What the Mountain Valley Pipeline debacle says about energy permitting reform and ‘just transitions’

There is a new effort underway in the US Senate to accelerate the permitting of energy infrastructure. Senators Joe Manchin (I-WV) and John Barrasso (R-WY), the chair and ranking member of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have proposed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, which contains provisions to increase connectivity for the nation’s electric grid, support the build out of both renewable and fossil energy, and decrease the time allowed for commenting on and challenging energy projects in court. Even though the bill faces significant hurdles, especially from progressives who argue it is too supportive of fossil fuel projects and reduces the power of opponents to stop them, there is also recognition that it provides support for critical infrastructure upgrades necessary to help meet national climate goals. The bill has moved to the full Senate for consideration, and there are indications that it may ultimately have the backing it needs to pass.

However, the history of efforts to fast-track the permitting of energy projects has shown that such “reforms” often reward fossil fuel companies and sideline communities that suffer the severe negative consequences that can accompany poorly planned and regulated energy infrastructure construction.

The recently operationalized Mountain Valley Pipeline—a $7.85 billion gas pipeline that runs for 303 miles from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia—is a prime example of why federal efforts at permitting reform need to focus on making sure that a “just transition” to a low- or no-carbon future actually center justice and renewable energy, rather than the profits of fossil fuel companies.

The long and fast story of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. First proposed in 2014, the Mountain Valley Pipeline was a controversial energy project from the start. Senator Manchin, a vocal advocate for the project, said it would create thousands of jobs, generate millions in tax revenue, and provide millions in royalties to West Virginia landowners, while lowering energy costs regionally and nationally. But many people who live near the pipeline opposed it, concerned that the pipeline would result in lower property values and environmental destruction, decreasing their quality of life and sense of identity and place.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline transports gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations to the mid and south Atlantic regions. Equitrans Midstream, the majority owner of the pipeline, filed a formal application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in October 2015. The goal was to bring the pipeline into service by late 2018. Instead, the pipeline was six years late and more than $4.3 billion over budget.

In 2017, the pipeline received approvals to begin construction from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the Virginia State Water Control Board, the Bureau of Land Management (permitting a right of way through the Jefferson National Forest), and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Construction began in early 2018 but faced delays due to noncompliance with regulations, legal disputes, and technical challenges.

During construction, nearby residents observed numerous environmental impacts, including decreased water quality, increased erosion, new flooding patterns, and the unexplained death of livestock on their properties. Construction also triggered dangerous landslides. In one letter filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2019, Equitrans requested emergency authorization to address a landslide in West Virginia, stating that the slide uprooted trees, had the potential to impact water quality, and had “progressed to the point where a residence directly downslope is unsafe to be occupied.”

According to a recent study that analyzed risk assessment documents for 46 of the largest US gas pipelines, the Mountain Valley Pipeline crosses higher-risk terrain than any other comparable pipeline. The risks posed by the pipeline increased because of construction delays, during which some of the steel pipes sat above ground for years while construction stalled. Such pipes are prone to corrosion, increasing concerns over potential explosions. The pipes are coated with an anti-corrosion polymer, which according to industry guidelines, is not effective if pipes are left exposed to UV radiation for more than six months; many of the pipes destined for the Mountain Valley Pipeline were exposed to the elements for years. This prompted the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to issue a rare safety warning.

After nearly a decade of protest, organization, and legal actions by environmental groups and people living near the proposed pipeline, it received final approval to begin operating in 2023, as part of a deal between President Joe Biden and Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy to suspend the US debt ceiling. The Fiscal Responsibility Act included provisions to fast-track environmental permitting, and specifically approved construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

As the company prepared to bring the pipeline online this spring, a rupture during routine testing raised additional concerns about the infrastructural integrity of the pipeline, but Equitans Midstream argued that this proved the testing was effective. Despite ongoing concerns from the public, FERC authorized the pipeline to go into service on June 11. Now, people living in the blast zone, or the area within 0.21 miles of the pipeline, live with constant fear of an explosion.

Energy winners and losers. West Virginia is central to the current energy transition in part because it has long been at the heart of energy production in the United States, while also bearing the brunt of its consequences. The region has provided energy for the country but has suffered from significant socio-economic challenges, including high poverty rates, declining population, and an opioid epidemic that has ravaged many communities. abundant natural resources.

Like a lot of fossil fuel infrastructure, gas pipelines tend to be concentrated in counties with already high levels of social vulnerability, placing additional burdens on places with already low capacity to deal with them. The Biden-Harris administration has implemented the Justice 40 initiative with the goal that 40 percent of benefits of some federal investments in climate and clean energy flow to disadvantaged communities that have been traditionally marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution. These communities also require legislation that ensures they are protected from the burden of industrial buildout. Without permitting reform that centers justice, we can expect the same communities who have always borne the burden of energy infrastructure to continue to suffer the consequences of new energy infrastructure.

Addressing risks and ensuring safety. While the Energy Permitting Reform Actis billed by Manchin and Barrasso as a “commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation” to speed up permitting for “all types” of energy projects, it also decreases regulation. It excludes some electric grid projects from National Environmental Policy Act review and authorizes FERC to designate a broader range of projects as being of “national interest.” It also aims to speed up the permitting process by providing categorical exclusions to environmental review for low disturbance sites, shortening the timeline to legally challenge projects, and setting deadlines for judicial review, all “without bypassing important protections for our environment and impacted communities.” These dual goals of speed and protection are at odds with one another.

Energy infrastructure inherently poses risks, but these can be minimized through appropriate siting and sufficient regulation, in addition to community engagement. The nation’s extensive gas network includes approximately three million miles of pipelines, connecting production and storage sites and consumers, with many more planned or under construction.

Gas pipelines transport hazardous materials at high pressure, often through landscapes prone to natural hazards like landslides. This is especially true in the Appalachian Mountains, where landslide related explosions have been documented along pipelines that pre-date the Mountain Valley Pipeline, as well as along the pipeline itself during construction. Researchers have found that pipeline projects often duplicate language in their assessment documents, resulting in text about risk that does not correspond to actual and unique risk levels of specific landscapes.

Stronger regulatory oversight would help address some of these safety concerns, but it is not enough. A Politico special report found that nationally, the inspection process is deeply flawed and relies primarily on a network of private inspectors employed by the companies. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has just 200 or so inspectors responsible for monitoring over 3 million miles of pipeline.

Gas pipelines are not the only pipelines being built. The Inflation Reduction Act also contains ambitious plans for carbon capture and storage facilities and related hydrogen hubs, including in Appalachia, meaning more pipeline construction is on the horizon. Some West Virginians are already voicing concerns. As energy infrastructure rapidly expands to support an energy transition and regulatory processes accelerate, more regulation and oversight, rather than less, is needed to ensure that safety is not sacrificed.

Investing in renewables is not enough. The construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline demonstrates the importance of explicit policies to phase out fossil fuels. While renewable energy has been growing, both globally and in the United States, at unprecedented rates, without concurrent efforts to phase out fossil fuels, this additional capacity is expanding overall energy production, rather than replacing fossil fuels. This is why there are growing calls for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, supported by more than 12 nation-states, 112 cities, and 2,500 civil society organizations. The Energy Permitting Reform Act’s expansion of permitting for fossil fuel extraction is a step in the wrong direction for a just energy transition.

The fossil fuel industry has been highly successful in positioning itself as part of the energy transition, a strategy to ensure its continued dominance despite pressures and demand for clean energy. Through the use of narratives and other sophisticated communication strategies, fossil fuel actors continue to keep themselves relevant. One of the most effective strategies has been the use of narratives of gas as a “bridge fuel.” This has been used to justify the Mountain Valley Pipeline. In June, Diana Charletta, president and CEO of Equitant Midstream, said, “Natural gas is an essential fuel for modern life, and, as a critical infrastructure project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline will play an integral role in achieving a lower-carbon future while helping to ensure America’s energy and economic security for decades to come.”

This is a cautionary tale. The rationale for the Mountain Valley Pipeline was to meet gas demand in Southwest Virginia, but there is no documented need for the gas the pipeline is now supplying, and only 38 percent of its capacity is expected to be used in the near term. Right now, there is just one line connecting the gas from the Mountain Valley Pipeline to end-users, the Transco line, and it is almost fully-contracted and operating at full capacity, meaning the Mountain Valley Pipeline currently only causes congestion. It cannot operate at full capacity until a “debottlenecking project,” the Transco Southeast Supply Enhancement expansion, is completed, which is not expected to occur until 2027. In other words, for the Mountain Valley Pipeline to achieve its goals, more fossil fuel infrastructure is needed.

The profitability of fossil fuels is one of the key reasons for their persistence, but the gas landscape has changed significantly since the pipeline was first proposed. Because of lowering demand for gas in the Northeast, it is unclear that prices for the gas flowing through the pipeline will be profitable. As scholars have long cautioned, one of the greatest challenges for energy transitions is the risk of “carbon lock-in” as the building of long-lasting infrastructure justifies the continued use and expansion of fossil fuels.

While the Mountain Valley Pipeline is not providing national energy security, analysts suggest that its value is likely to increase as new liquified natural gas projects are developed, which the Energy Permitting Reform Act promotes. With the expansion of liquified natural gas, or gas that has been cooled to its liquid state for purposes of storage and transport, the fossil fuel industry is no longer limited to a domestic market and has increasingly set its sights globally, becoming the world’s largest gas supplier. This has led to what journalist Amy Westervelt described as a shift in gas “from bridge to destination.” North American liquified natural gas exports are expected to more than double by 2027, creating significant demand for more pipelines to transport the gas to 10 new proposed terminals. The “national security” justification for the pipelines is increasingly tied to international energy systems, illustrating how such pipelines are now intimately linked to energy transitions around the world.

The groundwork for investments in a just transition has been laid, but significant hard work remains to operationalize the vision of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Justice 40 initiative. This will require choosing how quickly, where, and how to build energy infrastructure.

Permitting reform is necessary to meet US climate goals, but building infrastructure quickly cannot come at the expense of justice. Responding to climate change will also require critical decisions about whether some infrastructure should be built at all.

In Appalachia, there are already groups engaged in alternative efforts to promote clean energy, strong economies, healthy environments, and resilient communities in places that have been historically marginalized. Groups such as Coalfield Development, Solar Holler, and Appalachian Voices, just to name a few, offer models for how to do the important work of a just energy transition alongside impacted communities. Locally led efforts, combined with sustained federal investment and appropriate regulatory oversight, will be key to just and clean energy transitions.

Read more: Dustin Mulvaney on what the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 means for America’s public lands.