The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC as it’s known, held an environmental scoping meeting for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) on Tuesday, May 12, at Jackson’s Mill in Lewis County. The vast majority of those who spoke said they don’t want to see the pipeline built.
Harrison County landowner Autumn Long said she’s concerned about several aspects of the project, including potential environmental damage. But she also spoke against the idea that the project might supply West Virginian homes and businesses with gas, as she says has been suggested in a report the pipeline company filed about the project.
Credit Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
/
“MVP officials and FERC officials have repeatedly said that the size and pressure of this pipeline would preclude it from feeding into local transmission lines. So it’s misleading to insinuate that this gas will be available for local consumption,” Long said.
Fifteen people spoke during the meeting. Greg Hefner was the only one who offered support for the pipeline. He spoke on behalf of FirstEnergy and the Harrison County Economic Development Corporation.
“Construction of this project will support thousands of jobs and significant economic activity throughout the region, it will generate a significant amount of tax revenue for local governments to support local schools, roads and other important priorities,” Hefner said.
Gas company EQT and its partners are in the planning phase of the 300 mile, 42-inch diameter natural gas transmission line. The Mountain Valley Pipeline’s proposed route would begin in Wetzel County in West Virginia and end in Pittsylvania County, in Virginia.
FERC must first approve the company’s application to build the pipeline. Tuesday’s meeting was designed to gather information about the potential environmental impacts of the project.
FERC is still accepting written comments.
Submitting Comments
The Mountain Valley’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission docket number is PF15-3. To submit comments about the Mountain Valley Pipeline:
Mail hand-written or typed comments to: Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE, Room 1A Washington, D.C. 20426
West Virginians can have a say about the environmental impact of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline at four public meetings.
EQT and its partners want to build a 42-inch diameter, 330-mile pipeline from Wetzel County in West Virginia to Pittsylvania, Virginia.
The company says the goal is to link the Marcellus and Utica shale fields to markets in the Southeast.
The meetings are part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s review process for the proposed project. If approved, the Mountain Valley Pipeline would require a 125-foot construction easement and a 75-foot permanent right of way.
Four meetings are scheduled for West Virginia:
Monday, May 4, at James Monroe High School in Lindside.
Monday, May 11, at the Robert C. Byrd Center in Pine Grove.
Tuesday, May 12, at Jackson’s Mill outside Weston.
Wednesday, May 13, at Nicholas County High School in Summersville.
All the meetings will start at 7 p.m., with sign-in beginning at 6 p.m for those who wish to speak. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will take written comments until June 16.
Commission spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen says verbal and written comments are given the same weight.
Forest Service OKs Survey
In news related to the project, the U.S. Forest Service recently gave its approval for the pipeline company to survey a section of the Jefferson National Forest in Monroe County. The survey permit doesn’t necessarily mean construction of the pipeline will be allowed, the Forest Service said in a statement.
Submitting Comments
The Mountain Valley’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission docket number is PF15-3. To submit comments about the Mountain Valley Pipeline:
Mail hand-written or typed comments to: Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE, Room 1A Washington, D.C. 20426
Concerns about safety and damage to the environment were pitted against a desire for economic development and energy independence during a meeting at Bridgeport High School earlier this week.
Eighteen people spoke in favor of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline project. Fourteen spoke against it.
Safety was on Tom Bond’s mind. The pipeline’s proposed route is about a mile south of his property in Lewis County.
“What concerns me about this is that local fire departments are not equipped to take care of a hazard like this,” Bond said.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, or ACP, would be 42 inches in diameter, carrying 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day. Bond says pipelines that big are fairly new in the U.S. Because the ACP will operate at up to 1,440 psi while carrying such a large volume of gas, he says the potential for disaster, should there be an explosion, is not being properly considered.
“The blast radius is supposed to be something like 1,100 feet — about a quarter of a mile. That’s what happens if there’s no ignition. If there’s ignition, then the singe radius goes out to about a mile,” Bond said.
Another Lewis County landowner offered a different point of view about safety.
David Layton works in the pipeline industry. He says there are more than 2 million miles of pipelines in the U.S.
“And they have been proven to be the safest, most effective way to transport our energy needs.”
Credit Jesse Wright / West Virginia Public Broadcasting
/
West Virginia Public Broadcasting
Meeting attendees listen to a speaker Tuesday, March 24, at Bridgeport High School.
But Layton went on to say that the infrastructure is aging and needs to be upgraded.
“If these gas companies want to build new and safer pipelines to carry their product, then we should support them,” he said.
Economics
A common theme of the those in favor of the pipeline was its potential positive economic impact. Many said that oil and gas development has allowed more West Virginians to get jobs and stay in the state instead of having to leave after school.
Woody Thrasher started an engineering business in West Virginia 32 years ago.
“On a local level, I can tell you at our company this economic development is real,” he said.
He says his company, the Thrasher Group, hired 200 hundred people in the past five years. He said that wouldn’t have been possible without the oil and gas industry.
“The vast majority of those people are either new graduates from West Virginia University engineering school or Fairmont University engineering school, or they’re people that worked out of state and finally had an opportunity to come back home,” Thrasher said.
Fracking Concerns
Several people who live in the fracking fields of Doddridge County said the jobs and energy security the pipeline would bring aren’t worth the cost. Many worried that if the projects come to fruition, there will be an exponential rise in fracking.
Credit Dominion Resources
/
“We are at risk 24 hours a day every single day of the year for this industry.”
That’s Doddridge County resident Christina Woods. On top of the ACP, Doddridge residents are concerned about another part of Dominion’s plan: The Supply Header Project. It entails building a 36-inch diameter, 39-mile pipeline from Wetzel through Doddridge and Lewis counties to Harrison County.
The goal is to supply the ACP with shale gas from Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
“And now, once again, we are being asked to take on more of their risk. We as West Virginians, we deserve better. We deserve better than to be a sacrificial zone for the profit of the extractive industries,” Woods said.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The ACP and Supply Header projects are still in the the pre-filing stage of development. FERC Environmental Project Manager Kevin Bowman ran the meeting in Bridgeport. He’s in charge of the environmental review process.
He said Tuesday’s meeting was the last chance for people to give verbal comments during the pre-filing stage of the pipeline projects, but written comments will be taken until April 28.
He said once Dominion formally applies to build the lines, there will be more opportunities for people to give their input. According to the company’s own timeline, that will likely happen in late summer.
How to Submit Comments
The Supply Header Project’s docket number is PF15-5.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s docket number is PF15-6.
•Mail hand-written or typed comments to: Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE, Room 1A Washington, D.C. 20426
Members of the public can have their say about a proposed interstate gas pipeline at two meetings next week.
Dominion Resources is exploring a route for the 42-inch, 550-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It would begin in Harrison County and end in North Carolina. The meetings are part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s environmental review process for the pipeline.
A meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, March 23, at Elkins High School. Another is set for 7 p.m. Tuesday, March 24, at Bridgeport High School.
Commission spokeswoman Tamara Young-Allen said the meetings are a way for people to voice their opinions about the project.
“We generally provide 3 to 5 minutes for members of the public to express their concerns about the potential environmental impact of this proposal,” she said.
Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance, together with the Greenbrier River Watershed Association will hold an informational meeting about the Atlantic Coast Pipeline at 1 p.m. Saturday, March 28, at the American Legion building in Buckhannon.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s comment period ends April 28. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s docket number is PF15-6.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent out letters threatening legal action against property owners who refused access to their land for surveying. Groups opposed to the pipeline believe there is no basis for legal action. The issue appears far from black and white.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline, or MVP, is a proposed 42-inch diameter, 330-mile line that would connect hydraulic fracturing operations in West Virginia to a transmission pipeline in Virginia. EQT and NextEra Energy are partnering on the project.
Elise Keaton is with the Greenbrier River Watershed Association, which is opposed to the Mountain Valley Pipeline’s construction. The association held a meeting on Feb. 28 in Ireland, Lewis County, to discuss the pipeline’s impact. About 70 people gathered at the town’s shamrock-themed community center. After the meeting, Keaton said her organization had received calls the previous day from landowners in four counties who had been mailed letters from the pipeline company.
“So what we saw with these letters is a misinterpretation of the facts in our opinion.”
Keaton believes the crux of the issue is West Virginia’s eminent domain law and whether it can be applied during the surveying stage of the pipeline’s development.
“The letters imply that under West Virginia state code section 54-1-1, which is West Virginia’s eminent domain statute, that the gas companies have a right to come on and survey. As we read the statute, that doesn’t come into play until eminent domain is granted.”
Credit Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
/
The proposed route for the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
FERC’s Role
Because the pipeline crosses state boundaries, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is overseeing its development. It’s FERC’s job to determine whether the pipeline’s benefits outweigh its adverse effects. If FERC decides the project should go ahead, a certificate of public convenience and necessity will be issued. The pipeline company can only ask a federal court to use eminent domain once that certificate is issued.
But before any of that happens, the company has to submit a formal application to build the pipeline. According to its own timeline, MVP is planning to do that in October. If the application is approved, eminent domain likely wouldn’t be granted until sometime in 2016.
“So we feel as though they’re putting the cart ahead of the horse,” Keaton said.
Until a public convenience certificate is issued, FERC says state laws govern whether landowners can be forced to allow surveyors onto their property. But West Virginia’s laws on this issue aren’t very clear. We’ll have more on that in a minute.
A few landowners at the meeting said they don’t want pipeline surveyors on their land, but are very concerned about the threat of legal action.
“It certainly is a threat. I mean it says, ‘If you don’t let us on, we’re going to sue you.’ I don’t know what could be more of a threat than that. I mean, that’s a clear threat.”
We reached out to MVP for specifics about the threat of legal action. EQT spokeswoman Natalie Cox declined an on-air interview and instead issued a statement on behalf of the Mountain Valley Pipeline company.
Cox said MVP is trying to work with landowners to resolve their concerns, but legal action may be necessary to move the surveying forward. She didn’t offer any details about the company’s plans for legal action. Cox did, however, emphasize the importance of conducting the surveys. MVP says those surveys will determine the route that has the least overall impact on the environment, landowners, and cultural and historic resources.
Lovett, however, says it doesn’t matter how useful the surveys are to the MVP project, the letters still amount to bullying.
“MVP has to comply with the law. It just can’t come on and intimidate people and say, ‘Well you know, if you don’t let us on now, we’re not going to consider all those kinds of things that are good for you. I mean, this is your one chance buddy. You let us on your property or we’re going to screw you later.’ Is that really what the message from MVP [is]. I don’t think so. I think that better not be its message. Its message should be, ‘We’re here to work with landowners and comply with the law.’”
Third-Party Perspective
To help us put the survey issue in perspective, we spoke with West Virginia University associate professor Jesse Richardson. He’s a land-use lawyer who has experience with eminent domain. He says because West Virginia’s law is very old and there isn’t much legal precedent for these cases, it’s not a clear-cut issue.
“There’s a lot of grey area.”
Richardson says that all things considered, MVP could have grounds for legal action. He says it would be up to a circuit court judge whether the company has the right to survey without a landowner’s permission at this stage in the pipeline’s development.
Back at the meeting, Keaton says it would be in the community’s interest to see how that legal action plays out.
“I think we need to know where this line is and whether or not the state statute does in fact allow this without eminent domain or if they need to wait for the federal declaration of eminent domain.”
Keaton stressed that landowners never sign anything from a pipeline company without consulting a lawyer first.
