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

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.