Overview
Title
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Application and Establishing Intervention Deadline
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. wants to build a new station in Oklahoma to help send more gas to Missouri and Kansas. People have until December 24, 2024, to say what they think about this plan.
Summary AI
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has submitted an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for authorization to undertake the Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project. This project involves the construction and operation of a new compressor station in Osage County, Oklahoma, which will increase the gas delivery capacity to markets in Missouri and Kansas by adding firm capacity of 98,000 dekatherms per day in the Market Area and 35,000 dekatherms per day in the Production Area. Interested parties have until December 24, 2024, to file comments, protests, or motions to intervene in the proceeding, which can be done electronically or by mail. The Commission will conduct an environmental review within 90 days and offers support and information through its Office of Public Participation.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.'s application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a new compressor station project in Osage County, Oklahoma. This project intends to improve gas delivery capacities to certain regions in Missouri and Kansas. Interested parties are invited to participate in the review process by commenting, protesting, or filing a motion to intervene by December 24, 2024.
Summary of the Document
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has proposed a project that involves the construction and management of a new compressor station which will notably increase the capacity for gas delivery in specific areas. The project aims to address demands in growing markets surrounding cities like Springfield and Kansas City. The application's submission is under the Natural Gas Act and requires FERC's authorization following a thorough review process. Public participation is encouraged, offering an opportunity for concerned individuals or organizations to express support or concern.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise regarding this document that are noteworthy:
Transparency on Project Costs: The document outlines the estimated project cost of $48.4 million but lacks detailed oversight or accountability mechanisms to ensure resources are spent efficiently, raising concerns about potential misuse of funds.
Complex Language: The legal and procedural language used in discussing the environmental review might be challenging for the public to fully understand, which could impact transparency and public participation.
Lack of Alternatives: There is no discussion on whether alternative solutions were considered before settling on this project, which might suggest a lack of comprehensive evaluation of other potentially less burdensome options.
Barriers to Participation: Although the document explains how to intervene or comment, these processes assume familiarity with regulatory practices that a layperson may not have. This could hinder meaningful public participation.
Short Deadline for Public Response: The timeline for interventions and comments is relatively limited, which might restrict adequate public engagement and response.
Accessibility Concerns: The contact methods restricted to phone and email could pose accessibility issues, particularly for individuals who may benefit from in-person consultations or public meetings.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
The project could have a wide-ranging impact on energy delivery in targeted regions, potentially improving gas availability in growing markets. However, public understanding and involvement are essential to ensure the project aligns with community and environmental interests.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Communities: Communities in and around Osage County may experience direct impacts, both positively in terms of energy accessibility and economically through potential job creation during the project phase. However, they also may face environmental disruptions or other negative externalities without sufficient oversight and accountability.
Environmental Justice Communities: These groups might have particular concerns about the environmental and health impacts of the new station, necessitating active involvement in the review process to safeguard their interests.
Businesses and Market Entities: Entities in the specified regions may benefit from improved gas delivery, potentially reducing costs and enhancing service reliability.
In conclusion, while the document advocates for essential energy infrastructure expansion, it underscores the need for clear communication, robust oversight, and genuine public engagement to address potential risks and harness opportunities effectively. Community members and stakeholders should invest time in understanding the process and voicing their concerns or support to influence the project's path beneficially.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document provides notice of a significant project proposal by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., involving the construction of a new compressor station. As stated in the document, Southern Star estimates the total cost of the Project to be $48.4 million. This substantial financial commitment underlines the importance of understanding the allocation and oversight of these funds.
Financial Summary
The proposed Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project involves an estimated expenditure of $48.4 million. This amount reflects the costs associated with constructing, installing, operating, and maintaining a new compressor station designed to enhance gas delivery capabilities in the specified market and production areas. The projected capacity enhancements are expected to facilitate increased natural gas movement to expanding markets, underscoring the project's economic significance.
Financial Issues and Concerns
There are several concerns related to this financial reference:
Lack of Oversight and Accountability Details: The document does not provide specific oversight or accountability measures to ensure that the significant investment of $48.4 million is efficiently and effectively managed. This omission raises concerns about potential fiscal mismanagement or wasteful spending. Public confidence in large-scale projects often relies on transparent processes that ensure financial accountability.
Absence of Alternatives: The document does not mention whether alternative solutions were considered before committing to this costly project. Evaluating different approaches could potentially uncover less expensive or impactful options, thereby ensuring that the $48.4 million investment delivers optimal value for money.
Complex Language and Transparency: The use of complex regulatory language regarding the environmental review and project schedule might hinder public understanding and engagement. This complexity could prevent stakeholders from fully grasping how the expenditure of $48.4 million is justified in terms of anticipated benefits or environmental impacts.
Public Participation Barriers: The intricate process for public comments and interventions, which involves understanding Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) procedures, may discourage meaningful public participation. Effective engagement would ideally facilitate broader input on whether the financial commitment of $48.4 million aligns with public and environmental interests.
In summary, while the document clearly identifies a significant financial allocation of $48.4 million for the proposed project, it lacks detail regarding fiscal oversight and public transparency, potentially impacting stakeholder confidence and engagement.
Issues
• The document does not outline any specific oversight or accountability mechanisms regarding the project's estimated cost of $48.4 million, which may raise concerns over potential wasteful spending.
• The language regarding the environmental review and schedule is complex and may be difficult for the general public to understand fully, potentially impacting transparency and public participation.
• There is no mention of alternative solutions considered before deciding on this specific compressor station project, which might indicate a lack of comprehensive evaluation of other potentially less costly or impactful options.
• The process for intervention and comments, although explained, assumes familiarity with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) processes, which could be a barrier to meaningful public participation.
• The deadline for filing interventions and comments is relatively close to the publication date, which might not provide enough time for thorough public engagement and response.
• The contact information for project-related inquiries is limited to phone and email, with no provisions for in-person consultations or public meetings, which might limit accessibility for some stakeholders.
• The footnotes and legal references are numerous and may confuse readers who are not familiar with regulatory or legal terminology, potentially hindering full comprehension of the document.