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

Groups in Pennsylvania are asking Congress to preserve federal clean-energy tax incentives.

Concerned about the possible repeal of 30% energy tax credits that have supported projects across the state, they gathered at a local charter school to tout its solar-panel installation as an example.

Andrew Reagan, president of the group Clean Energy for America, said there is bipartisan support for the tax credit. He said it directly benefits southeastern Pennsylvania residents, who are investing in solar and other forms of clean energy to save on energy bills while reducing air pollution.

"Folks are saving money," he said. "They're becoming more energy independent, and at a time of skyrocketing energy prices, it's never been more important to have that flexibility to both lower your energy bill as well as make some of these projects more self-sufficient."

One recent study predicted that repealing the tax incentives could raise residential electric rates by an average of $83 a year and eliminate close to four million jobs.

Reagan said now is the time for Pennsylvanians to let their representatives know how they feel.

The solar installation at ASPIRA Bilingual Cyber Charter School was done by the Bucks County company Exact Solar last year, and is one of many that have been supported by tax incentives.

Daniel Pompile, the school's director of culinary arts, environmental education and food services, said it offers a culinary arts program, and its greenhouse project is a way to provide fresh, organic produce and educate kids on where food comes from.

"It also allowed us to plant the seed about green initiatives and lowering carbon footprints," he said, "and the kids are learning about the world in the process - about the environment where their food comes from, agriculture - and they're doing it in a fun, experiential kind of way."

Michael Lehane, sales manager for Exact Solar, said it installed a ground array and off-grid solar system for the school greenhouse, and is working on community solar projects as well.

"We're doing more straightforward projects, where we're installing solar on homes and businesses that are providing the electricity that they would normally have to get from the utility," he said. "And the economics of it are such that the cost of energy is cheaper, no matter which way you go."

He said the upfront cost can be a challenge, which is where incentives come into play. But uncertainty about whether the credits will stay in place is causing people to hold back on making the investment.


get more stories like this via email

Pennsylvania is among the five states projected to be hit hardest if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed.

A report from the think tank Energy Innovation showed the law has brought more than $1.33 billion dollars in clean energy and transportation investments, creating nearly 4,700 jobs.

Megan Ziegler, CEO of the Southwest Pennsylvania Municipal Project Hub, said the Inflation Reduction Act helps modernize infrastructure and supports local governments and schools in upgrading outdated facilities. She added reducing tax credits and clean energy projects would negatively affect the Pennsylvania economy and environment.

"These are called direct pay or elective pay," Ziegler explained. "This was a great tool because this was the first time that local governments, nonprofits and schools, because of their tax-exemption status, were able to offset these investments in their buildings and their systems the way that private industry has been leveraging those for years."

The report revealed repealing existing federal clean energy tax credits and funding programs would increase average annual household energy costs in Pennsylvania by nearly $60 per year in 2030 and more than $80 per year in 2035.

Zeigler pointed out many homeowners in southwest Pennsylvania have used state rebates and tax credits to make energy efficient upgrades, helping to lower costs as temperatures rise. She warned cutting the programs would raise expenses and stressed the need for bipartisan support because clean energy investments create jobs and strengthen the economy.

"There was a lot of IRA funding that was dedicated to grid stability," Zeigler noted. "Ultimately, our region needs to make smart investments by diversifying our grid with more renewables, microgrids or even hydroelectric systems. This reduces blackouts and saves ratepayers over time as well."

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said the nationwide study showed what would happen to energy projects and jobs between 2025 and 2035 if cuts are made.

"When we compared the top 10 states for each of those side by side, we found that there were five states that were in the top 10 in both of those categories, and those were Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania and Georgia," Orvis reported.

He added those states risk higher energy bills and job losses due to growth in population, manufacturing and electricity demand. A Moody's analysis found President Donald Trump's 2024 policy plan could fuel inflation, slow the economy and trigger a recession by the middle of this year.

As President Donald Trump rolls back clean energy initiatives at the federal level, states like Maryland are pushing ahead with their own energy transitions.

Legislation moving through the Maryland General Assembly includes a bill to codify Gov. Wes Moore's campaign pledge, to transition the state to 100% clean energy by 2035. Another bill, known as the Abundant Affordable Clean Energy Act, would expand battery storage to the regional grid.

Rebecca Rehr, director of climate policy and justice for the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, said clean energy investments can also help the economy and combat rising energy costs.

"We can create a model of economic growth and clean energy adoption that other states can follow," Rehr contended. "We can really lead here, especially in the face of federal rollbacks. You can have economic growth and a growth of the clean energy industry here in Maryland at the same time. These go hand in glove."

Energy costs for many Maryland households have recently gone up 50% for gas and 30% for electricity.

Clean energy advocates in the state are also playing defense. Top Democratic leaders in the General Assembly introduced the Next Generation Energy Act, to build new natural gas plants. Rehr argued it would impede progress the state has made in the clean energy transition.

"If this bill moves forward as it was introduced, it not only seeks to build new gas in Maryland," Rehr pointed out. "It seeks to fast-track new gas in Maryland, which could have consequences and again sort of flies in the face of any environmental justice provisions in state law."

The state also has goals to produce 8.5 gigawatts of wind power by 2031.