CHARLESTON, W. Va. - The federal agency that approves or denies gas pipelines is oriented against the concerns of landowners and communities, according to people working on the issues.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will decide on the huge pipelines competing to bring natural gas through West Virginia and Virginia to eastern markets.

Spencer Phillips, chief economist for Key-Log Economics, studied the impact of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP).

He estimates it will hurt folks along the line to the tune of more than $8 billion. But Phillips says FERC is not designed or inclined to consider those costs.

"FERC's approval process for the Mountain Valley Pipeline is really a rigged game," says Phillips. "The agency's procedures themselves, as well as their track record, mean that they ignore some really important cost to people and communities."

According to a Washington lawyer who specializes in cases like these, FERC's orientation is built into its legal DNA.

Carolyn Elefant, an energy attorney in Washington D.C., says the 1930s Natural Gas Act was passed at a time when the government wanted to encourage the development of needed infrastructure.

She says it gave regulators the power to use eminent domain to overcome landowner opposition.

So, Elefant says FERC now assumes if most landowners make a deal with the developers, the folks along the line have received fair compensation.

"That's very inaccurate," says Elefant. "Many times people enter into the agreements because they feel like they have no choice, they're not going to be able to fight a huge gas company, and they figure they might as well take what they can get."

Elefant says the federal agency may seem intimidating to ordinary folks. But she stresses that even when it seems that way, it's still worth trying to make your case the same way pipeline developers do.

Phillips says when it comes to determining if there is a need for the MVP, it's still unclear if the agency will listen to the landowners and local communities, or just the power company.

"The firm obviously wants to make money for its shareholders," he says. "However, it has not been demonstrated that there is any public benefit, outside of the corporation itself, that there would be any public benefit."

The pipeline developers argue the lines are justified to meet future public demand for gas in North Carolina and coastal Virginia.

FERC says it does balance impacts and demand when determining overall "public convenience and necessity."


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers in the U.S. House will vote on a bill this week affecting Virginia's ability to create stronger emissions standards for vehicles and trucks.

The bill targets "California emissions standards," policies which call for 100% of cars sold to be electric or emissions-free by 2035. That policy has been partially or fully adopted by Virginia and 16 other states.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office to repeal the standards, leading to the legislative effort.

Rob Sargent, program director of Coltura, an energy transition nonprofit, said the federal government should be increasing access to electric vehicles instead of going against policies that promote them.

"EV tax credits and any programs designed to make EVs available to the American people are key," he said, "and can unlock decades of savings for people for what has been a strain on their household finances."

A report by the independent Government Accountability Office stated that Congress does not have the authority to repeal the emissions standards. Supporters of the bill have said banning gas cars is an affront to consumer freedom.

More than a half million Virginians are considered "gas super users," meaning they use significantly more gasoline than the average driver.

Sargent said repealing strong emissions standards would make it harder for states to reduce their carbon footprint.

"If Congress acts to pull the rug out from under those states' ability to take action to make cars cleaner in their state," he said, "then it also will undercut the availability of electric vehicles for consumers that would save them money."

The Senate is considering a similar bill despite opposition from within the Legislature.


get more stories like this via email

This week, the Trump administration announced what it terms "emergency permitting" for energy projects, streamlining a sometimes yearslong process down to 28 days. Opponents said it will mean time in court.

The U.S. Interior Department plans to alter the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act so projects around oil, gas, coal, minerals and more can proceed without the agency approvals the laws require. The department said it's part of President Donald Trump's January "National Energy Emergency" declaration.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said there is no such emergency.

"The idea that there's some kind of 'national energy emergency' is a lie that the Trump administration is making up to justify an extralegal approach to approving energy projects and skipping past the environmental safeguards that Congress put in place," Molvar contended.

He argued the move risks historic sites, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities on Montana's 30 million acres of public land. Molvar added he expects energy projects brought under the new, streamlined permitting will be overturned in court.

The announcement comes just one day after the Interior Department's draft strategic plan for the next four years was leaked. A "big idea" cited in the draft is to, quote, "release federal holdings to allow state and local communities to reduce costs," and in parentheses, "housing." Molvar stressed it would essentially put federal responsibilities in the hands of smaller entities.

"These state and local governments have a distinct tendency -- particularly in conservative parts of the rural West -- to want to maximize industrial development, maximize local communities' abilities to line their own pockets, with really little consideration to the long-term health of the land," Molvar emphasized.

Strategic goals listed in the plan include to "restore American prosperity" and "ensure national security through infrastructure and innovation."


get more stories like this via email

The owner of Michigan's Palisades Nuclear Plant is getting another $47 million to restart the facility.

It is the third installment of a $1.5 billion federal loan package. Palisades was decommissioned in 2022 after more than 50 years of operation.

Now owned by Holtec International, the plant in Van Buren County is expected to supply enough power to serve about 800,000 homes but environmental and Indigenous groups are voicing frustration after a federal panel recently denied a full hearing on petitions challenging the restart.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for the advocacy group Beyond Nuclear, is among those in opposition.

"A recent analysis by Dave Lochbaum, who is retired from the Nuclear Safety Program at Union of Concerned Scientists, placed Palisades at something like 84th out of 105 reactors in the country," Kamps pointed out. "His analysis was they're more like in the bottom rung of the industry, actually."

Holtec countered before its 2022 shutdown, Palisades was ranked in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's highest safety category and was a top-performing plant in the industry. Palisades is set to reopen in October, becoming the first U.S. nuclear plant to restart after being decommissioned.

Punkin Shananaquet, a member of Michigan's Indigenous community, emphasized for many Native people, the issue is not just about public safety, it is about honoring the sacredness of the land and water and educating the next generation about protecting the earth.

"We just can't be pushed through the corporate world because they have no spirit," Shananaquet contended. "We have spirit. We are the ones with the feelings for this place."

Holtec International maintains the Palisades restart is being made possible by broad local support, citing not only the energy it will produce but the jobs, economic growth and tax revenue for the area.


get more stories like this via email