Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Docket Nos. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001, & CP15-555-000
Response to Data Request
Dated November 23, 2016
Question Number:
1
Question Subpart: a-b
Question:
1. In comments submitted on September 7, 2016, Mr. Richard Laska alleges that the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline (“ACP”) project is over-built. Mr. Laska draws this conclusion
based on three sources (US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency and
papers from two websites (www.NaturalGas.org and www.hindawi.com)) which provide
a typical range between compressor stations of between 40 to 100 miles apart. As a
result of this information, Mr. Laska concludes that the ACP Project has been over-built
because the distance between the two proposed compressor stations is in excess of 200
miles.
a. Respond to Mr. Laska’s allegations regarding the distance between the compressor
stations on the ACP Project by discussing how the pipeline hydraulics dictated the
location and distance of the compression facilities. As part of the response confirm
that the ACP Project has taken into account the changes in elevation along the
pipeline route.
b. Discuss the information from the websites, quoted by Mr. Laska.
Response:
Subpart a
Mr. Laska cites generic assertions regarding where compression is “usually situated” for a
natural gas pipeline. And as noted in Mr. Laska’s comments, compression “siting is dependent
on terrain,” as well as other relevant factors. The case-specific pipeline hydraulics, along with
the location of its receipt and delivery points, dictate the appropriate location of compression
facilities for ACP. These locations were chosen in order to minimize the total number of
greenfield compressor stations that would be needed for the Project. The ACP Project design
requires three compressor stations: one near the beginning of the pipeline (Marts), the second
approximately 215 miles past the first station (Buckingham), and the third approximately 110
miles past the second station (Northampton).
The Marts Compressor Station was placed near the beginning of the pipeline, in order to
compress the lower pressure gas received from Dominion Transmission, Inc. up to the higher
operating pressure in ACP.
The Buckingham Compressor Station is needed to relay the gas along ACP and to be able to
receive gas from the existing Transco pipeline. The Buckingham station location is where ACP
intersects with the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line (Transco), which is a large receipt location for
the ACP customers. Up to 885,000 dekatherms per day (MDt/d) can be received from Transco.
Transco’s pipeline pressure is lower than the proposed ACP line pressure; therefore, any volume
received from Transco requires compression to enter the ACP pipeline. Because compression is
needed at this location for the Transco gas, this location was chosen as the best site for the relay
compression as well. If another location had been chosen for relay compression, an additional
compressor station site would have been required.
The Northampton Compressor Station location was selected because compression is needed to
pump the gas in two directions from this point: east on AP-3 to Chesapeake (Virginia) and west
on AP-2 to Pembroke (North Carolina). This station has a common suction and a split discharge,
which reduces the amount of compression needed during non-peak days. If this compressor
station had been proposed for further north, there would be a single discharge into the remainder
of the AP-1 main line downstream. If the station had been proposed for further downstream,
then two stations (one on AP-2 and one on AP-3) would have been required instead of one.
Atlantic confirms that elevation was taken into account, along the length of the route, as part of
the hydraulic flow studies and design in support of the Project.
Subpart b
The websites and papers that Mr. Laska refers to include generic statements about typical
distances between compressor stations. However, the design of a particular project is very factspecific, and will vary from these general guidelines. The distance between the proposed Marts
and Buckingham Compressor Stations results from analysis of the considerations described in
the above response to 1.a. The appropriate location of these and the third compression facility
for ACP has been determined by a variety of factors, including not only the distance between
stations, but also the overall drop in elevation relevant to this project, the chosen pipeline
diameter, and relative pressure requirements at specific ACP receipt and delivery points.
Response Provided By:
Daniel Diefenbach
Manager Facility Planning & Product Development
804-771-4478
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Docket Nos. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001, & CP15-555-000
Response to Data Request
Dated November 23, 2016
Question Number:
2
Question Subpart: a-c
Question:
2. Provide the following information for both the total 599.7 mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline as
well as the 95.7 mile George Washington National Forest (GWNF) 6 alternative route:
a.
The number of land parcels and acres making up the permanent and temporary
right-of-way necessary for the construction and operation of the pipeline.
b.
The number and percentage of the land parcels and acres in Question 1(a) that are
within or collocated with existing rights-of-way.
c.
The number and percentage of the land parcels and acres in Question 1(a) for
which ACP has easements.
Response:
Subparts a and b
Land parcels crossed by the pipeline facilities along the ACP and GWNF 6 alternative route (i.e.,
the currently proposed route) are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively.
Table 2-1
Land Parcels Crossed by the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
Total
Collocation
Number of
Land Parcels
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Operations
Impacts
(acres)
Number of
Land Parcels
AP-1
1,356
5,528.1
2,910.1
AP-2
940
2,596.0
1,125.6
AP-3
436
882.8
AP-4
1
3.9
AP-5
2
2,735
Facility
Project Total
Percent of
Total
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Operations
Impacts
(acres)
109
8
374.9
208.4
139
15
310.4
148.4
506.0
246
56
297.0
181.1
2.4
0
0
0.0
0.0
12.1
5.7
0
0
0.0
0.0
9,022.9
4,549.8
494
18
982.2
537.9
Table 2-2
Land Parcels Crossed by the GWNF 6 Alternative Route
Total
Facility
Number of
Land Parcels
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
(acres)
GWNF 6 Alt
254
1,601.9
Collocation
Permanent
Operations
Impacts (acres)
Number of
Land Parcels
847.7
8
Percent of
Total
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Operations
Impacts
(acres)
3
85.5
45.7
Subpart c
The response to this part of the question contains Privileged information and is filed under a
separate cover.
Response Provided By:
Leighton McCoy
Director Engineering Services
804-775-5537
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Docket Nos. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001, & CP15-555-000
Response to Data Request
Dated November 23, 2016
Question Number:
3
Question Subpart: N/A
Question:
3. ACP states on page 7 of its application that the ACP will transport natural gas to electric
generation and local distribution companies (LDCs) in Virginia and North Carolina.
ACP further states that these entities will use the gas to support existing and proposed
power generation facilities. On page 6 of its application, ACP states that approximately
79.2 percent of the natural gas transported by ACP would be used as fuel to generate
electricity. Identify the existing and proposed power generation facilities that would be
served by the ACP. Further, identify whether each facility is existing or proposed, and
the anticipated in service date if the facility is proposed.
Response:
As stated in our Application, the Project originated from the response to the Duke Energy and
Piedmont solicitation for incremental firm gas transportation service into North Carolina and
Virginia Power Services Energy Corp., Inc. (VPSE’s) request for proposals for firm natural gas
transportation service to serve gas-fired power generation in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In
addition to serving the Power Generation market in Virginia and North Carolina, ACP was able
to also address the needs of Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) in the same markets. Below
is a breakdown of usage based on each shipper’s contracted capacity and the portion of the
capacity expected to support power generation. LDC utilization projections are based on historic
throughput. PSNC did not have a Power Generation allocation.
ACP Capacity Distribution
Power Generation
Dominion Virginia Power
Duke Energy Carolinas
Duke Energy Progress
100%
100%
100%
Capacity
300.00
272.25
452.75
1,025.00
PSNC
Residential
Commercial
Industrial & Other
91.5%
8.2%
0.3%
100%
Capacity
91.50
8.20
0.30
100.00
Source: SCANA Analyst Day 2014 pg.
110
Piedmont
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Power Gen
Other
Source: January 2015 Investor Update pg. 5
15%
11%
23%
49%
2%
100%
Capacity
24.00
17.60
36.80
78.40
3.20
160.00
VNG
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Power Gen
20%
17%
14%
49%
100%
Capacity
30.69
26.66
21.55
75.95
155.00
Source: 2014 throughput provided by K Yagelski e-mailed 7/29/15 8:56 AM
Capacity for Electric Generation
1,179.35
79%
Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) views ACP as an important factor to the reliable delivery of
gas to its generation fleet from an overall portfolio perspective. That is, ACP will be directly
connected to the two largest combined cycle units (over 2,900MW combined) in the DVP’s
generation portfolio, and could also be utilized to source supply on transportation contracts that
DVP maintains with other pipelines. For example, ACP will interconnect with TCO and
Transco, which should allow gas to flow to numerous generation facilities within DVP’s fleet.
In addition, VNG is planning to interconnect with ACP on the southern end of their system at
Chesapeake, allowing additional sourcing flexibility for the delivery of gas to DVP operated
generation along the VNG/JUP pipeline. A list of existing or proposed DVP generation facilities
that ACP could serve is provided below.









Warren County (CC) – existing
Brunswick (CC) – existing
Greensville (CC) – currently under
construction, expected in-service
date December 2018 (this unit was
“proposed” at the time of the ACP
FERC filing)
Bear Garden (CC) – existing
Bremo (other) – existing
Remington (CT) – existing
Possum Point (CC) – existing
Bellemeade (CC) – existing
Gordonsville (CC) – existing







Chesterfield (CC) – existing
Rosemary (CC) – existing
Gravel Neck (CT) – existing
Elizabeth River (CT) – existing
Yorktown (other) – existing unit,
availability dependent on VNG’s
proposed expansion
Darbytown (CT) – existing unit,
availability dependent on VNG’s
proposed expansion
Ladysmith (CT) - existing unit,
availability dependent on VNG’s
proposed expansion
Duke Energy will utilize ACP transportation service to meet portions of its existing and future
power generation facilities. With respect to existing facilities, the ACP transportation service,
through interconnects with Piedmont Natural Gas, will provide a needed and alternative fuel
source for the following existing Duke Energy Progress (DEP) facilities:



H.F. Lee Energy Complex, located in Goldsboro, NC totaling approximately 1,047
MW/910 MW (winter/summer) (Combined cycle)
Wayne County Station, located in Goldsboro, NC totaling approximately 959 MW/ 863
MW (winter/summer) (5 combustion turbines)
Sutton Energy Complex, located in Wilmington, NC totaling approximately 717 MW/622
MW (winter/summer) (Combined cycle)

Smith Energy Complex, located in Hamlet, NC totaling approximately 1,227 MW/1,088
MW (winter/summer) (Combined cycle) and approximately 916 MW/780 MW
(winter/summer) (5 Combustion turbines)
In addition, DEP will complete an approximately 100 MW/84 MW (winter/summer) Sutton fast
start/black start CT in 2017 that will be able to utilize the transportation service from ACP.
With respect to proposed power generation facilities, DEP and Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC)
each prepare a long range planning document called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which is
provided by each utility to both the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the Public Service
Commission of South Carolina, and which details the generation needed for each utility to meet
the forecasted electricity requirements for its customers over the next 15 years. The 2016 IRP’s
are the most recent projection of how each utility’s energy portfolio will look over the next 15
years, based on current data assumptions.
The 2016 IRPs identify the need for additional natural gas resources that are economic, highly
efficient and reliable. The planning documents outline the following information relative to new
natural gas resources. The locations of these proposed facilities have not been finalized,
however, both DEC and DEP are evaluating siting locations that would provide access to ACP.
Quantities of natural gas delivered on ACP would be available as a potential fuel source for these
needed new electric gas generation assets.
DEC:
• Plan for a DEC 1,221 MW/1,123 MW (winter/summer) natural gas combined cycle in 2023.
• Plan for DEC 468 MW/435 MW (winter/summer) of combustion turbine resources in 2025.
DEP:
• Plan for a 1,221 MW/1,123 MW (winter/summer) natural gas CC in 2022.
• Plan for a potential 186 MW/161 MW (winter/summer) CT in late 2023.
• Plan for 468 MW/435 MW (winter/summer) of CT capacity in 2023.
• Plan for 468 MW/435 MW (winter/summer) of CT capacity in 2026.
• Plan for 468 MW/435 MW (winter/summer) of CT capacity in each year from 2028 to
2030.
• Plan for 936 MW/870 MW (winter/summer) of CT capacity in 2031.
With the existing and proposed gas generation growth in North Carolina, the transportation
service from ACP is critical to the growing gas generation needs of DEP and DEC.
Response Provided By:
Lyle Henry
Gas Business Development Manager
804-771-4734
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Docket Nos. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001, & CP15-555-000
Response to Data Request
Dated November 23, 2016
Question Number:
4
Question Subpart: N/A
Question:
4. State whether or not LDCs in West Virginia and Western Virginia sought service from
the ACP prior to, or after ACP’s open season. Further, provide all correspondence
between ACP and LDCs in West Virginia and Western Virginia regarding providing
service in those areas.
Response:
Atlantic conducted a non-binding open season (4/16/14 – 5/9/14), and a binding open season
(10/21/14 – 11/10/14) for firm transportation services. LDCs in West Virginia and Western
Virginia did not express interest in capacity during either Open Season. There has not been any
correspondence between ACP and any LDC in West Virginia and Western Virginia, with regard
to securing ACP capacity to serve their franchise areas.
Response Provided By:
Lyle Henry
Gas Business Development Manager
804-771-4734
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC and Dominion Transmission, Inc.
Docket Nos. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-001, & CP15-555-000
Response to Data Request
Dated November 23, 2016
Question Number:
5
Question Subpart: a-c
Question:
5. Provide the following information for both the total 37.5 mile Supply Header pipeline:
a.
The number of land parcels and acres making up the permanent and temporary
right-of-way necessary for the construction and operation of the pipeline.
b.
The number and percentage of the land parcels and acres in Question 1(a) that are
within or collocated with existing rights-of-way.
c.
The number and percentage of the land parcels and acres in Question 1(a) for
which DTI has easements.
Response:
Subparts a and b
Land parcels crossed by the pipeline facilities along the SHP are summarized in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Land Parcels Crossed by the Supply Header Project
Total
Collocation
Number of
Land Parcels
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Operations
Impacts
(acres)
Number of
Land Parcels
TL-635
197
460.7
197.2
TL-636
33
53.2
23.3
Project Total
230
513.9
220.5
Facility
Percent of
Total
Temporary
Construction
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Operations
Impacts
(acres)
59
30
113.4
46.6
32
97
50.3
21.8
91
40
163.7
68.4
Subpart c
The response to this part of the question contains Privileged information and is filed under a
separate cover.
Response Provided By:
Leighton McCoy
Director Engineering Services
804-775-5537