FR 2021-01871

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has submitted a technical notice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), aiming to decommission three injection/withdrawal wells located in storage fields in Kansas. The proposal estimates a total cost of $150,000, and importantly, it asserts that this endeavor will not disrupt current customer operations or alter the storage fields' parameters. The document also outlines opportunities for public participation, inviting individuals to engage with the project through protests, interventions, and comments within a specified timeframe.

Summary of the Document

This Federal Register notice is an official communication from Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. announcing their intent to abandon certain wells in their Kansas storage fields. The company assures that this move will be financially and operationally contained, having no adverse effects on its current customers. The notice outlines procedures for public engagement and highlights the opportunity for involvement through formal protests, interventions, and comments.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable issue with the document is the lack of a specific deadline date for submitting comments or objections. Instead, it ambiguously references "[Date—60 Days]". This could lead to confusion or missed opportunities for individuals intending to participate in the consultation process. Additionally, there is no detailed breakdown or justification of the $150,000 project cost, leaving room for questions regarding potential misuse of funds.

The document also contains several legal citations and technical jargon which might be challenging for lay readers to comprehend. For instance, terms like "injection/withdrawal wells" and references to storage fields could bewilder individuals unfamiliar with energy infrastructure specifics.

Public Impact

The broader public may view this abandonment proposal positively if it signifies safe and efficient modification of energy infrastructure without affecting service delivery. By opening the process to public participation, the FERC is ensuring transparency and community engagement, although the complex submission procedures might discourage involvement from less experienced or informed members of the public.

Stakeholder Impact

For local stakeholders, particularly residents and businesses in the vicinity of the affected areas, this project might carry specific implications. These include potential changes in local energy operations or environmental impacts, which are not addressed explicitly in the document. On the positive side, the document provides avenues for these stakeholders to voice their concerns or support, thus influencing the project's direction.

For Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, the notice represents a procedural step in maintaining or adapting its infrastructure. The success of this initiative and the public's response could impact the company's operations and reputation. Legal professionals and environmental advocates are likely to scrutinize the document for adherence to regulatory standards and environmental considerations.

In summary, while the notice offers a path for public involvement in a significant infrastructure project, it highlights areas of potential confusion and complexity that could hinder broad public understanding and participation. Effective communication and transparency will be crucial in navigating these challenges.

In examining the financial references within the Federal Register document regarding Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s request under blanket authorization, the financial aspects largely center around the estimated cost of a proposed project.

The document mentions that Southern Star estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $150,000. This figure represents the anticipated expenses associated with the abandonment of three injection/withdrawal wells, two located at the South Welda Storage Field in Anderson County, Kansas, and one at the Piqua Storage Field in Allen County, Kansas.

The mention of $150,000 provides a clear indication of the project's budgetary scope, yet the document fails to offer a detailed breakdown of how this sum will be allocated. For stakeholders or interested parties, this lack of detailed financial transparency could generate concerns. Without a comprehensive breakdown, questions about how effectively the money will be spent, potential areas for cost savings, or the necessity of the expenditure may arise.

Moreover, the document suggests that the proposed abandonment of these wells will not impact existing customers or affect the certificated parameters of the facilities. While this indicates that the expenditure is not expected to alter service delivery or result in additional costs for users, the financial implications for Southern Star—and possibly its investors or stakeholders—remain somewhat opaque due to the absence of detailed financial explanations.

In relation to the issues identified, the document's use of a placeholder for the deadline ([Date—60 Days]) fails to provide a concrete timeline for when comments or interventions should be submitted. This lack of specificity might cause delays or confusion in the budgeting and allocation of the $150,000, especially if the project's timeline is affected. Additionally, the absence of a detailed cost breakdown in the document could be seen as a missed opportunity for demonstrating fiscal responsibility and transparency to those who may question Southern Star's accountability in handling the estimated project costs.

Last, the document contains many legal and procedural references, which may be difficult for laypersons to navigate without substantial familiarity with such processes. This complexity might also contribute to misunderstandings about how financial allocations are managed and scrutinized within the regulatory framework.