[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6588655,"mediaKeyId","5564465-b6045af8129930bffa5f564b504a7530","parentId",5564465,"title","Local groups urge Forsyth County to oppose Transco 'Southeast Supply Enhancement' expansion; Williams defends safety and benefits","audioSeconds",6199,"startMs",949000,"endMs",7148000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5564465-b6045af8129930bffa5f564b504a7530&start=949&end=7148","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5564465-b6045af8129930bffa5f564b504a7530/thumbnail_949000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6588655/Forsyth-County/North-Carolina/Local-groups-urge-Forsyth-County-to-oppose-Transco-Southeast-Supply-Enhancement-expansion-Williams-defends-safety-and-benefits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588655-e843721699e62860e64a526fc103689c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770873711&Signature=WaLK45DRb0RIxKbOcgdbhYi9xfkDkWY8igNjPOL7dsYMDfK6-B6Bv0QRraKtdwFOTsuSBiE6hHCHN2J3kAp68WsZZMF2OC60-XBo739kOn3OF6DYKDjNiEiGs24t6I~iAf12R8jJAiZS15ucx47wCveVKLwjvG9aaAZkORN0PoY7eBBjlpjlQYXB7RpTFeyRtRzVVxZC8RFsWN42VqFWgWdoKRO2uYa9JeQvJSi8Tg9fsHrrEhGjtlSGTczQ8hCOf0wE6TAWXltgini3qwYNi0L29Ot623oVVQq6AFhkqGzRsNSUiPL8pxQ9rGOdzlptBVGbQQ-lL57fDYlsdBDGiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Forsyth County","date","2025-08-12T15:45:42.923Z","article","Environmental and community groups told Forsyth County commissioners on Aug. 11 that the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s (Transco) Southeast Supply Enhancement Project would run through residential neighborhoods and near schools and medical facilities and urged the board to pass a formal resolution opposing the project.

The groups — Caroline Hansley of the Sierra Club and Jessica Mendez Rowe of the Piedmont Environmental Alliance — told the commissioners that the project would add roughly 1,600,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to Transco’s system by installing two new pipeline segments in Virginia and North Carolina. Mendez Rowe said the pipeline “is not going to bring any benefit to our local economy and, in fact, will only bring risks to our health and to our safety.”

Why it matters: The project is undergoing review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and by North Carolina permitting authorities. Local resolutions and public comments filed now and during agency comment periods can be entered in state and federal review documents, presenters said. The Sierra Club and Piedmont Environmental Alliance asked the board to file an opposition resolution in the FERC docket and to submit the county’s concerns in state permitting processes.

Key claims and local impacts
- Speakers said the SSEP design would put a 42‑inch pipeline (described in presentations as roughly the diameter of a hula hoop) in or next to an existing multi‑pipe corridor that already carries high‑pressure natural gas across Forsyth County. Caroline Hansley told commissioners that roughly 93% of the added capacity would go to three large customers for commercial power generation, and that Transco’s application estimates the project cost at about $1.5 billion (2024 dollars). Hansley also noted FERC’s plan to prepare an environmental assessment rather than a full environmental impact statement.
- Presenters displayed a map showing the proposed route passing near Novant Health’s Kernersville Medical Center and a VA clinic, and said the corridor crosses or runs near multiple school properties including Caleb Creek Elementary, Union Cross Elementary, Southeast Middle School, Robert B. Glenn High School and the North Carolina Leadership Academy (public charter). Speakers raised concern about potential effects on emergency response plans and air quality near compressor stations already in the corridor.

Regulatory timeline and public input
- Hansley said FERC had announced plans for a draft environmental assessment and a 30‑day public comment period on a draft (presentation said the period would end Dec. 7). She also said the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) opened a public comment period for state water quality permits for the project and scheduled a public hearing in Kernersville on Sept. 4; DEQ’s public comment period was described as closing Oct. 6.
- Presenters told commissioners that more than 7,000 public comments and more than 100 nonprofit organizations had submitted comments to date, and that Guilford County had passed a resolution in June asking FERC to incorporate local emergency‑management information into planning.

Safety, cumulative‑risk and data‑center demand concerns
- Speakers emphasized what they called gaps in federal calculations for cumulative risk where multiple high‑pressure pipelines share a corridor. Hansley said the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) lacks a methodology to compute a blast or impact radius for closely co‑located pipelines and that aging pipe already in the corridor increases potential risk. She cited press reporting and filings by Pipeline Safety Trust and others documenting incidents elsewhere and urged a more thorough environmental review.
- The presenters also raised concerns that new gas capacity is being driven by projected growth in electricity demand from data centers, and that developers sometimes request multiple service commitments before projects are built. They said local ratepayers could bear costs if utilities expand gas infrastructure to serve commercial customers.

Williams Companies presentation and response
- Mike Achey, a Williams Companies representative, briefed the board later in the meeting and described Williams as the operator of the Transco system and said the company moves about one‑third of the nation’s natural gas. Achey said the SSEP would add capacity by installing pipeline “loops” (additional pipeline in existing corridors) and by modifying existing compressor stations and described the project footprint in North Carolina as about 28.4 miles of looping and compressor modifications in several counties.
- Williams told the board the project is designed to minimize environmental impacts by using existing corridors and that the company conducts routine integrity activity across its system including inline inspection runs, hydrostatic testing, aerial and ground patrols, cathodic‑protection monitoring and 24‑hour control‑center monitoring. Achey said Williams holds regular engagement with local first responders, including earlier “first responder dinner/training” sessions, and that the company intends additional outreach before construction and during operations.
- On safety history, Williams acknowledged incidents reported elsewhere in its system over many years and said the company reviews and learns from incidents, and that it has not had notable safety events in the local footprint during Achey’s 15‑year tenure.

Local concern about outreach and advocacy communications
- Commissioners and staff said they had received large volumes of nearly identical pro‑project messages routed through a third‑party advocacy platform; commissioners asked Williams how those messages were gathered. Achey said groups supporting energy infrastructure had been asked to contact elected officials and that Williams had asked those outreach groups to stop sending repetitive messages after commissioners raised concerns.

What the presenters asked the county to do
- The Sierra Club and Piedmont Environmental Alliance asked the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners to adopt a resolution opposing SSEP and to file that resolution with FERC and state permitting processes so county concerns will be in the administrative record. Williams asked the county to forward any local emergency‑management needs it wants considered and reiterated the company’s statement that FERC is the lead federal agency for the project and that public participation can also occur via the FERC docket (CP25‑10) and the state permit comment processes.

What commissioners discussed
- Commissioners asked about the company’s incident history and about how FERC’s environmental assessment process differs from an environmental impact statement. Presenters said FERC is leading the federal review and that state permits (DEQ) address water‑quality permitting under the Clean Water Act. No county resolution or formal action on the project was taken during the Aug. 11 briefing; presenters said the county could file a resolution as part of the public record if it chose to do so.

What to watch next
- DEQ water‑quality permitting hearings in early September and DEQ’s public comment deadline were cited by presenters; FERC’s draft‑assessment period and its docket (CP25‑10) were listed as the principal opportunities to submit formal comments. Presenters advised county officials and residents who want their views entered into the administrative record to file comments with the appropriate agency docket or permitting portal.

Sources: Presentations to the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners briefing session by Caroline Hansley (Sierra Club), Jessica Mendez Rowe (Piedmont Environmental Alliance) and Mike Achey (Williams Companies); public timeline details as stated in presentations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of County Commissioners Briefing_08-11-25","oneSentenceSummary","Environmental and community groups told Forsyth County commissioners on Aug. 11 that the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s proposed Southeast Supply Enhancement Project would place new high‑pressure pipeline segments next to homes, schools and medical facilities and asked the county to adopt a resolution opposing the project.","taxTitle","Forsyth County, North Carolina","taxId",5013,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588650,"Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools asks county for $8.5 million in reallocation and new funds as officials outline shortfall and Article 46 issues",582,2538000,3120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5564465-b6045af8129930bffa5f564b504a7530&start=2538&end=3120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5564465-b6045af8129930bffa5f564b504a7530/thumbnail_2538000.jpg","/articles/6588650/Forsyth-County/North-Carolina/WinstonSalemForsyth-County-Schools-asks-county-for-85-million-in-reallocation-and-new-funds-as-officials-outline-shortfall-and-Article-46-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588650-7b2a1b46cc0662c0ca4a8c45193bd6db/orig.mp4?Expires=1770873711&Signature=KnWF8IX~jsfVUgyKv~ki2Q439ujZJrkOSTQm2mq9K1~Dv41dzngQvQ2ARTqsum3Y~tyH9jJcw8ZRxFKgdBXJip9HaDzuCNHrjDZp-YtLWFI2dDY-kbh-bdFRjbzdDAYy1I4fC1-KjgdZBhoz9-ulsi-ixbEVuvS8xD2QWanFas2lfBkJMBDJ-uH9T~VTDHv40UaJydUl3gxNTMGO8GYX4sXCS3w2DIL6snWHnksZ2ECAjM36xPIfIo4GL7jA21PHtBE5RrjygL7z0N8MSDpZaOhSTdEq83n~SyBU2Eao3wzdSHVdPTbB18Bk-G9vwKzOpavPjpJwDOIymhZqyaPnxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools interim Superintendent Dr. Caddy Moore told the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 11 that the district will request two budget actions at the board’s Aug. 14 meeting: a $3,800,000 reallocation of unspent capital outlay funds and an additional $4,700,000 in county funding to address the district’s fiscal‑year 2025 budget shortfall.

Why it matters: The district said the combined proposal draws on project savings and other available funds to reduce an operating shortfall that state actions and timing have increased. Commissioners and the district discussed multiple revenue and liability questions, including an outstanding balance owed to the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) and unresolved vendor debts.

Shortfall, state billing and appeal process
- Dr. Moore told commissioners that the district’s estimated shortfall billed by DPI has declined from prior estimates and that the most recent DPI correspondence placed the amount owed at $11.3 million. Moore said DPI will begin charging 1% interest per month on any balance remaining after Sept. 20, and she described a formal appeal path: the district’s board chair can request a hearing before a State Board‑appointed panel, which will recommend action to the full State Board of Education.
- Commissioners asked whether the district had calculated interest owed on specific withheld funds such as approximately $2.0 million in child nutrition payments; Moore said she would provide that detail to the commissioners.

Article 46, local supplements and payroll reporting
- Dr. Moore reviewed the district’s long‑running use of Article 46 funds (state law revenue allocated to local teacher supplements) and the local supplement structure. She said Article 46 funds and the county’s local supplement historically were paid together on paychecks but that the district will separate the Article 46 line from the local supplement on payroll so the sources are visible.
- Moore explained that Article 46 supplements were implemented as a flat amount (initially $200 per month, later $300) and that a temporary increase to $360 in one year was funded from accumulated Article 46 savings but later returned to $300. She said earlier local decisions to use Article 46 to boost pay for veteran teachers produced a subset of higher supplements that do not apply to staff who joined the district later, creating complex payroll and budget administration challenges.
- The superintendent said reconciliation reports on Article 46 usage had been requested previously and not provided; she told commissioners that the district has begun producing the requested reports and will provide them regularly.

Vendor debt and other liabilities
- Commissioners pressed Dr. Moore and staff about vendor debt. The superintendent said the district’s vendor debt totaled about $15.16 million, with roughly one‑third owed to the county and a single substitute‑management vendor accounting for approximately $6.1 million of that total. Moore said two other major vendors are willing to work with the district on repayment terms while substitute‑management debt remains urgent.
- The district asked the county to consider flexible approaches to past indebtedness; commissioners discussed options including offsets against future appropriations and possible forgiveness or phased repayment, but no action was taken at the briefing.

Operational adjustments and personnel impacts
- Moore said staffing reductions already made for the new school year will reduce payroll obligations, but she warned there will still be budgetary pressure and that further adjustments and accountability measures will be needed during the FY2026 process. Commissioners asked the district to track and report on impacts to students and to provide quarterly reconciliation reports to the county (the county budget ordinance requires quarterly reporting).
- Moore also proposed an administrative change to streamline payments for school resource officers and exceptional‑children nurses. She asked the school board to request a formal reduction in the district’s local appropriation so those funds can remain with the county and be paid directly, rather than routing the money through the district and back to county agencies.

What commissioners requested
- Commissioners asked for more detailed reconciliations of Article 46 revenues and expenditures, a clearer explanation of how the teacher supplement columns were applied to different employee groups, and specifics on interest calculations for withheld state funds. The county requested the district provide the reconciliation reports on a schedule consistent with the county budget ordinance (quarterly).

Context and next steps
- Moore said the district will seek the board’s approval of the reallocation and additional funding at the Aug. 14 County Commissioners meeting. She also said the district is pursuing State Board appeals and meetings with the local legislative delegation in September to discuss state‑level remedies.
- Commissioners and district staff indicated more budget detail and monitoring updates will be required in the coming months as FY2026 planning advances.

Sources: Presentation and Q&A with Dr. Caddy Moore, interim superintendent, Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools, at the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners briefing on Aug. 11, 2025.","Interim WS/FCS Superintendent Dr. Caddy Moore told Forsyth County commissioners on Aug. 11 the district will request $3.8 million in capital outlay reallocation plus $4.7 million in additional funding to address a fiscal 2025 budget deficit and ongoing salary supplement issues tied to Article 46 revenue.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Local groups urge Forsyth County to oppose Transco 'Southeast Supply Enhancement' expansion; Williams defends safety and benefits

Winston‑Salem/Forsyth County Schools asks county for $8.5 million in reallocation and new funds as officials outline shortfall and Article 46 issues