inception in 1982, the
Commission has imposed cost limits on projects constructed pursuant to
blanket certificates. Blanket certificate activities are currently
limited to a maximum cost of $14,500,000 per project undertaken without
prior notice (also referred to as automatic authorization projects)
and--absent the currently effective waiver--$41,100,000 per project
undertaken subject to prior notice.\22\ Additionally, a certificate
holder may undertake certain activities for the testing or development
of underground storage reservoirs without prior notice if the total
cost during a calendar year does not exceed $7,900,000.\23\ The cost
limits are adjusted each year to reflect the ``[Gross Domestic Product]
implicit price deflator'' (GDP deflator) published by the U.S.
Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 18 CFR 157.208(d). Delivery points are not limited by a
cost cap. Id. 157.211(a). Additionally, any activity that would
otherwise require prior notice may be undertaken automatically if
necessary to restore service in an emergency. Id. 157.205(a).
\23\ Id. 157.215(a)(5).
\24\ Id. 157.208(d). The GDP deflator is a measure of inflation
in the prices of goods and services produced in the United States,
including exports. Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP Price Deflator,
<a href="https://www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-deflator">https://www.bea.gov/data/prices-inflation/gdp-price-deflator</a>
(accessed Apr. 16, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. To address potential increases in the cost of constructing
interstate natural gas facilities, the NOI asked if input costs--
including labor, materials, equipment, and project financing--put
upward price pressure on project capital requirements and, if so, how
the Commission should adjust its blanket certificate cost limits in
response.
1. Comments
8. INGAA supports raising the cost limits under the blanket
certificate program to $36 million for automatic authorizations, $100
million for prior notices, and $19.5 million for storage testing.\25\
It argues that the annual inflation increases have not kept up with the
increase in pipeline construction costs, which have accelerated due to
regulatory delays, increased demand for natural gas, a competitive
workforce market, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased material
costs.\26\ It supports raising the cost limits so that pipeline
companies can complete projects under the blanket certificate program
that are similar in scale and nature to those that fell within the cost
limits as of 2006, when the Commission last made major modifications to
the program.\27\ INGAA notes that these projects are well understood,
routine, not complex, and have limited impacts, and, as a result, do
not warrant an extensive case-
[[Page 31374]]
specific NGA section 7 review by the Commission.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 29. American Petroleum
Institute, BHE Pipeline Group, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP
(Boardwalk), Energy Transfer, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans),
TransCanada USA Pipeline Services LLC, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
(WBI), and the Williams Companies, Inc. filed comments in support of
INGAA's proposal.
\26\ Id. at 7, 13, 15-23, 35-37; see also State Representative
Tom Craddick April 6, 2026 Comments at 2 (stating that outdated cost
caps have excluded projects with minimal environmental impacts,
resulting in extended review timelines that delay needed capacity).
Additionally, the National Petroleum Council (NPC) has recommended
that the Commission increase the blanket certificate cost limits,
noting that the cost thresholds for qualifying activities have not
always kept pace with inflation or the rising costs of construction.
The NPC recommendations mostly overlap with those included in the
NOI comments filed by INGAA. National Petroleum Council, Bottleneck
to Breakthrough: A Permitting Blueprint to Build 4-14 (Dec. 3,
2025), <a href="https://permitting.npc.org/files/2025_Bottleneck_To_Breakthrough.pdf">https://permitting.npc.org/files/2025_Bottleneck_To_Breakthrough.pdf</a> (accessed Apr. 20, 2026).
\27\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 26.
\28\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Specifically, INGAA analyzed Exhibit K \29\ data from section 7
certificate applications in 2006 and 2024 and calculated the median
cost per inch-mile of pipeline and median cost per horsepower for each
year.\30\ INGAA states that the median value provides better insight
into changes in project costs than the average value because outliers
do not skew the median value, and the median helps account for
variability caused by project factors such as location and project
scope.\31\ According to INGAA's analysis, there was a 256% median
increase in cost per inch-mile for pipelines and a 172% median increase
in cost per horsepower for compression between 2006 and 2024.\32\ INGAA
then calculates the average of those two figures (214.87%) as an
estimated pipeline-specific increase in construction cost between 2006
and 2024.\33\ INGAA states that if the 2006 cost limits were increased
by that amount, the automatic authorization limit would be
approximately $30 million, the prior notice limit would be
approximately $86 million, and the storage testing limit would be
approximately $16.5 million--much higher than the 2024 cost limits
calculated based on the GDP deflator.\34\ INGAA argues that a further
increase beyond the above-listed figures is also necessary, so as to
account for projected trends in construction costs that are not fully
reflected in historical data, including the impacts of tariffs and
workforce competition.\35\ INGAA further contends that there is an
increased need for natural gas infrastructure because demand for
natural gas has increased without a corresponding increase in pipeline
capacity.\36\ It asserts that this demand for natural gas
infrastructure results in upward pressure on the cost of that
infrastructure.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Exhibit K is a detailed estimate of total capital cost of
the proposed facilities for which an NGA section 7 application is
made. 18 CFR 157.14(a)(14). According to INGAA, use of the Exhibit K
data was appropriate because pipelines' estimated costs closely
approximate their final costs.
\30\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 12.
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id. Similarly, WBI states that over the past ten years, its
cost per inch-mile to install pipeline under the blanket certificate
program has increased 267%, and over the past six years, its per-
horsepower cost to install electric compression has increased 46%.
WBI September 24, 2025 Comments at 3-4.
\33\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 12.
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id. at 13-14.
\36\ Id. at 15-22; see also Energy Transfer September 24, 2025
Comments at 8-10, 15-19 (stating that increased construction costs
along with increased demand for new natural gas infrastructure are
due, in part, to recent executive orders and artificial intelligence
buildout).
\37\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Other commenters state that, if the Commission raises the cost
limits, it should ensure that the activities covered do not include
those that may have a major potential impact on ratepayers, or that
raise important considerations warranting close scrutiny and case-
specific deliberation by the Commission prior to the issuance of a
certificate.\38\ However, APGA urges caution in any permanent changes
that might reduce oversight of larger-scale projects and states that
the Commission should retain its policy of undertaking a full section 7
review of such projects.\39\ NGSA cautions that any changes to the
blanket certificate program must prioritize shipper protections and
recommends that the Commission explore guardrails to ensure blanket
certificate projects have no more than a de minimis rate impact.\40\ It
recommends that in two years the Commission review any changes it has
made to evaluate their impacts on shippers and the program's
effectiveness.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ APGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 4; PGC September 24,
2025 Comments at 2; NGSA November 7, 2025 Reply Comments at 3-4.
\39\ APGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 4-5.
\40\ NGSA November 7, 2025 Reply Comments at 7-8.
\41\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. AGA supports the Commission's efforts to streamline the
permitting process.\42\ It asserts that the Commission should ensure
that there is sufficient transparency concerning certificate holder
activities both for the Commission and shippers on the pipelines \43\
and cautions against expanding the scope of projects which may be
completed under automatic authorization because of the limited
transparency available to shippers and the Commission.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ AGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 3. PGC and IECA filed
reply comments in support of AGA's comments. See PGC and IECA March
31, 2026 Reply Comments.
\43\ AGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 5.
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) does not support increasing
cost limits for the blanket certificate program. It asserts that
through its eligibility requirements and cost limits the blanket
certificate program was historically narrowly tailored to ensure that
projects with minimal regulatory review still satisfy the public
convenience and necessity standard.\45\ Thus, EDF states that the
pertinent question is not the extent to which construction costs have
shifted since 2006, but rather if the class of activities covered by
the blanket certificate program can be expanded without causing adverse
impacts to existing ratepayers, services, or the environment.\46\ It
argues that the Commission must consider all factors bearing on the
public interest and only approve projects where the public benefits
outweigh the adverse impacts.\47\ EDF states that protests to prior
notice projects demonstrate that even ``routine and relatively minor''
projects under the existing scope of the blanket certificate program
have presented customer, landowner, and environmental concerns.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ EDF September 24, 2025 Comments at 1.
\46\ Id. at 1-2.
\47\ Id. at 7.
\48\ Id. at 8-9, 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. EDF states that it analyzed several pipelines' blanket
certificate reports and found that the average cost per blanket
certificate project was $1,694,546 in 2022, $1,428,401 in 2023, and
$3,316,497 in 2024, and thus there is no reason to increase the prior
notice threshold to $61,650,000.\49\ EDF suggests that because there is
not a limit on the number of projects a company can complete under a
blanket certificate and to prevent possible segmentation, the
Commission should provide a cumulative dollar cap over a rolling-three
year period, capped at the higher of $60,000,000 or at 3% of each
pipeline's then-current net utility.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id. at 3-4.
\50\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. EDF also suggests that raising cost thresholds would not
guarantee greater reliability, affordability, or resource adequacy and
would significantly increase the risk of ratepayer harm if implemented
without corresponding reforms to oversight and transparency.\51\ It
argues that a 2018 study cited by INGAA in its petition for a temporary
waiver of the cost limits is unreliable because the study concludes
that gathering pipelines will constitute most of the construction
between 2025 and 2035, but gathering pipelines have little to no
dependency on blanket certificate authorizations or cost
thresholds.\52\ EDF further notes that the study relies on an average
inch-mile metric, which can be misleading because high-cost segments
can disproportionately raise the average.\53\ It maintains that the
Commission should use cost information submitted in section 7
proceedings, refine the data by pipeline class, and issue data requests
to
[[Page 31375]]
pipelines seeking cost information if further factual development is
necessary to inform the Commission's analysis in this proceeding.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id. at 9-12.
\52\ Id. at 13-15.
\53\ Id. at 14.
\54\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Ms. Swanton disagrees with increasing the cost limits under the
blanket certificate program.\55\ She argues that a $60 million project
should not be considered ``small'' or ``routine'' and argues that the
Commission should not look at costs to determine blanket certificate
eligibility.\56\ Instead, she contends that the Commission should look
only to the impacts of the proposed project and the nature of the work
to determine whether blanket certificate procedures are warranted.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Kristin Swanton August 25, 2025 Comments.
\56\ Id.
\57\ Id. Ms. Swanton advocates that only replacement activities
be allowed under the blanket certificate. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
16. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that the costs to
construct natural gas infrastructure have increased at a higher rate
than the Commission's annual adjustment to the cost limits, warranting
an increase in those limits in order continue to meet the Commission's
goals for the blanket program. Specifically, INGAA's analysis shows,
using data from pipeline applications, that the median cost per inch-
mile of pipeline construction rose 256.98% from 2006 to 2024 and the
median cost per horsepower of compression projects rose 172.76% over
the same period, for an average increase of 214.87%.\58\ However, the
cost limits under the blanket certificate program only rose by 50-51%
since 2006.\59\ Although INGAA's analysis only examined costs
associated with section 7 certificate applications, we find that such
an approach was reasonable because the inputs associated with section 7
applications and prior notice applications are the same--primarily
natural gas equipment, materials, and labor--and because INGAA
normalized the costs to account for the differing sizes of projects.
INGAA's methodology, particularly determining cost increases based on a
per inch-mile or per horsepower basis using Exhibit K data, is
reasonable. Commission staff has found no analytical flaws in the
methodology and verified that costs have risen as INGAA concludes.
Accordingly, we propose that the cost limits for the blanket
certificate program be increased to $86 million for prior notice, $30
million for automatic authorization, and $17 million for storage
testing projects. These values, based on INGAA's cost inputs from
pipeline applications, adjust for the change in construction cost since
2006.\60\ Thus, we find that the updated cost limits, in combination
with the other changes considered herein, appropriately maintain the
blanket certificate program's general framework and principles such
that the blanket authorization is ``restricted (1) to projects that are
modest in scale and routine in nature, i.e., projects that are
sufficiently well understood so as to permit them to proceed with a
lesser level of regulatory scrutiny, and (2) to projects that will not
result in unjustified increases in existing customers' rates,'' \61\ as
recommended by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 4.
\59\ Id.
\60\ In addition to its drastically limited temporal scope,
EDF's study of the ``average'' blanket certificate project cost does
not account for the size of projects and thus fails to address how
the cost of constructing natural gas infrastructure has changed over
time.
\61\ Revisions to the Blanket Certificate Reguls. &
Clarification Regarding Rates, 71 FR 36276 (June 26, 2006), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,606, at P 58 (2006) (cross-referenced at 115
FERC ] 61,338) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. We do not, however, propose to adopt INGAA's suggestion to
raise cost limits beyond a level that is supported by historical cost
increases. INGAA's proposal to raise the blanket certificate cost
limits to account for projected cost trends calls for speculation, and
we believe that any future increases in the cost of constructing
natural gas infrastructure will be appropriately captured in the
Commission's annual increase to the cost limits.
18. We also do not propose adopting NGSA's proposal for a review in
two years to evaluate the impacts and effectiveness of the program. We
do not believe that the revisions we are making will result in
sufficient uncertainty to support such an action because the changes
proposed herein maintain the blanket certificate program's general
framework and principles. We likewise decline to adopt EDF's proposal
to develop an annual limit utilizing a rolling-three-year period capped
at the higher of $60,000,000 or at 3% of each pipeline's then-current
net utility. To do so would unnecessarily limit the number of projects
that could be undertaken pursuant to the blanket certificate,
undermining one of the program's purposes, which is to provide
streamlined procedures that increase flexibility and reduce regulatory
burdens. Furthermore, EDF's proposal is premised on a concern regarding
potential segmentation of projects, and the Commission already
prohibits segmentation.\62\ Finally, we do not propose adopting Ms.
Swanton's recommendation to move away from using costs as part of
eligibility determinations, which would undercut the purpose and design
of the existing program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ 18 CFR 157.208(a), (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. As stated above, INGAA's analysis convincingly demonstrates
that the costs to construct natural gas infrastructure have increased
at a higher rate than the Commission's annual adjustment to the cost
limits. We also find that INGAA's analysis provides a reasonable
estimate of what the cost limits should be, had they been adjusted at
an appropriate rate to reflect cost increases since 2006. As discussed
above, we accordingly propose to adopt new cost limits approximately
the same as those INGAA suggests, albeit without further upward
adjustment to reflect projected trends not reflected in historical
data. Nevertheless, we request that INGAA file more detailed workpapers
and supporting workbooks in the record reflecting the numerical inputs
it used in its analysis as well as a more detailed description of its
methodology and assumptions and seek comment on whether that analysis
provides the best estimate of the degree to which costs have increased
since 2006, including whether the analysis should consider multiple
years of data rather than data from only 2006 and 2024, or whether an
alternative analysis that more accurately reflects those increases is
feasible and available.
B. Annual Cost Adjustments
20. Between 1982 and 1999, the Commission relied on the Gross
National Product implicit price deflator (GNP deflator) published by
the US Department of Commerce for the previous calendar year as a
measure to make annual adjustments to the blanket certificate cost
limits.\63\ In 1982, the Commission declined to base annual adjustments
on the Handy-Whitman Index, an alternative price tracker that is
focused more narrowly on gas utility construction costs, finding the
GNP deflator preferable to ``an index based on a private collection of
data not easily susceptible to governmental verification.'' \64\ In
1999, the Commission revised its regulations to base the inflation
adjustments on the GDP deflator rather than the GNP deflator.\65\ The
Commission explained
[[Page 31376]]
that the GNP deflator had, in previous years, not been published at the
time it issued the orders adjusting the spending limits and that the
annual change was virtually the same for both indices.\66\ In 2006, the
Commission revised its regulations to increase the cost limits above
the then-inflation adjusted cost cap to address concerns that
construction costs had risen faster than the overall rate of
inflation.\67\ In doing so, the Commission compared the rate of cost
increase derived from the Handy-Whitman Index to that resulting from
the GDP deflator and raised the cost limits on a one-time basis to
account for the discrepancy between the two indices.\68\ The Commission
did not, however, alter the annual inflation adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,210.
\64\ Id. at 30,206.
\65\ Revision Of Existing Reguls. Under Pt. 157 & Related
Sections of the Comm'n's Reguls. Under the Nat. Gas Act, 64 FR 26571
(May 14, 1999), Order No. 603, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,073, at
33,554 (1999) (cross-referenced at 87 FERC ] 61,125).
\66\ Revision Of Existing Reguls. Under Pt. 157 & Related
Sections of the Comm'n's Reguls. Under the Nat. Gas Act, 63 FR 55683
(Oct. 16, 1998), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,535, at 33,537 (1998)
(cross-referenced at 84 FERC ] 61,345) (Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking).
\67\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at P 33.
\68\ Id. P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. The NOI sought comment on whether there is an alternative price
or inflation tracker that better matches potential increases in
construction costs than the GDP deflator for annually adjusting the
cost limits.
1. Comments
22. INGAA proposes that the Commission increase the cost limits
annually by using Exhibit K data and calculating a three-year rolling
average of the median cost per inch-mile of pipeline and cost per
horsepower of compression.\69\ It states that if the increase based on
the three-year average is lower than the GDP deflator, the Commission
should use the GDP deflator for that year.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 30-31. American
Petroleum Institute, BHE Pipeline Group, Energy Transfer,
TransCanada USA Pipeline Services LLC, and WBI filed comments in
support of INGAA's proposal.
\70\ Id. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. AGA opposes INGAA's proposal,\71\ asserting that any escalator
could undermine the program's de minimis nature, burdening end users
and residential customers.\72\ If the Commission maintains its use of
an automatic annual escalator, AGA recommends that the Commission
continue to use the GDP deflator or, alternatively, using the lesser
rather than the greater of the pipeline-specific three-year rolling
average growth rate or the GDP deflator.\73\ AGA notes that if the
thresholds prove to be too restrictive in the future, the Commission
can initiate another rulemaking.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 8.
\72\ Id. at 8-9.
\73\ Id.
\74\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Other commenters argue that the Commission should continue to
use the GDP deflator.\75\ EDF notes that this metric is widely
recognized by other Federal agencies and in academic work for its
credibility and defensibility.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ E.g., NGSA November 7, 2025 Reply Comments at 7; EDF
September 24, 2025 Comments at 15.
\76\ EDF September 24, 2025 Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. PGC supports identifying a metric or tracker that better
reflects changes in natural gas infrastructure costs.\77\ Although Ms.
Swanton does not support a cost metric, she states that if the
Commission does include one, annual adjustments should be limited to 2%
per year.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ PGC September 24, 2025 Comments at 2.
\78\ Kristin Swanton August 25, 2025 Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
26. We propose to use the Handy-Whitman Index for annual
adjustments to the cost limits to account for the fact that natural gas
infrastructure costs have grown faster than the GDP deflator. We find
that the Handy-Whitman Index, with its narrow focus on gas utility
construction costs, more accurately reflects annual cost increases and
thus is a more suitable metric for annual adjustments than the GDP
deflator, especially in view of the comments and data demonstrating
that the GDP deflator has not adequately reflected the annual cost
increases experienced by natural gas companies.\79\ Although we
acknowledge that we previously declined to use the Handy-Whitman Index
for these purposes based on the fact that it is ``not easily
susceptible to governmental verification,'' \80\ we no longer view this
theoretical concern as sufficient to outweigh the Handy-Whitman Index's
advantages over the GDP deflator, particularly given the latter's
unsatisfactory track record of keeping pace with pipeline construction
costs over the intervening years. We note that the Commission has used
the Handy-Whitman Index in other contexts,\81\ and we find that the
beneficial features of the Handy-Whitman Index warrant its use here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ For this reason, we also decline to adopt Ms. Swanton's
proposal to limit increases to 2% per year, which we conclude would
be arbitrary and potentially incorrect. Had the Commission applied
an annual 2% increase to the cost limits between 2006 and 2025, it
would have led to an under-adjustment and would have proven
inaccurate.
\80\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,206.
\81\ E.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 192 FERC ] 61,190 (2025)
(accepting electric rate tariff revisions, including annual
adjustments using the Handy-Whitman Index); see also Application of
Aep Texas Inc. For Authority To Change Rates, PUC Docket No. 49494
(Tx. St. Off. Admin. Hgs., Nov. 12, 2019) (``The Handy-Whitman Index
is a standard type of database used to measure cost changes for
utility companies, and is a reasonable method for adjusting historic
O&M costs to current dollar levels.''); TES Filer City Station v.
Twp. of Filer, No. 258806, 2006 WL 708164, at *7 (Mich. Ct. App.
Mar. 21, 2006) (unpublished opinion) (``The manner in which the
depreciated reconstruction cost method is commonly applied is
through use of the Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility
Construction Costs, a publication, based on elaborate historical
cost information and calculations, which allows the user to
calculate present construction costs based on historical
construction costs, and then to apply appropriate depreciation
multipliers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. We decline to adopt INGAA's proposal to annually adjust cost
limits based on Exhibit K data. That approach would potentially cause
delays, limiting its effectiveness, because Commission staff would be
required to undertake an analysis each year to determine the
appropriate increase to the cost limits. We believe a simpler approach
that does not present administrability concerns, such as using the
Handy-Whitman Index, is preferable. Nevertheless, we seek comment on
whether employing the Handy-Whitman Index is the best approach for
adjusting the cost limits annually, and on the use of any alternative
price indices. In addition, we seek comment on whether using a three-
year rolling average would be preferable to adjustments based on a
single year of data.
C. Rate Treatment for Blanket Certificate Projects
28. It is Commission's current policy not to allow incremental
rates for projects constructed under a blanket certificate.\82\ Thus,
services using capacity constructed under a blanket certificate are
provided at a certificate holder's existing Part 284 rates, and blanket
certificate project costs are afforded the presumption that they will
qualify for rolled-in rate treatment in a future NGA section 4
proceeding. The Commission has applied this presumption because of the
expected de minimis impact of blanket certificate projects on a
pipeline system's overall rates, i.e., the expectation that existing
customers will not subsidize blanket certificate projects.\83\ In the
2006 rulemaking, the Commission declined to allow project sponsors to
request incremental rates for blanket certificate projects, reasoning
that the additional time necessary to complete such a review would
delay the otherwise
[[Page 31377]]
expedited project authorization available under the blanket certificate
program.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 110 FERC ] 61,047, reh'g denied,
111 FERC ] 61,094 (2005).
\83\ See, e.g., Fla. Se. Connection, LLC, 163 FERC ] 61,158, at
P 20 (2018).
\84\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at P 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. The NOI sought comment on whether the Commission should: (1)
allow project sponsors to request incremental rates for blanket
certificate projects and, if so, how to do so in a manner consistent
with the program's stated aims of streamlining procedures and reducing
regulatory burdens while ensuring that there are no adverse impacts on
existing rates and services; and/or (2) extend to blanket certificate
projects our practice of requiring project sponsors that receive a
predetermination of rolled-in rate treatment in case-specific
authorizations to keep separate books and accounting of costs and
revenues attributable to the project in the same manner as required by
Sec. 154.309 of our regulations. The NOI further sought comment on
what other measures, if any, the Commission should require to ensure
the appropriate rate treatment of blanket certificate projects or to
limit any potentially adverse impacts which might be associated with
increasing the blanket certificate cost limits.
1. Comments
30. Various commenters support the Commission allowing pipelines to
charge incremental rates for projects constructed under a blanket
certificate when the pipeline shows the incremental rate to be just and
reasonable.\85\ Ms. Swanton opposes allowing pipelines to charge
incremental rates for projects constructed under a blanket
certificate.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ E.g., INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 42-43; Boardwalk
September 24, 2025 Comments at 14-15 (stating that incremental
pricing would ensure pipelines are able to recover construction
costs for lateral facilities from customers who benefit); AGA
September 24, 2025 Comments at 9, 12 (noting that incremental rates
are appropriate for projects that provide only localized benefits).
\86\ Kristin Swanton August 25, 2025 Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. INGAA proposes a process similar to that in section 7
proceedings, under which the pipeline would submit a rate exhibit with
a prior notice filing when it intends to charge incremental rates;
affected parties and Commission staff would have an opportunity to
protest the project; if there are no protests, construction may begin;
and the pipeline would then implement the new rates through a standard
section 4 proceeding.\87\ Where a pipeline proposes to charge its
system rates, INGAA and others support the Commission retaining the
predetermination of rolled-in-rates for blanket certificate projects
because, due to the cost limits, blanket certificate projects have a de
minimis impact on rates.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 45-47.
\88\ Id. at 45; Energy Transfer September 24, 2025 Comments at
13-14 (stating that although the cost of projects would be
increased, pipelines' overall costs have also increased, and
therefore, the Commission's assumption that there will only be a de
minimis impact on rates is still valid).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. APGA is concerned with large, complex projects bypassing review
and receiving rolled-in rate treatment, possibly shifting costs towards
captive customers that receive little or no benefit.\89\ It encourages
the Commission to ensure that the cost responsibilities remain with the
primary beneficiaries of the project and urges the Commission to
maintain limits on eligibility for rolled-in rate treatment to protect
captive customers from bearing unfair costs.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ APGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 4-5.
\90\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. AGA also asserts that the Commission should ensure that any
changes to the blanket certificate program are developed with the goal
of limiting rate impacts on customers.\91\ It notes that in recent
years many blanket certificate projects have been characterized as non-
expansion reliability or modernization work to provide system-wide
benefits rather than to benefit a specific shipper, and as such are
frequently proposed for rolled-in rate treatment rather than
incremental pricing.\92\ AGA states that these types of projects should
only fall under a blanket authorization when the rate and operational
impacts are de minimis when viewed both individually and in the
aggregate with other projects, and where the proposed cost allocation
can be evaluated during the next rate case.\93\ AGA argues that if
rolled-in treatment of costs would shift non-minor costs to existing
customers or if benefits are localized, such projects should receive
case-specific review with rolled-in rate treatment or be considered for
incremental rates.\94\ AGA asks the Commission to require pipeline
companies to provide additional information on the purpose and
beneficiaries of proposed projects \95\ and suggests a requirement that
pipelines keep separate books and accounting of costs and revenues
attributable to a project in the same manner as required by Sec.
154.309 for projects authorized by the blanket certificate program.\96\
Conversely, Energy Transfer argues that the Commission does not need to
require the pipeline to keep separate books and accounting of costs and
revenues attributable to the project.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ AGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 7.
\92\ Id. at 9.
\93\ Id.
\94\ Id.
\95\ Id. at 6-7.
\96\ Id. at 11-12.
\97\ Energy Transfer September 24, 2025 Comments at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. PGC proposes that the Commission discontinue its policy of
granting automatic predeterminations of rolled-in rate treatment for
projects constructed under Sec. 157.210 (mainline facilities) because
existing customers could subsidize incremental service in contravention
of the cost causation principle.\98\ It contends the Commission should
defer determinations on rolling in expansion facilities to general NGA
section 4 proceedings.\99\ PGC argues that the automatic
predetermination could result in illogical results where a
predetermination would be denied in a section 7 proceeding but
automatically granted under the blanket certificate.\100\ Additionally,
it asserts that an automatic predetermination of rolled-in rate
treatment imposes an uncertain burden on existing customers because the
Commission does not undertake an individual review of the costs or
revenues of a proposed blanket expansion project \101\ and thus
customers are unable to show whether a material change has
occurred.\102\ Finally, PGC states that because it is exceedingly rare
that a rate case is fully litigated, issues related to the treatment of
the costs are typically never addressed, undermining the Commission's
reliance on future rate proceedings to protect ratepayers and weakening
the customers' negotiating power in settlement discussions.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ PGC September 24, 2025 Comments at 3; see also AGA March 4,
2026 Reply Comments at 7 (stating that if the Commission allows
incremental rates, it should clarify that there is no assumption of
rolled-in rate treatment and, when system rates are applied to a
project, cost allocation will be addressed in the next rate case).
\99\ PGC September 24, 2025 Comments at 3.
\100\ Id. at 6.
\101\ Id. at 7-8.
\102\ Id. at 7.
\103\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. EDF comments that the Commission should not prejudge whether to
roll in the costs of a project on a generic basis and without specific
facts because the rationale that blanket certificate projects will have
a de minimis impact on overall rates no longer holds true in the event
of cost limit increases.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ EDF September 24, 2025 Comments at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
36. We propose to allow pipeline companies to charge incremental
rates for projects constructed pursuant to the prior notice procedures.
Under the
[[Page 31378]]
Commission's current policy, projects that would qualify for the
blanket certificate program but for their rate treatment must go
through a section 7 proceeding. Allowing incremental rates would
streamline the approval of these projects while maintaining the
Commission's overall policy goal of ensuring that only those customers
who benefit from a project bear its cost. Additionally, the Commission
agrees with, and proposes to adopt, INGAA's recommendation that an
applicant provide a rate calculation with its application, giving
Commission staff and interested parties an opportunity to protest.
Applicants are expected to provide supporting statements and exhibits
to substantiate their incremental rate calculations, consistent with
the Commission's regulations proposed herein.\105\ Once an initial rate
is approved, the pipeline must then submit a section 4 filing to
implement a tariff record prior to the project going into service. The
Commission has noted that it must approve, under NGA section 7, any
initial rate that is not the existing Part 284 systemwide rate.\106\ We
believe that by not protesting an applicant's proposed rates, the
Commission is essentially approving such rates in the prior notice
proceeding, which is a section 7 proceeding, provided there are no
other protests that would require a further Commission order. The
tariff record would then be approved via a Commission or delegated
order prior to the project going into service. This process is the same
as that used for individual section 7 certificate proceedings. Although
the Commission previously declined in the 2006 rulemaking to allow
project sponsors to request incremental rates for blanket certificate
projects because of the additional time necessary to complete a rate
review,\107\ since that time the Commission has an additional 20 years'
worth of experience developing its precedent and expertise. The
Commission's rate policies regarding incremental rates are now well-
established, and as a result we now believe that such reviews can be
completed within the 60-day notice period. However, given the short
notice period, the Commission expects applications to be complete when
filed. Failure to provide a complete application may result in
rejection or Commission staff protest of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 18 CFR 157.14(a)(14)--(19).
\106\ Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 111 FERC ] 61,094 at P 15.
\107\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at P 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. We also propose to continue our policy of granting automatic
predeterminations of rolled-in rate treatment for blanket certificate
projects that propose to charge existing system rates. However, to
ensure there will be no major impacts on existing customers, we propose
to require applicants for prior notice mainline expansions to provide
evidence that the project benefits existing customers \108\ to justify
the predetermination of rolled in rates.\109\ If the provided support
does not justify a predetermination of rolled in rates, Commission
staff or any other party may protest the application. If the protest is
not withdrawn or dismissed, the application will not be deemed
authorized by the blanket certificate and the Commission will process
it as a section 7 proceeding. We invite comment on what kind of
evidence applicants could file to demonstrate that a project benefits
existing customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Certificate Policy Statement, 88 FERC at 61,746 n.12
(``Projects designed to improve existing service for existing
customers, by replacing existing capacity, improving reliability or
providing flexibility, are for the benefit of existing customers.
Increasing the rates of the existing customers to pay for these
improvements is not a subsidy.''); e.g., E. Tenn. Nat. Gas, LLC, 186
FERC ] 61,210, at PP 45-46 (2024).
\109\ With respect to activities under the automatic
authorization, we find that even under the higher cost limit, such
projects would only have a de minimis impact on rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Additionally, we propose to adopt AGA's recommendation that
pipeline companies disclose the purpose and beneficiaries of blanket
certificate projects, because such information would be helpful to
address any potential cost allocation issues in a future section 4 or
section 5 rate proceeding. Last, we seek comment on whether to adopt
the standard condition the Commission uses in section 7 proceedings and
require pipelines that are proposing to charge existing system rates to
maintain separate books and accounting for all blanket certificate
projects.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Projects charging incremental rates are currently required
to keep separate books and accounting of costs and revenues
attributable to the project pursuant to Sec. 154.309. We note that
Sec. 154.309 will also apply to any blanket certificate project
charging incremental rates. However, unlike a project charging
incremental rates, a pipeline charging its existing system rates for
a project is not required to provide books and accounting consistent
with Order No. 710. Revisions to Forms, Statements, & Reporting
Requirements for Nat. Gas Pipelines, Order No. 710, 73 FR 19389
(Apr. 10, 2008) FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,267, at P 23 (2008). The
pipeline is required to maintain its internal books and accounting
such that it would have the ability to include this information in a
future FERC Form No. 2 or 2-A if the rate treatment for the project
is changed in a future rate proceeding. Gulf S. Pipeline Co., LLC,
173 FERC ] 61,049, at P 7 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Protest Procedures for Prior Notice Projects
39. Currently, after a prior notice application is filed, the
Commission will issue a notice providing 60 days to protest and/or
intervene.\111\ If no protest is filed, the applicant is authorized to
conduct the activity under its blanket certificate, effective on the
day following the expiration of the notice deadline.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ 18 CFR 157.205(d).
\112\ Id. 157.205(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Any person or Commission staff may file a protest during the
60-day notice period.\113\ If a protest is filed, the certificate
holder, protestor, any intervenors, and Commission staff have 30 days
from the notice deadline to resolve the protest and to file a
withdrawal of it.\114\ Additionally, within 10 days of the filing of a
protest, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects will dismiss a
protest if it does not raise a substantive issue and fails to provide
any specific detailed reason or rationale for the objection.\115\ If a
protest is not withdrawn or dismissed, the activity is not authorized.
Instead, the request is treated as an application for section 7
authorization and is acted on through a Commission order.\116\ If the
protest is withdrawn, the certificate holder is authorized to conduct
the activity under its blanket certificate, effective the day after the
later of either: (1) the notice period concluding or (2) the withdrawal
of all protests.\117\ However, if a protest is dismissed, the notice
requirements are not fulfilled until the earlier of: (1) 30 days after
the notice period has concluded or (2) the dismissed protesting party
notifying the Commission that its concerns have been resolved.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Id. 157.205(e)(1).
\114\ Id. 157.205(f); see also Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC,
194 FERC ] 62,131 (2026); S. Star Cent. Pipeline, Inc., 194 FERC ]
62,097 (2026); Nw. Pipeline LLC, 194 FERC ] 62,021 (2026).
\115\ Id. 157.205(g).
\116\ Id.
\117\ Id. 157.205(h)(2).
\118\ Id. 157.205(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
41. INGAA asserts that the broad eligibility requirements for
protests and a reluctance to dismiss protests that fail to raise
substantive, case-specific objections have undermined the blanket
certificate program.\119\ It proposes to restrict who may protest a
prior notice application to only those with a substantial economic
interest,
[[Page 31379]]
Commission staff, and affected landowners.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 32. TransCanada USA
Pipeline Services LLC and the Williams Companies, Inc. filed
comments in support of INGAA's proposal.
\120\ Id. at 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. APGA opposes INGAA's proposal to limit who may protest.\121\ It
states that to do so would go against the spirit of the program, rooted
in the assumption that there will only be a de minimis impact on
rates.\122\ It further argues that all those impacted by a project
would have a ``substantial economic interest'' and that to limit
protections could reduce oversight and weaken procedural
safeguards.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ APGA March 13, 2026 Reply Comments at 7.
\122\ Id. at 7-8.
\123\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. INGAA also proposes a requirement that the Director of the
Office of Energy Projects either dismiss or accept the protest within
10 days of receipt.\124\ Similarly, Energy Transfer urges expeditious
responses to protests on prior notices to accomplish the goals of the
blanket certificate program.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 35.
\125\ Energy Transfer September 24, 2025 Comments at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
44. We propose to maintain our current regulations governing
protests. Under the Commission's regulations, a protest to a prior
notice is dismissed if it fails to ``raise a substantive issue and
fails to provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for the
objection.'' We note that the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
dismisses protests for failure to raise substantive issues pertaining
to the project and failure to provide any specific detailed reason or
rationale for objecting to the pending proposal, thereby allowing the
project to proceed under the blanket certificate.\126\ Additionally,
when the Commission receives a protest (meaning that protest has not
been withdrawn by the filer or dismissed by the Director of the Office
of Energy Projects per 18 CFR 157.205(g)), it may issue an order
adjudicating the protest. Should the Commission deny a protest in an
order, the project would then proceed under the blanket
certificate.\127\ We do not propose adopting INGAA's proposal to limit
the persons that may protest a prior notice application to only those
with a substantial economic interest, Commission staff, and affected
landowners because we are concerned that the proposal could be
difficult to administer in practice. We are also concerned that it may
set underinclusive eligibility criteria in that INGAA's proposal may
prevent certain persons that are directly affected by a proposed
project from protesting because they are not affected landowners as
defined by the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC, 194 FERC ] 62,131 (2026);
S. Star Cent. Pipeline, Inc., 194 FERC ] 62,097 (2026); Nw. Pipeline
LLC, 194 FERC ] 62,021 (2026).
\127\ E.g., Fla. Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 182 FERC ] 61,170
(2023); El Paso Nat. Gas Co., L.L.C., 192 FERC ] 61,078 (2025);
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, 171 FERC ] 61,047 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Nonetheless, we recognize that establishing more prescriptive
eligibility criteria for protestors, along the lines INGAA has proposed
to limit the persons that may protest a prior notice application to
only those with a substantial economic interest, Commission staff, and
affected landowners, might help attenuate the quantity of protests
based solely on generic or irrelevant concerns that do not advance
legitimate concerns of individuals or entities that could be affected
by a project. This could help promote the intended efficiencies of the
blanket certificate program. We therefore seek comment on the
following:
--INGAA's proposed eligibility criteria, including how to determine
whether a person has a substantial economic interest, which is not
defined and could either encompass a variety of persons with various
interests or be restrictive;
--Other potential alternative defined eligibility criteria for
protestors to prior notice projects. This includes whether the
Commission could or should adopt some form of its intervention standard
as a criterion for protestors and/or whether the Commission should
require membership organizations seeking to protest prior notice
applications provide evidence that they have a member or members in the
relevant geographic area, or are representing a specific member or
members that is or will be directly affected by the proposed
project.\128\ Any proposals should discuss how the criteria do not
prevent persons meaningfully impacted by a proposed project from
protesting;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(2); Am. Elec. Power Servs. Corp., 120
FERC ] 61,052, at P 12 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Whether the Commission could establish a designated timeline within
which it will seek to issue orders adjudicating prior notice protest
proceedings (e.g., 60 days), noting that individual cases present
differing issues and information needs, and thus require differing
processing times. We also seek comment on whether such procedures would
inhibit project applicants and protestors from negotiating a settlement
that would resolve the protest.
46. We do not propose adopting INGAA's proposal that the Director
of the Office of Energy Projects issue a letter acting on every protest
(either dismissing or accepting it) within 10 days of filing. INGAA's
proposal would not provide the participants in a proceeding any
additional information; if a protest is not dismissed, it is deemed to
have been accepted.
E. Extension of the One-Year In-Service Requirement
47. Under the current regulations, any construction, extension, or
acquisition authorized under the blanket certificate program must be
completed and made available for service within one year of the date
the activity is authorized.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Id. 157.206(c). The certificate holder may apply to the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects for an extension of this
deadline. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
48. INGAA proposes increasing the existing one-year in-service
requirement for blanket certificate projects to two years, citing
permitting delays, workforce uncertainty at administrative agencies,
frequent changes in reviewing agencies' legal obligations, and
unforeseen changes in construction factors such as weather, equipment
supply chains, contractor availability, and later-discovered design
issues.\130\ AGA and APGA express concern that doubling the in-service
deadline as INGAA requests would allow for larger projects than
intended under the blanket program, and therefore request that the
Commission maintain its current standard.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 35-37; see also WBI
September 24, 2025 Comments at 8.
\131\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 10; APGA March 13,
2026 Reply Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
49. We propose to adopt INGAA's proposal to increase the one-year
in-service deadline to two years. When the one-year deadline was
established, the timeframe aligned with the Commission's practice in
section 7 proceedings. More recently, the Commission has consistently
given applicants two or three years to place their facilities into
service.\132\ The
[[Page 31380]]
additional time to complete a project would also allow applicants more
time to comply with any applicable restrictions for when construction
may occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See, e.g., Nw. Pipeline LLC, 194 FERC ] 61,221 (2026)
(requiring completion of construction of the proposed facilities
within two years); Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, 194 FERC ] 61,206
(2026) (same); Tex. E. Transmission, LP, 194 FERC ] 61,141 (2026)
(same); Transwestern Pipeline Co., LLC, 193 FERC ] 61,038 (2025)
(same); Rover Pipeline LLC, 192 FERC ] 61,236 (2025) (same); see
also Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 192 FERC ] 61,184 (2025)
(requiring completion of construction of the proposed facilities
within three years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. We disagree with AGA and APGA that extending the in-service
deadline would improperly enlarge the scope of the blanket program. The
blanket certificate program would continue to be limited by the cost
limits which, as proposed, appropriately maintain the program's general
framework and principles. The blanket certificate regulations also
include other protections that limit the scope of projects, including
the prohibition against segmentation, environmental compliance
requirements, and notice and protest provisions. Together, these
measures would continue to properly limit the scope of the program, as
intended.
F. Cost Limits for Receipt Points
51. Under the current blanket certificate regulations, certificate
holders are authorized to undertake certain activities on any eligible
facilities, which are subject to the cost limits. Receipt points are
considered eligible facilities,\133\ and therefore construction of such
points is subject to cost limits.\134\ Delivery points,\135\ however,
are subject to a different provision of the blanket certificate
regulations and are not subject to the cost limits.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 18 CFR 157.202(b)(2)(i). Receipt points are a tap and/or
metering and appurtenant facilities such as heaters, minor gas
conditioning, treatment, odorization, and similar equipment,
necessary to enable the certificate holder to receive gas onto its
pipeline system.
\134\ Id. 157.208(a), (b).
\135\ A delivery point is defined as ``a tap and/or metering and
appurtenant facilities, such as heaters, minor gas conditioning,
treatment, odorization, and similar equipment, necessary to enable
the certificate holder to deliver gas to any party.'' Id.
157.202(b)(10).
\136\ Id. 157.211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
52. INGAA requests that the Commission allow all receipt points to
be constructed under automatic authorization without regard to cost
limits, as is currently allowed for delivery points.\137\ INGAA asserts
that receipt and delivery point construction and operation are
essentially identical, and the Commission should therefore remove the
cost limit for construction of receipt points.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 37.
\138\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
53. We agree with INGAA, and propose to remove the cost limitation
on receipt points and allow all receipt points to be constructed under
automatic authorization so that they are treated the same as delivery
points. Construction of a receipt point involves the same facilities as
those of a delivery point: a tap, meter, and appurtenant facilities
such as a heater and gas conditioning equipment. Thus, the cost of a
receipt point and its potential environmental impacts are the same as
those for a delivery point and we have no basis to differentiate our
treatment of the two facilities. Therefore, as we have for delivery
points, we find that construction of a receipt point is so well-
understood as an established industry practice that automatic
authorization of such facilities is warranted.
G. Cost Limit for Abandonment Projects
54. Under the current blanket certificate regulations, the
Commission considers the hypothetical cost to construct the facility
when determining whether abandonment is eligible under automatic
authorization or prior notice procedures.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 18 CFR 157.216(a)(2)(iii), 157.216(b)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
55. INGAA proposes that the Commission determine the eligibility of
abandonment projects by the actual cost of abandonment instead of the
cost of modern-day replacement, as currently required.\140\ It notes
that abandonment activities typically have fewer environmental and
landowner impacts than project construction and operation, and that
there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the Commission
can address operational, environmental, rate, or competitive impacts in
blanket certificate abandonments.\141\ INGAA acknowledges that the
Commission's justification for its current approach was to ensure that
case-specific abandonment proceedings are conducted where issues may
arise that cannot be fully reviewed in a blanket abandonment
proceeding, but it states that replacement facilities needed today
frequently bear little resemblance to the facilities being abandoned,
and therefore, the rationale is no longer applicable.\142\ INGAA cites
projects that could have been abandoned pursuant to the blanket
certificate program under its proposal but were not because the cost of
hypothetical replacement facilities exceeded the cost limit.\143\ It
asserts that the same issues related to increasing the cost limits for
constructing facilities applies to the cost of replacement facilities,
further restricting each year what can be abandoned under the blanket
certificate.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 37-40.
\141\ Id. at 40.
\142\ Id. at 38-40.
\143\ Id. at 39.
\144\ Id. at 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
56. We propose to adopt INGAA's recommendation to allow for
abandonment of facilities based on the actual cost of abandonment
rather than the hypothetical cost of replicating the facilities today.
This would allow for more abandonments under the automatic and prior
notice provisions, in line with the program's aims of providing
streamlined procedures which increase flexibility and reduce regulatory
burden for a generic class of routine activities. The blanket
certificate regulations already include protections for firm shippers
on pipelines proposed to be abandoned and conditions to protect the
environment. When pipelines are abandoned in place, there is typically
little construction or environmental disturbance, and, if the pipeline
is proposed to be removed, the scale of any removal project and
associated impacts are necessarily limited by the blanket certificate
cost limits.
H. Abandonment of Storage Wells
57. Under the current blanket certificate regulations, changes to
the function of natural gas storage wells currently require prior
notice procedures, regardless of cost.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 18 CFR 157.213(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
58. INGAA proposes that the Commission revise Sec. 157.213 to
allow abandonment of storage wells under automatic authorizations,
rather than being required to proceed under prior notice.\146\ It
states that Sec. 157.213(a), which prevents storage operators from
altering well functions, is unnecessary given the language limiting
automatic authorizations to only those projects that do not alter the
physical parameters of a storage field.\147\ Equitrans states that most
of the storage well abandonments that it has undertaken pursuant to
prior notice have been required for compliance with either state or
Federal safety requirements.\148\ It notes that it has had cases where
the physical parameter requirement for automatic
[[Page 31381]]
authorization has been met, but prior notice procedures were required
to abandon a well.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 41.
\147\ Id.
\148\ Equitrans September 24, 2025 Comments at 4.
\149\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. AGA opposes INGAA's proposal and requests that the Commission
continue to require prior notice procedures for storage well
abandonments.\150\ It asserts that allowing abandonment of storage
wells under automatic authorization will bypass regulatory review and
provide less transparency.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 10-11.
\151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
60. We propose to allow for the abandonment of storage wells under
automatic authorization if the abandonment does not alter the physical
parameters of a storage field. We find that such abandonments are
routine, well understood, and often carried out for safety purposes.
This change would streamline the authorization for well abandonments
without affecting the service provided by natural gas storage
operators.
I. Temporary Work Spaces Under Sec. 2.55
61. Currently, under Sec. 2.55(b) of the Commission's regulations,
natural gas pipelines can replace facilities if the replacement will
have a substantially equivalent designed delivery capacity, will be
located in the same right-of-way or on the same site as the facilities
being replaced, and will be constructed using the temporary work space
used to construct the existing facility.\152\ There is no cost limit
for replacements done under Sec. 2.55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ 18 CFR 2.55(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
62. INGAA requests that the Commission revise Sec. 2.55(b)(ii) to
allow a pipeline to replace facilities if it can secure temporary work
space by mutual agreement with landowners.\153\ INGAA states that such
a reform is needed because documentation of the original work space
used to construct older pipelines may not be available.\154\ It states
that although the Commission's regulations have guidance for when this
occurs, that guidance may not provide sufficient work space or access
road allowances, particularly for steep slope construction or work to
accommodate landowner requests.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 42. Boardwalk filed
comments in support of INGAA's proposal.
\154\ Id.
\155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
63. We do not propose to adopt INGAA's proposal. The limitation on
work space under Sec. 2.55 ensures that replacement projects do not
affect the environment in ways not already assessed by the Commission
when it authorized the original project.\156\ Although INGAA's proposal
addresses potential landowner concerns, the Commission would have no
way of knowing whether the environmental effects of the replacement
would be consistent with the construction of the original project.
Moreover, under the blanket certificate program, pipelines can
undertake replacement activities, subject to the cost limits, that
result in an incremental increase in capacity or require additional/new
work space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Arkla Energy Res. Co., 67 FERC ] 61,173, at 61,516 (1994)
(``The authority to replace a facility and to establish a right-of-
way should be limited by the terms and locations delineated in the
original construction certificate.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Automatic Authorization of Mainline Projects
64. In 2006, the Commission expanded the scope of blanket
certificate activities to include mainline facilities, subject to prior
notice procedures.\157\ In explaining why mainline projects must
proceed under prior notice procedures, we stated that, ``[g]iven the
Commission's lack of experience under the blanket program in
supervising mainline . . . facility projects, . . . it would be prudent
to provide prior notice for all projects involving these newly blanket-
enfranchised facilities.'' \158\ The Commission explained that by
requiring prior public notice for blanket projects ``the Commission,
affected landowners, and others will be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to review the potential impacts of proposed projects prior
to construction.'' \159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at P 13.
\158\ Id. P 15.
\159\ Id. P 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
65. INGAA recommends that the Commission amend its regulations to
allow for automatic authorization of mainline projects.\160\ It argues
that since 2006 the Commission has gained the necessary experience in
supervising mainline projects under the blanket certificate program,
and that the projects that meet the blanket certificate program's
requirements for automatic authorization, particularly the cost limit,
have minor impacts, are well understood, and are often carried out to
meet safety and integrity requirements.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 47-48. Boardwalk and
WBI filed comments in support of INGAA's proposal.
\161\ Id. at 48; see also Boardwalk September 24, 2025 Comments
at 7 (noting that stricter pipeline safety and integrity regulations
by the US Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) require a more efficient
process to replace existing mainline facilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. AGA asserts that mainline work is not appropriate for automatic
authorization, which was designed to enable minor investments in
facilities that require little scrutiny.\162\ It expresses doubt that
expansion of mainline facilities would constitute minor investments or
only have a de minimis impact on rates, and asserts that automatic
authorization should not be used for work that more than incidentally
increases a pipeline's delivery capability.\163\ AGA argues that the
automatic authorization process was designed to enable minor
investments in facilities that require little scrutiny.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 10. PGC filed reply
comments in support of AGA's reply comments.
\163\ Id.
\164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
67. As we explained in 2006, the Commission permits the
authorization of mainline projects, such as compression and looping
projects designed to increase the pipeline's capacity, under the prior
notice program to ensure these matters receive appropriate review. We
seek comment on INGAA's proposal to include mainline facilities under
the automatic program and direct staff to consider the proposal in its
NEPA review, as discussed below. Under INGAA's proposal, automatic
authorization mainline projects would still be subject to the lower
automatic authorization cost limit, but we seek comment on whether
those projects are expected to have relatively little impact on
ratepayers or pipeline operations, and if we can be assured any issues
related to the proper allocation of costs between new and existing
customers will be addressed in a future NGA section 4 rate case
proceeding.\165\ As discussed above,
[[Page 31382]]
we are including additional protections for shippers to disclose the
purpose and beneficiaries for such projects for use in potential future
section 4 or section 5 rate proceedings. Finally, because the
Commission has not previously authorized mainline facilities under the
automatic program, we also seek comment on whether the Commission
should apply its policy of granting automatic predeterminations of
rolled-in rate treatment for those projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ See, e.g., Tex. E. Transmission LP, 176 FERC ] 61,206, at
P 24 (2021) (``[O]ur determination regarding rolled-in rates does
not presume any decision with regard to the appropriate allocation
of project costs. Texas Eastern will have the burden in its next NGA
section 4 rate case to show that costs are assigned to services
equitably and the relevant parties will be free to fully argue their
positions when Texas Eastern files to roll project costs into its
current system rates.''); see also Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074
at P 38 (``[T]he current practice of presuming, initially, that
blanket project costs will qualify for rolled-in rate treatment,
then evaluating the validity of this presumption, subsequently, in
an NGA section 4 rate proceeding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Removing Cost Limits for Expansions of Existing Compressor Stations
68. Blanket certificate holders can currently construct new
compressor stations and additional compressor units at existing
compressor stations under automatic authorization and prior notice
procedures.\166\ Replacements of compressor units that result in an
``incidental increase'' in capacity, but that do not have the primary
purpose of increasing mainline capacity, can be constructed.\167\ In
addition, new compressor stations and additional compressor units at
existing stations at storage facilities can be constructed, provided
there is no change in the storage facilities' certificated
parameters.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ 18 CFR 157.202(b)(2), (6), 157.208(a), (b).
\167\ Id. 157.202(b)(2), 157.208(a), (b), 157.210.
\168\ Id. 157.213(a), (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
69. INGAA requests that the Commission expand the blanket
certificate program to allow for compression projects that increase
capacity under prior notice procedures, regardless of cost, when those
projects are located within existing facilities' footprints.\169\ It
proposes that the pipeline must own or lease all project land to be
eligible for this proposed expansion.\170\ INGAA argues that the
minimal impact on landowners, lesser environmental effects, and
expedition of the replacement of facilities justifies removing the cost
limits on these types of projects.\171\ It states that the blanket
certificate program's existing safeguards ensure that compression
projects within existing footprints will not have major effects on
landowners, the environment, or rates.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 48-51. TransCanada
USA Pipeline Services LLC filed comments in support of INGAA's
proposal.
\170\ Id. at 49-50.
\171\ Id. at 49-51.
\172\ Id. at 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. AGA and APGA oppose INGAA's proposal to remove cost limits for
expansions of existing compressor stations.\173\ They assert that such
projects would have more than a de minimis impact on rates and that
permitting such activities to proceed without a cost cap risks loss of
oversight and scrutiny.\174\ They state that INGAA's proposal would
likely result in significant costs being passed through to ratepayers
who may not benefit from the expansion.\175\ Finally, according to AGA,
allowing such projects would deprive shippers of the transparency
needed to track project costs and impacts.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ PGC filed reply comments in support of AGA's reply
comments.
\174\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 6; APGA March 13, 2026
Reply Comments at 6-7.
\175\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 6; APGA March 13, 2026
Reply Comments at 6-7.
\176\ AGA March 4, 2026 Reply Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
71. We propose to adopt INGAA's recommendation. Providing for the
prior notice authorization of expansions of existing compressor
stations within the fence line of the station limits impacts on
landowners while still allowing pipeline companies to expand their
systems using the expedited blanket certificate procedures. Because the
projects would be subject to notice and protest procedures, such
projects would not lack transparency, oversight, or scrutiny, as AGA
and APGA assert. Moreover, the blanket certificate regulations'
environmental conditions, coupled with the protest mechanisms built
into the prior notice procedures, ensure that nearby residents and
landowners, pipeline customers, and Commission staff have an
opportunity to evaluate the individual projects and protest them if
necessary. However, in light of the fact that these projects will not
be subject to a cost limit and to ensure that the air and noise impacts
of compressor station expansions are properly evaluated by Commission
staff during the notice period, we are requiring applicants to file all
of the information required by Sec. 380.12(k) of our regulations. We
seek comment on our proposal to require this information. In
particular, we seek comment on whether all the information required by
Sec. 380.12(k), including that related to noise impacts, is necessary
to evaluate the compressor station expansion projects proposed herein
or whether other information should be required to analyze a potential
project's air and noise impacts. Applicants will also be required to
comply with the blanket certificate program's noise condition, which
specifies that noise attributable to compression added to an existing
station, or any modification, upgrade or update of an existing station,
must not exceed a day-night level (Ldn) of 55 dBA at any pre-existing
NSA or, if the noise from the station already exceeds 55 dBA, the
modification does not cause overall noise attributable to the station
to increase.\177\ As discussed above, we are also including additional
ratepayer protections, such as requiring blanket certificate holders to
disclose the purpose and beneficiaries for such projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ 18 CFR 157.206(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Because Commission staff only has 60 days to complete its
environmental review of blanket certificate projects, the Commission
expects applications to be complete when filed.\178\ Failure to provide
a complete application may result in rejection or Commission staff
protest of the application.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ See, e.g., 18 CFR 157.206(b)(5)(ii) (requiring a noise
survey for new and modified compression station facilities); id.
157.208(c)(9) (requiring a concise analysis discussing the relevant
issues outlined in Sec. 380.12, including, for compressor
facilities, how the proposed action will be made to comply with
applicable State Implementation Plans developed under the Clean Air
Act); see also id. 380.12 (requiring submission of an environmental
report consisting of thirteen resource reports and related material,
including Resource Report 9--Air and noise quality).
\179\ Cf., e.g., Commission Staff, Environmental Information
Request, Docket No. CP20-448-000, at 3 (issued May 26, 2020)
(requesting information on Endangered Species Act compliance); ANR
Pipeline Co., Environmental Information Response, Docket No. CP19-
102-000, at 7, attach. 4 (issued March 27, 2019) (providing
information on Endangered Species Act compliance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. National Historic Preservation Act Compliance
73. Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) \180\ and its implementing regulations,\181\ federal agencies
must take into account the effect of any proposed undertaking on
properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places (defined as historic properties) and afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. This generally
requires the Commission to consult with the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) to
determine whether and how a proposed action may affect historic
properties and to seek ways to avoid any adverse effects. The current
blanket certificate regulations require that the SHPO or THPO find that
a project will have ``no effect'' on historic properties prior to
[[Page 31383]]
proceeding under a blanket certificate.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ 54 U.S.C. 306108.
\181\ 36 CFR pt. 800.
\182\ 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(ii); id. pt. 157, subpt. F, app. II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
74. INGAA argues that only a ``finding of adverse effects'' by the
SHPO or THPO should preclude a project from proceeding under a blanket
certificate and thus requests that the Commission allow projects to
proceed under a blanket certificate when the project receives a ``no
effect to historic properties'' or a ``no adverse effect to historic
properties'' finding from the SHPO or THPO.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ INGAA September 24, 2025 Comments at 51-53. WBI filed
comments in support of INGAA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
75. The blanket certificate program has been successful, in part,
due to the environmental conditions of the program, which ensure that
only those projects that will have minimal impacts are eligible.
Expanding the program to include projects that receive a finding of
``no adverse effect'' would change the program's underlying protections
for historic properties because a ``no effect'' finding typically only
occurs where no historic properties are present. Moreover, the
Commission's current blanket certificate procedures for compliance with
the NHPA,\184\ which are designed to streamline the approvals of
projects, do not apply to projects receiving a ``no adverse effect''
finding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ 18 CFR pt. 157, subpt. F, app. II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. In order to institute alternative procedures that would allow
for the streamlined approval of projects that receive a ``no adverse
effect'' finding while ensuring compliance with the NHPA, the
Commission would likely be required to develop a programmatic agreement
for the program. Development of a nationwide programmatic agreement
would necessitate consultation with SHPOs within the National
Conference of SHPOs (which includes all fifty states, territories, and
freely associated states), all federally recognized Indian Tribes and
Native Hawaiian organizations, as well as establishing an opportunity
for public input, and review by the Advisory Council. This would be a
lengthy and difficult process that would delay implementation of the
proposed revisions to the blanket certificate program, which will
provide streamlined procedures that increase flexibility and reduce
regulatory burdens on interstate natural gas companies. Accordingly, we
do not propose to expand the blanket program to allow projects with no
adverse effects and instead propose to retain the current ``no effect''
requirement.
77. Nevertheless, we propose to clarify in our regulations that,
upon acceptance of the blanket certificate, the certificate holder
shall act as the Commission's non-Federal representative for purposes
of complying with the NHPA, consistent with similar provisions for
Endangered Species Act compliance.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ 18 CFR 157.206(b)(7); id. pt. 157, subpt. F, app. I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Reporting Requirements
78. Currently, blanket certificate holders are required to file
annual reports for activities completed under automatic authorization.
Although there are additional, and sometimes different, requirements
for certain types of facilities (delivery points, temporary
compression, abandonments, and storage testing facilities), the report
generally must include: (1) a description of the facilities installed;
(2) the specific purpose, location, and beginning and completion date
of construction of the facilities installed, the date service
commenced, and, if applicable, a statement indicating the extent to
which the facilities were jointly constructed; (3) the actual installed
cost of each facility; (4) information regarding consultations which
took place to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the
NHPA, and the Coastal Zone Management Act; (5) documentation, including
images, that restoration of work areas is progressing appropriately;
(6) a discussion of problems or unusual construction issues, including
those identified by affected landowners, and corrective actions taken
or planned; and (7) for new or modified compression, a noise
survey.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ 18 CFR 157.207. With the exception of increases in storage
capacity, for which there are additional reporting requirements,
other prior notice activities require only that the certificate
holder file the actual installed cost of each facility. Id. 157.207,
157.208(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
79. Some commenters request that the Commission expand the
reporting requirements for projects completed under the blanket
certificate program. AGA requests that pipelines be required to provide
additional disclosure and identification of blanket activities both in
the FERC Form No. 2 and when a natural gas pipeline submits an NGA
section 4 rate case filing.\187\ NGSA states that the Commission should
establish a mechanism for identifying and tracking blanket certificate
projects.\188\ And EDF suggests that the Commission should create a
public database of blanket certificate filings, notices, and objections
to help ensure that landowners are protected should the Commission
decide to increase the scope of the blanket certificate program.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ AGA September 24, 2025 Comments at 13.
\188\ NGSA November 7, 2025 Reply Comments at 8.
\189\ EDF September 24, 2025 at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
80. As discussed above, we propose to require natural gas pipelines
to disclose the beneficiaries of automatic authorization projects. We
believe that such additional information can be incorporated into the
reporting already required and that additional or duplicative reporting
is unnecessary. With respect to EDF's request for a public database of
blanket certificate activities, we note that the Commission's eLibrary
system includes all filings made to the Commission, including prior
notice applications, protests to those applications, and the
certificate holders' annual reports of blanket activities.\190\ Thus, a
separate parallel system would entail additional maintenance costs
while providing no new benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ For example, the pipeline's annual reports can be found in
eLibrary by searching for the ``157.207 Annual Construction Report''
under the ``Report/Form'' document class type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
N. Expanding Public Notification
81. Currently, for automatic authorization projects, certificate
holders must make a good-faith effort to notify in writing all affected
landowners \191\ at least 45 days prior to commencing construction or
at the time they initiate easement negotiations, whichever is
earlier.\192\ For prior notice activities, blanket certificate holders
must file an application with the Commission and make a good-faith
effort to notify in writing all affected landowners within at least
three business days of the date that a docket
[[Page 31384]]
number is assigned to the application or at the time it initiates
easement negotiations, whichever is earlier.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 18 CFR 157.6(d)(2) (defining affected landowners).
\192\ Id. 157.203(b), (d). Landowner notification is not
required for: (1) replacements that meet the location requirements
of Sec. 2.55(b)(1)(ii) and do not cause any ground disturbance; (2)
replacements done for safety, Department of Transportation
compliance, environmental, or unplanned maintenance reasons that are
not foreseen and that require immediate attention; (3) abandonments
by sale or transfer of the facilities where the easement will
continue to be used for transportation of natural gas; (4) instances
where there is only one landowner and that landowner has requested
the service or facilities; and (5) activities that do not involve
ground disturbance or changes to operational air and noise
emissions. Id. 157.203(d)(3).
\193\ 18 CFR 157.203(d)(2). The same landowner notification
exceptions that apply to automatic authorizations also apply to
prior notice projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Comments
82. EDF recommends increasing the landowner notification window for
automatic authorization projects from 45 to 60 days, expanding the
definition of ``landowner'' to include affected communities, and
requiring that the Office of Public Participation host meetings during
the notice window.\194\ EDF also proposes requiring that electronic
notice be provided to affected landowners for blanket certificate
activities,\195\ as well as notification by certified mail.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ EDF September 24, 2025 Comments at 21-23.
\195\ Id. at 22.
\196\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. Ms. Swanton expresses general disagreement with the blanket
certificate program due to lack of outreach and the ability to
comment.\197\ She notes that automatic authorizations receive no public
comment period and landowners are only afforded 45 days' notice.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Kristin Swanton August 25, 2025 Comments.
\198\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Commission Determination
84. Because the good faith effort standard in Sec. 157.203(d)(1)
and (2) is subjective, we propose to adopt the same notification
requirement as for section 7 applications--i.e., that the company
notify all affected landowners for all blanket certificate projects by
certified or first class mail.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ 18 CFR 157.6(d)(1)(i) (requiring landowner notification by
certified or first class mail); see also infra proposed revisions to
18 CFR 157.203(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
85. We do not propose to adopt the other measures recommended by
EDF. With respect to the notice requirements for projects constructed
under automatic authorization, we believe 45 days is sufficient given
the scope of such projects. Additionally, the definition of affected
landowner is the same used for section 7 applications, and we do not
recommend creating different notification requirements for blanket
certificate projects. Finally, we decline to require that the Office of
Public Participation hold a public meeting during the notice period for
prior notice projects. No such requirement exists for section 7
projects, which are typically larger and have more potential impacts.
And imposing such a requirement would likely require lengthening
blanket certificate project timelines, contrary to the program's stated
aims of streamlining reviews and reducing regulatory burdens. We note
that the Office of Public Participation will continue to engage with
the public and act as a liaison to members of the public affected by
and interested in Commission proceedings. Additionally, we note that
the Commission's landowner helpline is available to provide assistance,
and our landowner notification regulations require interstate pipelines
to provide information regarding the helpline.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ 157 CFR 203(d)(1)(iii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
86. Regarding electronic notice, affected landowner lists are
established by identifying the owners of affected properties as
reflected in the most recent county/city tax records. The Commission is
not aware of a reliable, verifiable resource that pipeline companies or
the Commission could use to generate a list of email addresses for
affected landowners to accomplish electronic notice. Thus, we also
decline to adopt EDF's proposal to require electronic notice to
affected landowners.
87. Finally, in response to Ms. Swanton's comments that
stakeholders should be allowed to comment on automatic authorization
projects, we find the projects eligible for automatic authorization,
including those proposed for inclusion herein, are so well-understood
as an established industry practice that little scrutiny is required to
determine their compatibility with the public convenience and
necessity. Therefore, we do not adopt Ms. Swanton's proposal.
O. Additional Proposed Revisions
88. In addition to the proposals filed by various commenters, we
propose the following changes to the blanket certificate regulations.
1. Endangered Species Act Compliance
89. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 \201\ requires
federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or
endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of the critical habitat of such species. This requires the Commission
to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National
Marine Fisheries Service if a proposed action may affect a listed
species or critical habitat. Currently, the blanket certificate
regulations require certificate holders to conduct informal
consultation and receive a determination from the appropriate federal
agency that the activity is not likely to adversely affect a listed
species or critical habitat or that no further consultation is
necessary prior to proceeding under a blanket certificate.\202\ Because
consultation is not required for activities that would have no effect
on a listed species or critical habitat, we clarify that for all
blankets activities for which the certificate holder finds, using
appropriate federal databases such as the FWS Information for Planning
and Consultation (IPaC) website, that an activity has no effect to
listed species or critical habitat, the certificate holder is only
required to provide documentation of that finding. Certificate holders
would still be required to conduct informal consultation and receive a
determination from the appropriate federal agency for activities that
may affect but are not likely to adversely affect listed species or
critical habitat. Activities that are likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat would require a case-specific authorization
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 16 U.S.C. 1536(a).
\202\ See 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(i); id. pt. 157, subpt. F, app.
I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Landowner Notification
90. Section 157.203(d)(2) currently requires landowner notification
for prior notice projects ``within at least three business days
following the date that a docket number is assigned to the application
or at the time [the certificate holder] initiates easement
negotiations, whichever is earlier.'' However, some of the notice
requirements presuppose that a docket number has been assigned, which
may not be the case if the notification occurs during easement
negotiations.\203\ Additionally, if easement negotiations begin months
prior to an application being filed, landowners may, by the time the
application is filed, no longer have or remember all the information
that was contained in the notice that was provided. Therefore, for
prior notice projects, we propose to require landowner notification
both when easement negotiations begin and within 3 business days of a
docket number being assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ 18 CFR 157.203(d)(2)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Removal of Outdated Cross Reference
91. Section 157.204(b) states: ``Upon receiving an application for
a blanket certificate under this subpart, the Commission will conduct a
hearing pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Sec. Sec.
1.32 and 157.11 of this chapter.'' We propose removing the cross-
reference to Sec. 1.32, as the section no longer exists in the
Commission's regulations.
[[Page 31385]]
4. Updating the Procedure for the Withdrawal of Protests
92. Currently, under Sec. 157.205(f), the certificate holder,
protestor, any intervenors, and Commission staff have 30 days from the
prior notice deadline to resolve the protest and file a withdrawal.
Section 157.205(g) also limits the time to withdraw a protest to 30
days following the prior notice deadline. We propose to alter this
timeline and allow for the withdrawal of a protest any time prior to a
Commission order. This change would provide parties additional time to
negotiate a resolution while not preventing the Commission from acting
in a timely fashion, depending on the circumstances.
5. Construction of Facilities Near Nuclear Power Plants
93. Section 157.206(b)(6) does not currently allow the construction
of eligible facilities that are located within 0.5 miles of a nuclear
power plant that is either operating or under construction, or for
which a construction permit has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). Because we propose to incorporate mainline facilities
into Sec. 157.208, we clarify that mainline facilities are also
subject to the same restriction. Additionally, to clarify that the term
``nuclear power plant'' was not intended to cover nuclear storage
facilities, we propose replacing ``nuclear power plant'' with ``nuclear
power reactor facilities,'' the term used in NRC's comments to the
original blanket certificate notice of proposed rulemaking.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Order No. 234, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,368 at 30,216; see
also 10 CFR 100.3 (defining ``power reactor'' to mean ``a nuclear
reactor of a type described in Sec. 50.21(b) or Sec. 50.22 of this
chapter designed to produce electrical or heat energy.''); US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Glossary: Power Reactor, <a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/power-reactor">https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/power-reactor</a> (accessed
Apr. 15, 2026) (defining ``power reactor'' as ``[a] reactor designed
to produce heat for electric generation (as distinguished from
reactors used for research), for producing radiation or fissionable
materials or for reactor component testing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Synthetic and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities
94. Section 157.212 requires prior notice procedures for facilities
that transport either a mix of synthetic and natural gas or exclusively
revaporized LNG. We propose eliminating this section and allowing such
facilities to be constructed either under automatic authorization or
prior notice procedures, subject to the applicable cost limits. In the
2006 rulemaking, the Commission stated that its ``lack of experience
under the blanket program in supervising . . . LNG and synthetic gas .
. . facility projects [made it] prudent to provide prior notice for all
projects involving these . . . facilities.'' \205\ Additionally, the
Commission noted that ``LNG and synthetic gas facilities . . . [raise]
fact-specific issues of safety, security, and gas interchangeability.''
\206\ Since 2006, the Commission has gained considerable experience in
addressing issues related to synthetic gas and LNG. For example, most
pipelines have gas quality tariff provisions to protect shippers and
ensure that gas interchangeability issues are addressed.\207\ Thus, we
believe the section is no longer necessary. Facilities that transport
either a mix of synthetic and natural gas or exclusively revaporized
LNG would be eligible for construction under the other provisions of
the blanket certificate regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Order No. 686, 117 FERC ] 61,074 at P 15.
\206\ Id. P 18.
\207\ See Pol'y Statement on Provisions Governing Nat. Gas
Quality & Interchangeability in Interstate Nat. Gas Pipeline Co.
Tariffs, 71 FR 35893 (June 22, 2006), 115 FERC ] 61,325 (2006)
(requiring pipelines to maintain tariff provisions governing gas
quality and interchangeability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Abandonment of Delivery Points
95. Section 157.216(a)(1) currently allows for the automatic
authorization to abandon delivery points, ``provided the facility has
not been used to provide: (i) Interruptible transportation service
during the one year period prior to the effective date of the proposed
abandonment, or (ii) Firm transportation service during the one year
period prior to the effective date of the proposed abandonment,
provided the point is no longer covered under a firm contract.''
Additionally, Sec. 157.216(a)(2)(iii) provides for the automatic
authorization of ``any other facility that did or could now qualify for
automatic authorization as described in Sec. 157.203(b), provided the
certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served
using the facility during the past 12 months.'' Because delivery points
qualify under both sections of Sec. 157.216(a), this has led to
confusion regarding the proper vehicle to abandon delivery points.
96. We propose clarifying the regulations to allow the abandonment
of all delivery points under automatic authorization if the certificate
holder obtains written consent of each customer served using the
facility during the past 12 months or if the delivery point has not
been used to provide interruptible or firm transportation service for
the past 12 months and the point is no longer covered under a firm
contract.
8. Correction to Condition Regarding Sensitive Environmental Resources
97. Section 157.206(b)(4) states that ``[a]ny transaction
authorized under a blanket certificate shall not have a significant
adverse impact on a sensitive environmental area.'' The use of the word
``transaction'' in the regulation is misleading, as pipeline companies
and other stakeholders may assume that the provision does not apply to
construction activities. We propose replacing the term with
``activity.'' Additionally, we propose replacing the term ``impacts''
with ``effects,'' consistent with our current practice.
9. Correction to Categorical Exclusion for Blanket Certificate Projects
98. Section 380.4(a)(21) states that ``[a]pprovals of blanket
certificate applications and prior notice filings under Sec. 157.204
and Sec. Sec. 157.209 through 157.218 of this chapter'' would not have
a significant effect on the human environment and are categorically
excluded from preparation of an EA or environmental impact statement.
The regulation inadvertently included mainline facilities under Sec.
157.210. Because mainline facilities are proposed to be authorized
under Sec. 157.208, we note that section 380.4 would not apply to
those facilities under the revisions proposed herein. However, because
we propose authorizing compressor station expansions under Sec.
157.210, we propose amending Sec. 380.4(a)(21) to remove Sec. 157.210
from this categorical exclusion. Thus, under the proposed regulations
neither mainline facilities nor compressor station expansions will fall
under the categorical exclusion.
10. Engineering Information
99. To ensure that Commission staff has the appropriate information
to evaluate prior notice applications, we propose to require applicants
to file the same Exhibit G flow diagram information that is filed for
section 7 applications.\208\ Additionally, for prior notice
applications that would increase storage capacity, we propose to
require the same geologic and engineering information required for
applications that do not result in an increase in storage
capacity.\209\ Last, consistent with Commission practice, we propose to
change ``analysis'' to ``assessment'' in Sec. 157.213(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ 18 CFR 157.14(a)(8)-(10).
\209\ 18 CFR 157.213(c)(1)-(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31386]]
11. Severability
100. We propose to include as new Sec. 157.201(e) a proviso that
if any provision of the blanket certificate regulations, or the
application of any provision thereof to any person or circumstance, is
held invalid, the remainder of those regulations and the application
thereof to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby. Notably, the revisions proposed herein are not ``in any way
intertwined'' and ``operate entirely independently of one another.''
\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Davis Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1454, 1459
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
Carlson v. Postal Regul. Comm'n, 938 F.3d 337, 351 (D.C. Cir. 2019);
Epsilon Elecs., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 857 F.3d 913, 929
(D.C. Cir. 2017); Telephone & Data Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 42, 50
(D.C. Cir. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Request for Comments
101. The Commission requests and encourages public comments on this
notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments may include any related matters
or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. The
Commission will consider comments it receives and provide responses in
a final rule, with changes, if warranted.
102. Comments are due July 27, 2026. Comments must refer to Docket
No. RM25-12-001 and must include the commenter's name, the organization
they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments. All
comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be
viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document
Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not
required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
103. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software must be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
104. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier-or
other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings
should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of
the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Information Collection Statement
105. The information collection in this proposed rule is being
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) per its
regulations,\211\ which require that OMB approve certain reporting,
record keeping, and public disclosure requirements imposed by an
agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
106. The Commission estimates that the proposals in this notice of
proposed rulemaking will expand the scope and scale of projects that
interstate natural gas pipelines may construct without a case-specific
authorization order and increase the cost limits for such projects,
among other changes. As a result, these proposals would reduce the
number of full applications and reporting burden.
107. The Commission estimates that this proposed rule will impact
the following existing information collections:
<bullet> FERC-537: Gas Pipeline Certificate: Construction,
Acquisition & Abandonment.
Title: FERC-537: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction,
Acquisition, and Abandonment.
Action: Revision to an existing information collection.
OMB Control No: 1902-0060.
Respondents: Companies proposing Natural Gas Projects under section
7 of the Natural Gas Act and Jurisdictional Natural Gas Companies.
108. Frequency of Responses: Ongoing. Natural gas companies file
the necessary information with the Commission so that it can review the
filing of applications for the construction and operation of facilities
to provide service or to abandon facilities or service under section 7
of the Natural Gas Act to determine if the requested authorization
should be granted. The data required to be submitted in a certificate
filing may include (depending on the circumstances and application):
<bullet> Identification of the company and responsible officials
<bullet> Factors considered in the location of the facilities and
the impact on the area for environmental considerations
<bullet> Flow diagrams showing the design capacity for engineering
design verification;
<bullet> Cost of proposed facilities, plans for financing, and
estimated revenues and expenses related to the proposed facility for
accounting and financial evaluation.
<bullet> Existing and proposed storage capacity and pressures and
reservoir engineering studies for requests to increase storage
capacity;
<bullet> An affidavit showing the consent of existing customers for
abandonment of service requests.
109. In addition, requests for an increase of pipeline capacity
must include a statement that demonstrates compliance with the
Commission's Certificate Policy Statement by making a showing that the
cost of the expansion will not be subsidized by existing customers and
that there will not be adverse economic impacts to existing customers,
competing pipelines or their customers, or to landowners and
surrounding communities.
Necessity of Information: This information is necessary so that the
Commission can fulfill its statutory mandate under the Natural Gas Act
to oversee natural gas infrastructure and facilities.
Information Collections Impacted by This Rulemaking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number Total annual burden
Number of of responses Total number Average burden & cost hours & total annual Cost per
respondents per respondent of responses per response \212\ cost respondent ($)
(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (4)..................... (3) * (4) = (5)........ (5) / (1)
(3) \213\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 CFR 157.6 Interstate Certificate 22 1.39 30.58 500 hrs.; $51,000....... 15,290 hrs; $1,559,580. $70,890
and Abandonment Applications \214\.
18 CFR 157.53 Pipeline Purging/ 1 1 1 50 hrs.; $5,100......... 50 hrs.; $5,100........ 5,100
Testing Exemptions.
[[Page 31387]]
18 CFR 157.203(c) Blanket 30 2.125 63.75 200 hrs.; $20,400....... 12,750 hrs.; $1,300,500 43,350
Certificates Prior Notice Filings.
18 CFR 157.207 Blanket Certificates-- 176 1 176 50 hrs.; $5,100......... 8,800 hrs.; $897,600... 5,100
Annual Reports.
18 CFR 284.11 (NGPA Section 311 75 1 75 50 hrs.; $5,100......... 3,750 hrs.; $382,500... 5,100
Construction--Annual Reports).
18 CFR 284.8 \215\ Request for Waiver 31 1.39 43.09 10 hrs.: $1,020......... 430.9 hrs.; $43,952.... 1,418
of Capacity Release Regulations.
18 CFR 284.13(e) and 284.126(a) 2 1 2 30 hrs.; $3,060......... 60 hrs.; $6,120........ 3,060
Interstate and Intrastate Bypass
Notice.
18 CFR 284.221 Blanket Certificates-- 1 1 1 100 hrs.; $10,200....... 100 hrs.; $10,200...... 10,200
Transportation by Interstate
Pipelines on behalf of others.
18 CFR 284.224 Blanket Certificate-- 2 1 2 75 hrs.; $7,650......... 150 hrs.; $15,300...... 7,650
Hinshaw Pipeline Blanket
Certificates.
18 CFR 157.18 Non-facility 11 1.36 14.96 75 hrs.; $7,650......... 1,122 hrs.; $114,444... 10,200
Certificate or Abandonment
Applications.
Project based Labor wages............ 22 1 22 15 hrs.; $1,530......... 330 hrs.; $33,660...... 1,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ .............. .............. 431 (rounded) ........................ 42,833 hrs.; (rounded) ..............
$4,368,956.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission requests comments on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Commission staff estimates that the industry's hourly cost
for wages plus benefits is similar to the Commission's $102 FY 2026
average hourly cost for wages and benefits.
\213\ Each of the figures in this column are rounded to the
nearest dollar.
\214\ This proposed rulemaking would reduce the number of
applications. There is no proposed impact on the other parts of this
collection.
\215\ A Certificate Abandonment Application would require waiver
of the Commission's capacity release regulations in 18 CFR 284.8;
therefore this activity is associated with Interstate Certificate
and Abandonment Applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> the need for this information,
<bullet> whether the information will have practical utility,
<bullet> the accuracy of the provided burden estimates,
<bullet> ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected, and
<bullet> any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden,
including the use of automated information techniques.
Send written comments concerning the collection of information(s)
and the associated burden estimate(s) to the Commission according to
the instructions in this notice of proposed rulemaking. You must
include the Docket Number and the related OMB Control Number (if
applicable).
B. Environmental Analysis
110. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\216\
Accordingly, Commission staff is directed to prepare a National
Environmental Policy Act document to assess the environmental impacts
of projects that may be constructed pursuant to the automatic
authorization. That document will also consider the impact of the
action we are taking in this rulemaking proceeding. For prior notice
projects, Commission staff will continue to conduct a case-specific
analysis, including the nature of appropriate environmental review,
e.g., preparation of an Environmental Assessment or application of a
categorical exclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347; 18 CFR pt. 380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
111. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \217\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to make such an analysis if proposed
regulations would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
112. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\218\
SBA regulations designate natural gas pipelines (i.e., NAICS 486210) as
small entities if they do not exceed the size standard of $41.5
million.\219\ For the past five years, one company not affiliated with
larger companies had annual revenues in combination with its affiliates
of $41.5 million or less and therefore could be considered a small
entity under the RFA. Based on the estimated number of respondents
submitting full applications (22), this represents about five percent
of the total potential respondents that may experience a significant
impact from the proposed rule. However, the proposed rule adjusts the
cost limitations of the current program to ensure that the program
continues to cover the same class of infrastructure projects. Impacts
associated with this proposed rule are limited to the avoidance of
unintended new obligations that would be imposed on affected small
businesses in the absence of a change and therefore are not
significant. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the
Commission certifies that the regulations proposed herein should not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ 13 CFR 121.101.
\219\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Planning and Review
113. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
as amended by E.O. 14215 (Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies) and
affirmed by E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review),
directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive
impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of
[[Page 31388]]
quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) has determined this regulatory action is a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended, though not economically significant under section 3(f)(1).
Accordingly, OIRA has reviewed this regulatory action for compliance
with the analytical requirements of Executive Order 12866. This
regulatory action proposes to expand the scope and scale of
construction activities that interstate natural gas pipelines may
undertake without a case-specific authorization order from the
Commission and increase the cost limits for such projects, which would
have the effect of streamlining the approval of natural gas
infrastructure projects and would be deregulatory in nature. In
particular, the proposed rule would reduce the number of projects
subject to the complete application process by approximately 9 projects
per year; this streamlining would result in a burden reduction of 29%.
These projects could include construction of new interstate pipeline
facilities, expansions of existing compressor stations, and abandonment
of interstate pipeline facilities. We note that the proposed rule would
not change the total number of projects that would be constructed, just
the method for obtaining regulatory approval. The proposed rule would
result in cost savings to the agency and interstate pipelines for the
projects that would be covered by the proposed rule because it would
provide a more streamlined administrative process for project proposals
that would otherwise require case-specific NGA section 7 review. As
reflected in the table above, we estimate that respondents would save
4,500 hours of effort, which the Commission estimates as a cost savings
of $459,000. Moreover, faster approvals would result in additional cost
savings and benefits to interstate pipelines and their customers. We
seek comment on how to quantify those cost savings. The Commission does
not anticipate that allowing pipeline companies to charge incremental
rates for projects constructed pursuant to the prior notice procedures
would shift costs to pipeline customers, as the incremental rate
ensures that only those persons who benefit from the project pay for
its costs. Additionally, under the proposed rule, future updates to the
cost limits would be more in line with changes in construction costs
experienced by the natural gas industry, ensuring consistency over time
regarding the types of projects eligible for the blanket certificate
program. Absent this rule, interstate natural gas pipeline projects
costing over $41.1 million would be subject to a less streamlined
permitting process. Should the Commission set lower cost limits or use
a different method for annually updating those limits, fewer projects
would be eligible, resulting in increased administrative costs to both
interstate pipelines and the Commission. This proposed rule, if
finalized as proposed, is expected to be a deregulatory action under
E.O. 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation).
E. Document Availability
114. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (<a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>).
115. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
116. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#573132253438393b3e393224222727382523173132253479303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55333027363a3b393c3b30262025253a272115333027367b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aededbccc2c7cd80dccbc8cbdccbc0cdcbdcc1c1c3eec8cbdccd80c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="562623343a3f35782433303324333835332439393b163033243578313920">[email protected]</span></a>.
117. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule
may be found at <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/major-orders-regulations">www.ferc.gov/major-orders-regulations</a> under the NOPR
tab.
List of Subjects
18 CFR Part 157
Administrative practice and procedure, Natural gas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
18 CFR Part 380
Environmental impact statements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: May 21, 2026.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
parts 157 and 380, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ While we are including language regarding the inclusion of
mainline facilities in the blanket program in section 157.208(a)(3),
with conforming changes elsewhere, we do so to illustratively elicit
comment on potentially including mainline facilities under the
automatic program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 157--APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AND FOR ORDERS PERMITTING AND APPROVING ABANDONMENT UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 157 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
0
2. Amend Sec. 157.202 by adding paragraph (e).
* * * * *
(e) If any provision of this subpart, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder
of this subpart and the application of such provision to other persons
or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
0
3. Amend Sec. 157.202 by adding paragraph (b)(14)
Sec. 157.202 Definitions
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(14) Receipt Point means a tap and/or metering and appurtenant
facilities such as heaters, minor gas conditioning, treatment,
odorization, and similar equipment, necessary to enable the certificate
holder to receive gas from any party.
0
4. Amend Sec. 157.203 by:
0
a. revising paragraph (b) to include a reference to Sec. 157.212;
0
b. revising paragraph (c) to remove a reference to Sec. 157.212:
0
c. revising paragraph (d)(1); and
0
d. revising paragraph (d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 157.203 Blanket Certificates.
* * * * *
(b) Automatic authorization. A blanket certificate issued pursuant
to this subpart authorizes the certificate holder to engage in
transactions described in Sec. 157.208(a), Sec. 157.209(a), Sec.
157.211(a)(1), Sec. 157.212, Sec. 157.213(a), Sec. 157.215, Sec.
157.216(a), or Sec. 157.218 without further Commission approval.
(c) Prior notice required. A blanket certificate issued pursuant to
this subpart authorizes the certificate holder to engage in activities
described in Sec. 157.208(b), Sec. 157.210, Sec. 157.211(a)(2),
Sec. 157.213(b), Sec. 157.214, or Sec. 157.216(b),
[[Page 31389]]
if the requirements of Sec. 157.205 have been fulfilled.
(d) Landowner notification. (1) Except as identified in paragraph
(d)(3) of this section, no activity described in paragraph (b) of this
section is authorized unless the company notifies all affected
landowners, as defined in Sec. 157.6(d)(2), by certified or first
class mail at least 45 days prior to commencing construction or at the
time it initiates easement negotiations, whichever is earlier. A
landowner may waive the 45-day prior notice requirement in writing as
long as the notice has been provided. For activity required to restore
service in an emergency, the 45-day prior notice period is satisfied in
the event a company obtains all necessary easements. The notification
shall include at least:
* * * * *
(2) For activities described in paragraph (c) of this section, the
company shall notify all affected landowners, as defined in Sec.
157.6(d)(2), by certified or first class mail within at least three
business days following the date that a docket number is assigned to
the application and at the time it initiates easement negotiations. The
notice should include at least:
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 157.204(b) by removing cross reference to Sec. 1.32.
Sec. 157.204 Application procedure.
* * * * *
(b) Hearing procedure. Upon receiving an application for a blanket
certificate under this subpart, the Commission will conduct a hearing
pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Sec. 157.11 of
this chapter.
0
6. Amend Sec. 157.205 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) to remove reference to Sec. 157.212;
0
b. Revising paragraph (f);
0
c. Revising paragraph (g).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 157.205 Notice procedure.
(a) Applicability. No activity described in Sec. Sec. 157.208(b),
Sec. 157.210, Sec. 157.211(a)(2), Sec. 157.213(b), 157.214 or
157.216(b), except for activity required to restore service in an
emergency, is authorized by a blanket certificate granted under this
subpart, unless, prior to undertaking such activity:
* * * * *
(f) Effect of protest. If a protest is filed in accordance with
paragraph (e) of this section, then the certificate holder, the person
who filed the protest, any intervenors, and staff may resolve the
protest and file a withdrawal of the protest pursuant to paragraph (g)
of this section prior to the issuance of a Commission order that would
have otherwise been required in the absence of such withdrawal.
Informal settlement conferences may be convened by the Director of the
Office of Energy Projects or his designee. If a protest is not
withdrawn or dismissed pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, the
activity shall not be deemed authorized by the blanket certificate.
Instead, the request filed by the certificate holder shall be treated
as an application for section 7 authorization for the particular
activity. The Federal Register notice of the request shall be deemed to
be notice of the section 7 application sufficient to fulfill the notice
requirement of Sec. Sec. 157.9 and 157.10.
(g) Withdrawal or dismissal of protests. The protestor may withdraw
a protest prior to a Commission order that would have otherwise been
required in the absence of such withdrawal by submitting written notice
of withdrawal to the Secretary of the Commission and serving a copy on
the certificate holder, any intervenors and any other party requesting
service. The withdrawal must state that the certificate holder and the
protestor concur in the withdrawal. Within 10 days of the filing of a
protest, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects will dismiss
that protest if it does not raise a substantive issue and fails to
provide any specific detailed reason or rationale for the objection. If
a protest is dismissed, the notice requirements of this section will
not be fulfilled until the earlier of: (1) a 30 day period following
the deadline determined in paragraph (d) of this section has run; or
the dismissed protesting party notifying the Secretary of the
Commission that its concerns have been resolved
0
7. Amend Sec. 157.206 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(4)
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(6)
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(8)
0
d. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 157.206 Standard Conditions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Any activity authorized under a blanket certificate shall not
have a significant adverse effect on a sensitive environmental area.
* * * * *
(6)(i) Any activity otherwise subject to authorization under Sec.
157.208 shall not be authorized if the activity is located within 0.5
mile of nuclear power reactor facilities which are either operating or
under construction, or for which a construction permit has been filed
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(ii) Any activity otherwise subject to authorization under Sec.
157.215 shall not be authorized if the activity is located within 2.0
miles of nuclear power reactor facilities which are either operating or
under construction, or for which a construction permit has been filed
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
* * * * *
(8) The certificate holder shall act as the Commission's non-
Federal representative upon acceptance of the blanket certificate for
purposes of complying with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966.
* * * * *
(c) Commencement. Any authorized construction, extension, or
acquisition shall be completed and made available for service by the
certificate holder and any authorized operation, or service, shall be
available within two years of the date the activity is authorized
pursuant to Sec. 157.205(h). The certificate holder may apply to the
Director of the Office of Energy Projects for an extension of this
deadline. However, if the request for extension is due to the end-user/
shipper not being ready to accept service, the certificate holder must
so notify the Commission in writing no later than 10 days after
expiration of the two-year period.
0
8. Amend Sec. 157.208 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(5);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(6);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(7);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d);
0
g. Revising Table 1 to PARAGRAPH (d);
0
h. Revising paragraph (e);
0
i. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
The revisions read as follows
Sec. 157.208 Construction, acquisition, operation, replacement, and
miscellaneous rearrangement of facilities.
(a) Automatic authorization. If the project cost does not exceed
the cost limitations set forth in column 1 of table 1 to paragraph (d)
of this section, or if the project is required to restore service in an
emergency, the certificate holder is authorized to: (1) make
miscellaneous rearrangements of any facility; (2) acquire, construct,
replace, or operate any eligible facility; or (3) acquire, construct,
modify, replace, and operate natural gas mainline facilities, including
compression and looping, that are not eligible facilities under Sec.
157.202(b)(2)(i). The certificate holder shall not segment projects in
order to
[[Page 31390]]
meet the cost limitations set forth in column 1 of table 1 to paragraph
(d).
(b) Prior notice. If the project cost is greater than the amount
specified in column 1 of table 1 to paragraph (d) of this section, but
less than the amount specified in column 2 of table 1 to paragraph (d),
the certificate holder is authorized to: (1) make miscellaneous
rearrangements of any facility; (2) acquire, construct, replace, or
operate any eligible facility; or (3) acquire, construct, modify,
replace, and operate natural gas mainline facilities, including
compression and looping, that are not eligible facilities under Sec.
157.202(b)(2)(i). The certificate holder shall not segment projects in
order to meet the cost limitations set forth in column 2 of table 1 to
paragraph (d).
(c) * * *
(5) The exhibits required by Sec. Sec. 157.14(a)(8) through (10).
Receipt and delivery point information must be labeled with a location
point name and code in conformity with the location name and code the
pipeline has adopted in conformance with Sec. 284.13(f) of this
chapter;
(6) The exhibits required by Sec. Sec. 157.14(a)(14) through (19);
(7) A statement explaining how the public convenience and necessity
requires the approval of the project, including a description of the
proposed project's purpose and beneficiaries;
* * * * *
(d) Limits and inflation adjustment. The limits specified in table
1 to this paragraph (d) and table 1 to Sec. 157.215(a)(5) shall be
adjusted each calendar year to reflect the year-over-year (January to
January) average index change of the Handy-Whitman Index for Gas
Compressors and Gas Transmission Line Pipe for all regions for the
previous calendar year. The Director of the Office of Energy Projects
is authorized to compute and publish limits for future calendar years
as a part of table 1 to this paragraph (d) and table 1 to Sec.
157.215(a)(5), pursuant to Sec. 375.308(x)(1) of this chapter.
Table 1 to Paragraph (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit
-------------------------------
Year Auto. proj. Prior notice
cost limit proj. cost
(Col.1) limit (Col. 2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982.................................... $4,200,000 $12,000,000
1983.................................... 4,500,000 12,800,000
1984.................................... 4,700,000 13,300,000
1985.................................... 4,900,000 13,800,000
1986.................................... 5,100,000 14,300,000
1987.................................... 5,200,000 14,700,000
1988.................................... 5,400,000 15,100,000
1989.................................... 5,600,000 15,600,000
1990.................................... 5,800,000 16,000,000
1991.................................... 6,000,000 16,700,000
1992.................................... 6,200,000 17,300,000
1993.................................... 6,400,000 17,700,000
1994.................................... 6,600,000 18,100,000
1995.................................... 6,700,000 18,400,000
1996.................................... 6,900,000 18,800,000
1997.................................... 7,000,000 19,200,000
1998.................................... 7,100,000 19,600,000
1999.................................... 7,200,000 19,800,000
2000.................................... 7,300,000 20,200,000
2001.................................... 7,400,000 20,600,000
2002.................................... 7,500,000 21,000,000
2003.................................... 7,600,000 21,200,000
2004.................................... 7,800,000 21,600,000
2005.................................... 8,000,000 22,000,000
2006.................................... 9,600,000 27,400,000
2007.................................... 9,900,000 28,200,000
2008.................................... 10,200,000 29,000,000
2009.................................... 10,400,000 29,600,000
2010.................................... 10,500,000 29,900,000
2011.................................... 10,600,000 30,200,000
2012.................................... 10,800,000 30,800,000
2013.................................... 11,000,000 31,400,000
2014.................................... 11,200,000 31,900,000
2015.................................... 11,400,000 32,400,000
2016.................................... 11,600,000 32,800,000
2017.................................... 11,800,000 33,200,000
2018.................................... 12,000,000 33,800,000
2019.................................... 12,300,000 34,600,000
2020.................................... 12,500,000 35,200,000
2021.................................... 12,600,000 35,600,000
2022.................................... 13,100,000 37,100,000
2023.................................... 14,000,000 39,700,000
2024.................................... 14,500,000 41,100,000
2026.................................... 30,000,000 86,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Reporting requirements. For each facility completed during the
calendar year pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and Sec. Sec.
157.212 and 157.213(a), the certificate holder shall file in the manner
prescribed in Sec. Sec. 157.6(a) and 385.2011 of this chapter as part
of the required annual report under Sec. 157.207(a) the information
described in paragraphs (e)(1)-(5) of this section. For each facility
completed during the calendar year pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section, and Sec. Sec. 157.210 and 157.213(b), the certificate holder
shall file in the manner prescribed above only the information
described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) The specific purpose, including the project's beneficiaries,
location, and beginning and completion date of construction of the
facilities installed, the date service commenced, and, if applicable, a
statement indicating the extent to which the facilities were jointly
constructed;
0
9. Replace Sec. 157.210 to read as follows:
Sec. 157.210 Facilities at existing compression facilities.
(a) Prior Notice. Subject to the notice requirements of Sec. Sec.
157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to
construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas facilities,
including compression facilities, that would be located within the
fence line of an existing compressor station and would exceed the cost
limitation provided in column 2 of table 1 to Sec. 157.208(d).
(b) Application. Applications for facilities proposed under Sec.
157.210 must include the information required by Sec. 380.12(k)
Resource Report 9--Air and noise quality.
0
10. Replace Sec. 157.212 to read as follows:
Sec. 157.212 Receipt Points.
Automatic Authorization. The certificate holder may acquire,
construct, replace, modify, or operate any receipt point.
0
11. Amend Sec. 157.213 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(9).
The revisions read as follows
Sec. 157.213 Underground storage field facilities.
(a) Automatic authorization. If the project cost does not exceed
the cost limitations provided in column 1 of table 1 to Sec.
157.208(d), the certificate holder may acquire, construct, modify,
replace, and operate facilities for the remediation and maintenance of
an existing underground storage facility, provided the storage
facility's certificated physical parameters--including total inventory,
reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated
capacity remain unchanged--and provided compliance with environmental
and safety provisions is not affected. The certificate holder must not
segment projects in order to meet this cost limitation.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) A detailed assessment, including data and work papers, to
support the need for additional facilities (wells, gathering lines,
headers, compression, dehydration, or other appurtenant facilities) for
the modification of working gas/cushion gas ratio and/or to improve the
capability of the storage field.
0
12. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 157.214 to add paragraph (6):
[[Page 31391]]
Sec. 157.214 Increase in storage capacity.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The information required by Sec. Sec. 157.213(c).
0
13. In Sec. 157.215(a)(5), revise table 1 to PARAGRAPH (a)(5) to read
as follows:
Sec. 157.215 Underground storage testing and development.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982.................................................... $2,700,000
1983.................................................... 2,900,000
1984.................................................... 3,000,000
1985.................................................... 3,100,000
1986.................................................... 3,200,000
1987.................................................... 3,300,000
1988.................................................... 3,400,000
1989.................................................... 3,500,000
1990.................................................... 3,600,000
1991.................................................... 3,800,000
1992.................................................... 3,900,000
1993.................................................... 4,000,000
1994.................................................... 4,100,000
1995.................................................... 4,200,000
1996.................................................... 4,300,000
1997.................................................... 4,400,000
1998.................................................... 4,500,000
1999.................................................... 4,550,000
2000.................................................... 4,650,000
2001.................................................... 4,750,000
2002.................................................... 4,850,000
2003.................................................... 4,900,000
2004.................................................... 5,000,000
2005.................................................... 5,100,000
2006.................................................... 5,250,000
2007.................................................... 5,400,000
2008.................................................... 5,550,000
2009.................................................... 5,600,000
2010.................................................... 5,700,000
2011.................................................... 5,750,000
2012.................................................... 5,850,000
2013.................................................... 6,000,000
2014.................................................... 6,100,000
2015.................................................... 6,200,000
2016.................................................... 6,300,000
2017.................................................... 6,400,000
2018.................................................... 6,500,000
2019.................................................... 6,600,000
2020.................................................... 6,700,000
2021.................................................... 6,800,000
2022.................................................... 7,100,000
2023.................................................... 7,600,000
2024.................................................... 7,900,000
2026.................................................... 17,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
14. Amend Sec. 157.216 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), and (a)(1)(ii);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 157.216 Abandonment.
(a) * * *
(1) A receipt or delivery point, or related supply or delivery
lateral, provided:
(i) the facility has not been used to provide interruptible or firm
transportation service during the one year period prior to the
effective date of the proposed abandonment, and the point is not
covered under a firm contract; or
(ii) the certificate holder obtains the written consent of each
customer served using the facility during the past 12 months; or
(2) * * *
(ii) A replacement facility that was or could have been constructed
under Sec. 2.55(b) of this chapter, provided the cost to abandon the
facilities would not exceed the cost limit in Sec. 157.208(d) for
activities under the automatic provisions and the certificate holder
obtains the written consent of each customer served using the facility
during the past 12 months;
(iii) Any other facility that did or could now qualify for
automatic authorization as described in Sec. 157.203(b), provided the
cost to abandon the facilities would not exceed the cost limit in Sec.
157.208(d) for activities under the automatic provisions and the
certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served
using the facility during the past 12 months.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) A replacement facility that was or could have been constructed
under Sec. 2.55(b) of this chapter, provided the cost to abandon the
facilities would not exceed the cost limit in Sec. 157.208(d) for
activities under the prior notice provisions and the certificate holder
obtains the written consent of each customer served using the facility
during the past 12 months;
(iii) Any other facility that did or could now qualify for prior
notice authorization as described in Sec. 157.203(c), provided the
cost to abandon the facilities would not exceed the cost limit in Sec.
157.208(d) for activities under the prior notice provisions and the
certificate holder obtains the written consent of each customer served
using the facility during the past 12 months.
0
15. Amend Appendix I to Subpart F of Part 157 by:
0
a. Adding a new paragraph (1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5),
respectively.
The revisions read as follows:
Appendix I to Subpart F of Part 157--Procedures for Compliance With the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 Under Sec. 157.206(b)(3)(i)
* * * * *
1. The certificate holder shall determine whether the project
may affect listed species or critical habitat using appropriate
federal databases such as the FWS Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) website. If the certificate holder determines
that no listed species or its critical habitat occur in the project
area or that the project will have no effect on listed species or
critical habitat, the certificate holder shall be deemed in
compliance with Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(vi) of the Commission's
regulations so long as it documents its finding.
2. If the project may affect listed species or critical habitat,
the certificate holder shall contact the appropriate regional office
of either the FWS or the NMFS (or both the FWS and the NMFS, if
appropriate) as determined pursuant to 50 CFR 402.01 for the purpose
of initiating informal consultations.
3. The certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(vi) of the Commission's regulations if the
consulted agency (either the FWS or NMFS, or both if appropriate)
initially determines, pursuant to the informal consultations, that
no species proposed to be listed under 16 U.S.C. 1533 or its
critical habitat occur in the project area.
4. If the consulted agency, pursuant to the informal
consultations, initially determines that any species proposed to be
listed under 16 U.S.C. 1533 or its critical habitat occur in the
project area, then the certificate holder shall confer with the
consulted agency on how potential impact can be avoided or reduced.
Upon completion of the conference and the implementation of any
mitigating measures the certificate holder elects to implement, and
compliance with paragraph 4 of this Appendix, if applicable, the
certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with Sec.
157.206(b)(2)(vi) of the Commission's regulations.
5.(a) If the consulted agency initially determines, pursuant to
the informal consultations, that a listed species or its critical
habitat may occur in the project area, then the certificate holder
shall continue informal consultation with the consulted agency to
determine if the proposed project may affect such species or
habitat. Continued informal consultations may include discussions
with experts (including experts provided by the consulted agency),
field surveys, biological assessments, and formulation of mitigation
measures.
(b) The certificate holder shall be deemed in compliance with
Sec. 157.206(b)(2)(vi) of the Commission's regulations if the
consulted agency agrees with the certificate holder's determination
resulting from the continued informal consultations, that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect a listed species
or critical habitat, or that no further consultation is necessary.
(c) If the consulted agency does not agree with such
determination by the certificate holder, or if the certificate
holder concludes that the proposed project may affect listed
[[Page 31392]]
species or the critical habitat of such species, then the
certificate holder may not proceed with the proposed project under
the blanket certificate.
0
16. Revise Appendix II to Subpart F of Part 157 to read:
Appendix II to Subpart F of Part 157--Procedures for Compliance With
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Under Sec.
157.206(b)(3)(ii)
The following procedures apply to any certificate holder which
undertakes a project under the authority of a blanket certificate
issued pursuant to subparts E or F of part 157 and to any other
service subject to Sec. 157.206(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations. Pursuant to Sec.
157.206(b)(8) of the Commission's regulations, the certificate
holder shall, upon acceptance of its blanket certificate, be
designated as the Commission's non-Federal representative for
purposes of complying with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966. For the purposes of this appendix, the following definitions
apply:
* * * * *
PART 380--REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT
0
17. The authority citation for part 380 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370h, 7101-7352; E.O. 12009, 3 CFR
1978 Comp., p. 142.
0
18. Amend paragraph (21) of Sec. 380.4 to read:
Sec. 380.4 Projects or actions categorically excluded
* * * * *
(21) Approvals of blanket certificate applications and prior notice
filings under Sec. 157.204 and Sec. Sec. 157.209 and 157.211 through
157.218 of this chapter;
[FR Doc. 2026-10498 Filed 5-26-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 27, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.