Federal regulatory agency expedites next steps in Transco pipeline expansion in the Triad

The federal agency that reviews large energy infrastructure projects has opted for the easier of two choices when considering Transco’s Southeast Supply Enhancement Project. 

The action has drawn criticism from environmental advocacy groups who argue the natural gas pipeline expansion poses too big a risk to not be studied in more detail. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, bases much of its project permit analysis on potential effects to the human environment. 

In the case of the massive proposed pipeline expansion running through the heart of the Triad, FERC had two choices: issue a more stringent and detailed environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment, which is more surface-level by design. 

Last week, FERC chose the latter. 

Saving Time

Stan Meiburg, executive director of Wake Forest University’s Center for Environment and Sustainability, explained what that means. 

"The reason why agencies like environmental assessments more than environmental impact statements is they generally take less time," Meiburg said. "An environmental impact statement has a pretty defined and prescribed public participation process where you issue proposals and take comment and you have to, under the statute, address comments that come from agencies and others about a particular project."

While the assessment could lead to a more detailed study, opponents of the pipeline, like Southern Environmental Law Center attorney, Deirdre Dlugoleski, say it could also serve to fast-track the project.

"We knew that this was the outcome Transco wanted but we were all still pretty shocked when we saw that FERC was actually going along with it," Dlugoleski said. 

Inconsistent action

She had a feeling FERC would take the action it did, so last December, the Southern Environmental Law Center, along with 92 other special interest groups, submitted a comment to the federal agency outlining exactly how the pipeline expansion would impact the environment. 

They also included a list of 25 instances in the last three years where FERC issued impact statements for smaller and less environmentally harmful projects.

"This is really the first time I at least have seen them propose an environmental assessment for something this big," Dlugoleski said. "If they were to go forward with this decision, it certainly would be a significant departure from their past practice and I think a strong indicator that the commission intends to do less thorough environmental review of these kinds of  projects in the future."

FERC will share the environmental assessment on Nov. 7 and make a final decision on Feb. 5, 2026. 

The agency did not respond to a request for comment. 

Santiago Ochoa covers healthcare for WFDD in partnership with Report For America. Follow him on X and Instagram: @santi8a98