Sign in Subscribe
United States. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC Responds to Scoping Comments on Kosciusko Junction Pipeline Project

Strategic Insights

— 2 min read

The Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC and its subsidiaries, Boardwalk Pipelines, LP and Texas Gas Transmission, LLC, have submitted a response to scoping comments on the proposed Kosciusko Junction Pipeline Project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The response addresses concerns raised by the Sierra Club regarding the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project, citing a recent Supreme Court decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025), which emphasizes the importance of brevity and detail in EISs. The applicants argue that their review of the project's environmental impacts should be consistent with this decision and avoid an overly cumbersome and time-consuming NEPA review. The response also addresses comments on the need for the project, the purpose and need of the project, and the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC and its subsidiaries have submitted a response to scoping comments on the proposed Kosciusko Junction Pipeline Project.
  • The response addresses concerns raised by the Sierra Club regarding the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project, citing a recent Supreme Court decision, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025).
  • The applicants argue that their review of the project's environmental impacts should be consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in Seven County and avoid an overly cumbersome and time-consuming NEPA review.
  • The response addresses comments on the need for the project, arguing that precedent agreements are sufficient evidence of market need for a pipeline project.
  • The applicants will fully demonstrate the need for the project in the forthcoming certificate application.
  • The Commission's EIS should apply the D.C. Circuit's finding that precedent agreements are important evidence of market need for a pipeline project.
  • The air quality impacts of criteria pollutants from the construction and operation of the project will be addressed in the Applicants' forthcoming Resource Report 9.
  • The use of electric compressors would not meet the purpose and need of the Project, according to the applicants.

Statistics:

  • The proposed Kosciusko Junction Pipeline Project is approximately [length of the pipeline] in length.
  • The project will transport an estimated [amount] of natural gas per day.
  • The project will have a total capital expenditure of approximately $[amount].
  • The project is expected to create [number] of jobs during the construction phase.
  • The project will reduce [amount] of greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation of natural gas.

Sources:

  • Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025)
  • Sierra Club Comments on Kosciusko Junction Pipeline Project (2025)
  • Citizens Action Coalition of Ind. v. FERC (2025)
  • Del. Riverkeeper Network v. FERC (2022)
  • 40 C.F.R. SSSS 1502.16(a), 1501.5(c), 1508.1(g)
  • NAACP v. FPC (1976)
  • City of Grapevine v. Dep't of Transp. (1994)
  • Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Morton (1972)

Read more