Overview
Title
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project
Agencies
ELI5 AI
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. wants to build a new station in Oklahoma to help send more gas to Kansas and Missouri. The government will check how this might affect the environment, and people can share their thoughts and ask questions about it.
Summary AI
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. has applied to construct and operate new facilities, called the Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project, in Oklahoma to increase natural gas delivery to Kansas and Missouri. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plans to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the project and set a review schedule, with the EA expected by July 31, 2025, and a federal authorization decision by October 29, 2025. The project will include a turbine compressor unit, associated piping, and other facilities. Public engagement and comment opportunities are available, with support from FERC's Office of Public Participation.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Document
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has announced plans to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project proposed by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. This project aims to enhance the delivery capacity of natural gas to Kansas and Missouri from facilities located in Osage County, Oklahoma. Key components of the project include a 6,091-horsepower turbine compressor unit and associated infrastructure. FERC outlines a timeline, with the EA anticipated by July 31, 2025, and a federal authorization decision by October 29, 2025.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A few issues arise from the document's content. Firstly, the absence of financial details makes it challenging to evaluate the project's cost-effectiveness and potential for taxpayer-dollar misuse. Another concern is the lack of transparency around who benefits from the project, as the document does not specify if particular organizations or communities stand to gain.
Environmental concerns were raised by the Paul Wayne Kelly Revocable Trust, particularly about erosion, species protection, land use, and air quality. However, the document only assures that these issues will be covered in the EA without providing specific strategies for mitigation, which may seem vague to those affected.
The document uses technical terminology, such as "dekatherms" and references to federal regulatory codes, that might be inaccessible to laypersons. This could hinder understanding and limit effective public participation. Additionally, the presence of multiple contact points for queries or engagement might lead to confusion for individuals not familiar with the agency's structure.
Impact on the Public Broadly
Broadly, the public may benefit from an increased supply of natural gas, particularly in the states of Kansas and Missouri, potentially leading to lower energy costs or increased energy security. The public is encouraged to partake in the participatory process, thanks to FERC's Office of Public Participation, which supports engagement by guiding individuals such as landowners and communities through the procedural steps necessary for taking part in discussions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For landowners or communities near the proposed project site, there could be direct impacts, both positive and negative. While improvements to local infrastructure and potential economic benefits are a possibility, concerns about environmental disruption, noise, and other localized impacts might be significant. Tribal and environmental groups may have vested interests, particularly concerning environmental impact and preservation of rights or land use.
Efforts by the FERC to encourage a broad range of feedback and consultation may be seen as positive, although the actual effectiveness of such consultations in addressing stakeholders' concerns remains to be assessed until the EA is published.
Issues
• The document does not specify the exact cost or funding sources for the Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project, making it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• Language detailing project-specific benefits to particular organizations or individuals is not present, but could be clarified to ensure transparency on who directly benefits from the project.
• While the document mentions environmental concerns raised by the Paul Wayne Kelly Revocable Trust, it does not elaborate on how these concerns will be addressed beyond stating they will be covered in the Environmental Assessment (EA), which might be perceived as vague.
• The use of technical terms such as 'dekatherms', 'Solar Centaur 50 turbine compressor unit', and referencing specific regulatory codes (e.g., 40 CFR 1501.5(c)(4)) could be difficult for laypersons to understand, potentially limiting public engagement.
• The document references multiple contact points (OPP contact, Office of External Affairs, eSubscription details) which may be confusing for those unfamiliar with the involvement of various offices and services.