CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline may not be needed because natural-gas demand in the Southeast is expected to decline over the next decade, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

The $6 billion pipeline project, which still is under construction, would bring gas from northern West Virginia to southwestern Virginia.

Jim Kotcon, chair of the conservation committee for the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, opposes the project, citing water and air pollution from natural-gas operations and the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in order to fight climate change.

"We should not be planning for increased capacity when investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy can supply our needs with much less environmental cost," Kotcon contended.

The owners of the pipeline say the project is needed to meet regional energy demands.

But the report found current capacity is sufficient and projects less demand from foreign markets than was originally forecast.

Kotcon pointed out the contracts for much of the gas come from companies affiliated with the owner of the pipeline, and he predicts big rate increases down the line to pay for it.

Cathy Kunkel, energy finance analyst for IEEFA and co-author of the report, said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has very rarely met a pipeline it didn't like.

"To my knowledge, they have only once denied a pipeline by saying it wasn't actually needed," Kunkel remarked. "Meanwhile the industry is overbuilding pipelines left and right."

President Biden recently appointed a new chairman of FERC, Richard Glick, who has said he intends to review the agency's policies on new natural-gas pipelines.

Meanwhile, both the Mountain Valley Pipeline and a proposed extension into North Carolina are tied up in ongoing litigation.

The Sierra Club's Utah chapter said electric utility PacifiCorp's long-term plan to embrace renewable energy has changed and is now placing more reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, which they argued poses a threat to the state's resiliency.

A new report commissioned by the Sierra Club aims to highlight the economic impacts of renewable energy in Utah. Put simply, the study found the deployment of renewable energy projects, such as wind, solar and storage facilities, would generate significant economic benefits for the Beehive State.

Luis Miranda, senior campaign organizer for the Sierra Club, acknowledged families in coal country are facing economic uncertainty.

"I can't help but feel so proud for the legacy of generations of Utahns and coal miners and coal plant workers who have sacrificed so much to ensure the lights stay on in this country," Miranda noted. "And yet the question I hear again and again isn't just about jobs, it's about long-term stability."

Miranda explained people want to know if there will be careers allowing them to stay in their communities and plan for the future. He emphasized the answer lies within "greener" forms of energy. But conservatives disagree and argued energy must remain cheap, reliable and dispatchable. Advocates countered they realize the grid cannot solely run on renewables but want to see utilities like PacifiCorp make more of an effort and not stall on progress.

Utah's electricity-generation profile is currently made up of about 47% coal, 36% natural gas and 17% renewables.

Rosa Monahan, staff attorney for the Sierra Club, said PacifiCorp's latest integrated resource plan extends rather than shortens the life of coal operations in Utah and Wyoming. She called it a mistake.

"That is the wrong direction to go," Monahan contended. "To make no progress until after 2030 is really just going to continue to put us behind the 8-ball, and so we want to see progress continuing to move forward as more resources are developed like the long-duration storage, more geothermal, particularly in Utah."

The report authors said the data used in the analysis was developed and came directly from PacifiCorp, when company published a report in 2023 with a "high renewable outlook" portfolio and believed it would be able to meet demand as well as utilize renewable energy in a cost-effective and reliable manner.

A Minnesota organization opposed to a Midwestern carbon pipeline project plans to file a request with state regulators Thursday, asking them to reconsider permit approval. They say upheaval in South Dakota raises new questions. Summit Carbon Solutions has been trying to secure permits and voluntary land agreements for a multi-state pipeline to capture ethanol plant emissions for underground storage. The company just asked that its South Dakota application be suspended indefinitely following a new action to ban seizing land by eminent domain.

Maggie Schuppert, director of strategic initiatives for the environmental group CURE, said it is one reason Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission should take a second look.

"They didn't know South Dakota was going to pass this law, which again, sort of calls into question the entire project," she said.

In December, the PUC greenlighted Summit to build a 28-mile pipeline in western Minnesota. The project has angered some residents about property owner rights and safety concerns. South Dakota's new law bans eminent domain proceedings when a landowner raises objections to a carbon pipeline. The company, which didn't respond to requests for comment, claims the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game."

In Minnesota, Schuppert said they wouldn't be surprised if regulators stick with their original decision. But she says they want their new arguments to go on record, in the likelihood Summit and other companies seek approval for additional routes in the state.

"It is a documentation of what we believe to be the various errors in terms of their decision-making. And it's something that would be relied on if we or others were going to take any further action on this in the future," she continued.

For these situations, Minnesota doesn't have eminent domain, a legal procedure where land is forced to be given up for a public-related project, with compensation for the property owner. Instead, Minnesota leans more on environmental impact statements. Summit has won permit approval in other states, but some of those rulings are contingent on meeting regulatory milestones elsewhere.

By Eric Wesoff for Canary Media.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Since its founding back in 2010, Shine Technologies has raised nearly $800 million to deliver on the potential of generating cheap, abundant energy from fusion.

Like the dozens of other startups at work in this field, Shine Technologies has yet to crack the code on fusion, an energy source that has been 40 years away from commercialization for 50 years. But unlike those competitors, Shine is already generating real revenue — not by producing electricity but by essentially selling neutrons from the fusion reaction to industrial imaging and materials testing companies.

Governments, venture capitalists, tech billionaires, and other private investors around the world have pumped more than $7.1 billion into fusion companies, according to a July 2024 report by the Fusion Industry Association.

But despite almost a century of research since fusion’s discovery, engineers have been unable to achieve its holy grail: continuously generating more power than was used to create a fusion reaction in the first place. The fusion world uses a metric called the fusion energy gain factor, also known simply as Q, to measure that ratio. If a project was to achieve a Q greater than 1, it would achieve the much-sought-after energy-breakeven point.

But Shine has a different benchmark — at least for right now.

“If you talk to almost every fusion company on Earth, they’ll say, ‘We’re shooting for Q greater than 1.’ But we have a different Q — our Q is economic. It’s generating more dollars out than dollars in. That’s how you scale a company,” Greg Piefer, Shine’s CEO, said.

A different kind of fusion company 

The fusion reaction is the primordial alchemical trick that powers our sun, propels spacecraft in science-fiction novels and, if the visionaries and true believers are correct, could meet humanity’s voracious energy needs in the centuries to come.

The reaction occurs in plasma, the fourth state of matter. The sun creates plasma by compressing and heating hydrogen to tens of millions of degrees, and it performs the miracle of fusion by confining that hydrogen, along with its variants, with its mammoth gravity.

Humans hoping to recreate the conditions of the sun on Earth have to rely on exotic magnets, Brobdingnagian laser-beam arrays, or other maximalist techniques.

These complex and expensive fusion machines compress and confine plasma in an attempt to bring two nuclei close enough to overcome their repellant electrostatic forces and fuse together. A successful, sustained fusion reaction would heat up a material surrounding the reactor, allowing it to boil water and drive the same sort of conventional steam turbine you’d find in a coal, gas, or traditional nuclear (fission) power plant.

Most of the fusion startups Canary Media has covered — such as Commonwealth Fusion Systems, TAE Technologies, Avalanche Energy, and Zap Energy — plan to take this steam-turbine approach to producing fusion power. Each company has its own (unproven) method for controlling the plasma and wringing out the heat. Some firms use a tokamak design, a very big, hollow donut-shaped hall in which the plasma circulates, or a twisted variant called a stellarator. Some aspirants confine the plasma with magnetic forces while others use high electrical currents or lasers to tame the atomic-particle soup.

So, which technology and approach is Shine using to solve the fusion riddle?

“I’m going to say something really trippy. As a fusion company, when it comes to energy production — I don’t know yet. … We have our own internal technological approach. I don’t think it’s any more likely than any other technological approach to prevail,” Piefer admitted. “You won’t hear that from any other fusion CEO in the whole world. But the truth is, it’s early innings, and we don’t know which fusion approach is going to be the most cost-effective.”

And while today’s cadre of fusion startups aims to provide power to the electrical grid in the 2030s or 2040s, Shine is following a different path to market.

“Fusion-energy people are trying to go from fusion not really having ever been used commercially for anything to it being the most reliable, cheapest form of generating energy,” said Piefer. “Everyone’s chasing the energy.”

Instead, Shine’s CEO wants his firm to scale the way historic deep-tech companies like semiconductor makers have done: “You start small with a market where you can make money right away, and then you iterate over time — and through that virtuous cycle of providing value and reinvesting a portion of it to make the technology better, you continue to access bigger and bigger markets.”

The market where Shine is making money now is the sale of neutrons for use in industrial imaging and materials testing. Piefer estimates that this will generate “on the order of $50 million of revenue in 2025.”

Shine will next move into medical-isotope production, then recycling spent nuclear fuel, and, ultimately, Piefer said, electrical power generation.

Producing medical isotopes requires fewer sustained reactions than producing power, and while net power is a ways away, the technology for isotope production is already available.

Medical isotopes are currently produced via nuclear fission, but if they can be produced via fusion, that would eliminate the need to use highly enriched uranium. And it could be a lucrative line of business: The global market for medical isotopes is about $6 billion a year.

“If you make a kilowatt-hour of fusion energy, you can sell that kilowatt-hour for maybe 5 cents,” he said. “But you can sell the other product of [deuterium-tritium] fusion reactions, neutrons, for as much as $100,000 per kilowatt-hour in certain markets.”

The prospect of getting a foot in that market drove Shine to break ground on a new facility in Wisconsin, which has already been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It will be the largest isotope-production factory in the world when it comes online in a few years, according to Piefer. He claims that his firm is the only one that has successfully shepherded a new nuclear technology through the NRC process since the agency’s inception in 1974. The firm has also received tens of millions of dollars from the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration to support its isotope-production plans, including $32 million last summer.

Unlike the rest of the fusion-startup cohort, “we’re actually selling fusion,” the CEO said. “That’s an important differentiation because it means we get to practice fusion, which is ultimately what’s going to drive it to be cheaper” — and potentially pave the way for it to become a power source in the decades to come.


Eric Wesoff wrote this article for Canary Media.


get more stories like this via email