Opportunity
Federal Register #2026-19983
FERC environmental review of the proposed Sabine Pass Stage 5 LNG and pipeline expansion
Posted
September 30, 2026
Identifier
2026-19983
FERC issued a final environmental impact statement for the proposed Sabine Pass Stage 5 Expansion Project; this notice is an environmental review, not a procurement solicitation. - Government buyer and reviewing agency: U.S. Department of Energy — Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). - Project applicants named: Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; Sabine Pass Liquefaction Stage V, LLC; Sabine Crossing Pipeline, LLC; and Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. These are applicants, not identified OEMs or vendors for a procurement. - Proposed facilities include: - Three new liquefaction trains and associated facilities at the Sabine Pass LNG terminal. - A new 55.6-mile, 48-inch natural gas pipeline; four 52,500-horsepower compressor packages at a new station; six meter stations; four pig traps; and three mainline valves. - Two 23,470-horsepower compressor packages at an existing station and one 52,500-horsepower compressor package at a new station. - A new 16-inch meter and flow-control run and filter. - Locations: Cameron and Beauregard Parishes, Louisiana, and Liberty, Chambers, and Jefferson Counties, Texas. - FERC staff concluded that most environmental effects would be limited. Some effects could be long-term or permanent, but effects would be less than significant with proposed and recommended mitigation. - No products or services are being solicited for purchase in the provided notice.
Description
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff issued a final environmental impact statement for the proposed Sabine Pass Stage 5 Expansion Project. The applicants propose to expand the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal with three liquefaction trains and associated facilities, construct and operate a 55.6-mile natural gas pipeline and related facilities, and build or modify compressor and meter stations in Texas and Louisiana. The EIS assesses environmental effects and alternatives, and concludes that most effects would be limited; it is a staff analysis, not a decision document.