The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has prepared a final supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to address the August 6, 2024 opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the commission’s environmental review of the Rio Grande LNG Terminal and Rio Bravo Pipeline Project (Rio Grande LNG Project) proposed by Rio Grande LNG, LLC and Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC.
The court remanded the commission’s April 21, 2023 Order on Remand and Amending Section 7 Certificate that approved the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and pipeline project.
The court found that FERC failed to issue a supplemental EIS consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act to discuss impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns, address why the Commission did not use data from a particular air quality monitor in the air analysis, and address a carbon capture and sequestration proposal. The final supplemental EIS was prepared to assess these issues remanded by the court.
The purpose of the Rio Grande LNG Project is to develop, own, operate, and maintain a natural gas pipeline system to access natural gas from the Agua Dulce Hub and an LNG export facility in South Texas to export 27 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG that provides an additional source of firm, long-term, and competitively priced LNG to the global market. The Rio Grande LNG Terminal Project's purpose also includes providing LNG for truck transport and for fueling operations.
The final supplemental EIS was prepared in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the FERC regulations implementing NEPA under Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 380 (18 CFR pt. 380).
FERC staff conclude that project impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns would be disproportionate and adverse because they would be predominantly borne by the communities with environmental justice concerns identified, and, specifically, communities in the areas near the Rio Grande LNG Terminal may experience significant cumulative visual impacts. Specific to air quality impacts, we clarify that the project’s air quality impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns would also be disproportionate and adverse; however, RG LNG’s air quality analysis demonstrates that air quality impacts near the Rio Grande LNG Terminal would not be significant, with the exception of two discrete areas just north of the LNG terminal where the cumulative model shows an exceedance of the annual PM2.5 SIL, and thus we conclude air quality impacts in those areas would be significant. Specific to the RB Pipeline, the revised air quality dispersion modeling shows that impacts from Compressor Station 1 would not exceed the NAAQS. Therefore, air quality impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns from the operation of Compressor Station 1 would be less than significant. For all other resources, FERC staff continues to conclude that approval of the projects would result in less than significant impacts, with implementation of the environmental conditions set forth in the Commission’s prior authorizations for the project, and the additional mitigation measures recommended in the final supplemental EIS. Furthermore, staff do not recommend the CCS Alternative.
The commission will take into consideration the analysis and conclusions of the final supplemental EIS in its further merits order for the project.
