The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP)

Introduction

After many years of slow progress, it has become evident that global environmental, political, and economic forces are increasingly propelling the rapid growth of the energy sector. The energy landscape of the 21^st century may be perceived as positive news by many; however, the adoption of fossil fuel and the development of fossil-fuel infrastructure has not been without its share of public opposition. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), a natural gas pipeline that spans from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia.

Background and Context

The MVP Project

The typical project specifications encompass a pipeline with a 42-inch diameter and a requirement for a 50-foot-wide permanent easement. As an interstate pipeline, MVP will be regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The development project will be constructed and owned by MVP LLC, which is a joint venture between RGC Midstream, NextEra Capital Holdings, Equitrans Midstream Corporations, and WGL Midstream MVP LLC. With a vast supply of natural gas from Utica and Marcellus shale production, the project is expected to provide approximately two million dekatherms per day of continuous transmission capacity to markets in the south- and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States (Alday, 2021). The fossil fuel infrastructure of the MVP will extend from the Equitrans transmission system in West Virginia to the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline in Pittsylvania, Virginia. During the construction phase, the pipeline will be subject to oversight and control in accordance with the United States Natural Gas Act.

Designing the MVP routes included surveying and evaluating various possible routes to help determine the final route with the most negligible impact on historic and cultural resources, landowners, and, more importantly, the environment. The pre-filling review of the pipeline started in late October 2014, as the MVP team began conducting environmental surveys, participated in FERC scoping meetings, and hosted 16+ community houses – all geared towards encouraging open discussion with public agencies, land owners, and community members (Alday, 2021). Incorporating input from stakeholders and the community was instrumental in crafting the current pathway. This route was thoughtfully planned to make efficient use of pre-existing electric and gas transmission corridors, with a keen focus on reducing surface disruption, steering clear of protected or environmentally sensitive regions whenever feasible, and keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. As part of the project’s commitment to communities, the MVP LLC project team considered thousands of miles of variations and alternatives to the route, aiming to alleviate environmental concerns posed by landowners and informed stakeholders. The counties affected by the MVP project encompass:

• West Virginia: Webster, Wetzel, Harrison, Monroe, Braxton, Nicholas, Summers, and Doddridge.
• Virginia: Franklin, Pittsylvania, Giles, Craig, Montgomery, and Roanoke.

Timeline of the Project

The initial proposal for the pipeline’s construction dates back to October 2014. Following the acquisition of a regulatory permit, MVP LLC initiated a voluntary pre-filing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This pre-filling phase primarily aimed to ensure that the pipeline’s construction adhered to safety standards and specifications. The goal was to create a secure and well-contained environment for all subsequent testing, minimizing risks to personnel and the environment.

On October 13, 2017, the FERC issued MVP LLC an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, confirming that the project satisfied the requirements of the Nationwide Permit 12 (Marie & Pifer, 2021). Construction of the pipeline’s first quarter commenced in 2018. Notably, one of the conditions set for the construction was the use of dry open-cut methods to minimize the project’s environmental impact. However, despite the initial provisions of the regulatory permit, MVP LLC’s right of way through federal land was revoked in July 2018 (Christopulos, 2021). The 4th Circuit Court annulled MVP LLC’s rights due to non-compliance with the Mineral Leasing Act, National Forest Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (Alday, 2021). The court determined that MVP LLC had failed to adhere to West Virginia regulators’ requirement that the pipeline stream should use dry open-cut construction to reduce its environmental impact. Consequently, the FERC ordered a halt to all work on the project except for restoration and stabilization activities.

On July 17, 2022, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia secured an agreement with the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Congress, allowing the Biden administration to proceed with the project’s completion. This agreement was incorporated into climate and tax regulations, ensuring that federal agencies would take all necessary actions to permit the construction and operation of the MVP project (Marie & Pifer, 2021). However, despite the approval for project completion, Manchin’s deal with the Democrats sparked protests in Washington, D.C., led by Black communities and Native Americans raising concerns about environmental justice. Finally, in May 2023, President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which granted permits for energy projects, thus enabling the MVP project to progress further (Silverman, 2023). Construction on the MVP project recommenced in mid-July 2023, with the MVP project team dedicated to ensuring the safe and responsible completion of the project. Their goal is to place the pipeline into service, which will contribute to improved energy reliability and affordability. This will manifest in the form of reduced natural gas prices for American consumers.

Environmental Issues of the Project

While MVP is recognized as a critical infrastructure that is essential for the nation’s energy reliability and energy security, it raises a multitude of environmental concerns. For almost a decade, MVP LLC has been trying to lay the natural gas pipeline across West Virginia and Virginia, cutting through Jefferson National Forest and hundreds of wetlands and waterways. The issues associated with MVP stem from the devastating consequences the project will have for the environment. Operating as planned, MVP will emit over 89 million metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution every year. This quantity is equivalent to the GHG pollution from 19 million passenger cars or 24 average coal plants in the U.S. High emissions of GHGs are associated with climate change. These gases act similarly to the glass in a greenhouse: they absorb the sun’s heat that radiates in the form of long waves from the surface of the Earth, trapping heat in the atmosphere as well as preventing the heat from escaping into space (Bothum, 2019). This results in the greenhouse effect, where temperatures within the Earth’s atmosphere rise more than they would, thereby threatening life on Earth. Many GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, but human activities, like the MVP project, contribute to their accumulation. As a result, the greenhouse effect is boosted and ultimately initiates climate change, leading to a rise in average temperature, floods, heat waves, and shifts in rainfall patterns and snow. The greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from the natural gas pipeline will mix with the atmosphere, leading to widespread impacts on human health, forests, wildlife, agriculture, and water resources in the West Virginia and Virginia region.

The environmental concerns of the MVP also include threats to waterways and watersheds along the 489-kilometer route. Functioning as planned, the pipeline will cut across 1,146 rivers, streams, creeks, and wetlands, transporting over 2 billion cubic feet of fracked gas on a daily basis. Currently, water contamination has been reported as the biggest concern with the construction of the pipeline. There have been nearly 1,500 reported pollution incidents affecting streams, rivers, waterways, and possible drinking water. Further construction and additional discharges of fill materials, even if the previous impacts are discounted, will take a heavy toll on waterbodies and stream systems due to high concentrations of activities in the watersheds (Tezak, 2019). In order to push for the building of the pipeline, the Forest Service will be required to permit the exploitation of watersheds and waterways, thereby lowering the standards of water quality.

Moreover, the proposed pipeline route intersects with portions of the Appalachian Trail (A.T.), a 2,190-mile-long hiking-only footpath that spans fourteen states, tracing the contours of the Appalachian Mountain Range from Katahdin, Maine, in the north to Springer Mountain, Georgia, in the south. According to the National Park System, the A.T. sees an annual influx of over 3 million visitors, with more than 3,000 individuals attempting to complete a “thru-hike” of the entire trail. This popular destination attracts both domestic and international tourists seeking respite from urban life, a return to simplicity, a reconnection with nature, or opportunities to forge new connections and strengthen old friendships. Simultaneously, the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project is designed to traverse sections of the A.T. (Alday, 2021). Opposition to the pipeline’s construction comes from the National Park System and the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, primarily for three significant reasons. First, they contend that the pipeline’s development will result in permanent damage to the picturesque landscape of the A.T. Second, construction will have adverse effects on the Jefferson National Forest Management Plan, impacting water quality, visual aesthetics, and causing damage to the forest, which could open the door to private entities exploiting national forests and parks for profit. Lastly, the chosen construction sites for the pipeline are highly susceptible to landslides, soil erosion, and natural gas leaks, posing a threat to the ecosystem’s service value by diminishing the recreational benefits of the Appalachian Trail.

How MVP became an issue

The underlying factor behind the opposition to the MVP project is the destruction of private property and land. Construction of the pipeline involves the destruction of private property and 4,856 acres of forests across West Virginia and Virginia. These forests are heavily relied upon for wildlife habitats, recreation, and carbon sequestration, among other critical ecosystem services. The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, argues that private landowners near the pipeline will lose their property to MVP LLC. If landowners along the route of the MVP keep their land, the property will significantly decrease due to the presence of the pipeline (Hileman et al., 2021). In addition, the landowners are susceptible to the provisions of Eminent Domain. Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. In the context of the MVP, the application of eminent domain will result in the actual seizure of private property by the government or loss of ownership in the form of regulatory taking. In the long run, eminent domain will restrict landowners from using their property to the point of it constituting taking and being given to the pipeline companies. In addition to the adverse impacts of eminent taking, consumers of the pipeline will be required to pay additional taxes on their electrical bills to cater to the construction expenses of the MVP.

MVP also continues the trend of extractive industries pushing the brunt of health and environmental burdens onto the most vulnerable populations. It is crucial to note that the pipeline passes through the regions predominantly occupied by Black communities and Native Americans (Nolon, 2020). Conventionally, pipelines are built where the land is cheap, and the land is cheap where people are poor. In light of this, the designed route for the MVP turns Black communities and Native Americans into “sacrifice zones” due to systemic discrimination and racism. These communities already disproportionately face health problems that will only be exacerbated by the adverse environmental and health effects of the pipeline. For instance, the proposed Lambert Compressor Station in Pittsylvania County is designed to support MVP’s Southgate extension. The proposed extension would continuously release harmful particulate matter into the atmosphere of a primarily African-American neighborhood that has endured years of exposure to air pollution emanating from two operational gas-fired compressor stations (Green & Crouch, 2021). Native Americans and Black communities living near the compressor stations and the pipeline are at higher risk of exposure to toxic air pollutants, mainly formaldehyde and benzene, which can cause cancer, respiratory problems, and other chronic health conditions. In summary, approval of the MVP on June 8, 2023, represents a failure to protect vulnerable populations and environmental justice advocates who have carried the weight of damages caused by fossil fuels for far too long.

The Politics of the Mountain Valley Pipeline

The MVP project, like other well-known fossil fuel development initiatives, is politically controversial. Proponents cite the pipeline’s purported economic benefits, gas supply reliability, natural gas royalties, and the potential of supplying natural gas exports to U.S. allies. It is essential to note that President Biden’s administration has been at the forefront of supporting this project. On the other hand, MVP’s opponents have expressed concerns about the need for the pipeline, its potential safety risks, especially in low-income and minority communities, and its adverse environmental impacts (Tezak, 2019). For the residents in Virginia and West Virginia, the MVP project will disrupt their daily lives in ways small and large.

Political Challenges and Controversies

The political controversies and challenges reported throughout the development of the MVP project are a reflection of the multifaceted and often polarizing nature of major critical infrastructure projects. In the contemporary climate movement across the United States, the pipeline presents an existential threat. The major political concerns as a result of the construction of the pipeline are environmental impact concerns, particularly water quality and sedimentation. The permit to resume pipeline construction by the Fiscal Responsibility Act would allow MVP LLC to create 452 new discharges of pollutants and sediments throughout the same Virginia water sheds and waterways that have been negatively affected by the project in its first quarter. The proponents of the project argue that the new pollutants would have significantly limited impacts on water quality. However, these separate discharges will be concentrated to a great degree in stream systems. Even if the environmental hazards of the new discharges will be minor, the compounded effects of all the 452 new discharges will be significantly multiplied on an ecological scale. MVP’s opponents argue that there is no rational basis to doubt that the pipeline would result in more environmental pollution than has already been witnessed (Betcher et al., 2019). The enhanced measures and pollution controls implemented so far have failed frequently and miserably to stop sedimentation and damage caused to stream systems in the region. Allowing pipeline construction to rush forward will ultimately lead to great environmental damage. Virginia law acknowledges that these scenarios constitute pollution incidents and potential contributors to water pollution issues. According to the Code of Virginia, Va. Code § 62.1-44.15:37.1. A, if a substantial deposition of sediment occurs in areas where proper best management practices have not contained it, this may present an imminent risk of adverse effects on water quality and could warrant a cease-work order.

The greatest fall in all of the permitting processes and regulatory reviews is the failure to take into account the cumulative impacts of the project in a scientifically- and logically-valid way. Deposits of sediments in a wetland or steam may negatively affect the aquatic system in a number of ways, both in relation to human uses and in relation to the maintenance of aquatic organisms. Under the Virginia water quality standards, MVP LLC is required to protect human causes and ensure the maintenance of aquatic systems. In an enforcement case filed against MVP, the state found that MVP LLC violated violations in the Virginia law regarding dredging, filling, and discharging pollutants into wetlands without a Virginia Water Protection permit issued by the board (Betcher et al., 2019). The enforcement suit describes instances when activities related to the pipeline construction resulted in sediment deposits in water bodies for which MVP LC did not possess regulatory permits to discharge the fill into stream systems or surface waters. The instances cited in the enforcement include seven instances summarized in the table below when significant sediment quantities were discharged into water bodies:

Through a review of all the available MBP and DEQ reports, a total of 113 instances, including those seven covered in the lawsuit, when sediments have been deposited in significantly large quantities in water bodies. These instances qualify as “pollution incidents” and constitute damages to human and aquatic environments affected. After the enforcement suit was filed, the court instructed MVP LLC to remove the sediments from waterbodies after these pollution incidents occurred, terming such efforts as “remediation.” Despite the court’s instruction, delays in removing off-site sediments have lasted many months, and, in some instances, like in Mill Creek, the sediments have never been removed from the waterbodies. In addition, the risks and benefits of physically removing the sediments from the affected waterbodies were not assessed before sedimentation was allowed. In light of this, working or otherwise digging in sensitive waterbodies to remove sediment has disrupted natural ecosystems, including habitats for aquatic animals (Scarff, 2021). The extensive documentation of the MVP’s effects on Virginia’s water and land along its route reveals hundreds of pollution incidents. It is unreasonable to assume that ongoing construction would not lead to comparable harm. If both Mountain Valley and the regulatory bodies responsible for overseeing the project and addressing issues were capable of averting pollution incidents, they would have done so previously. The toll of this project on natural resources and ecosystems has already been substantial. Consequently, MVP LLC should not compound this burden with fresh discharges and further environmental degradation.

Community Opposition

In addition to the pollution and pollution-related challenges, construction of the pipeline has been with community opposition. The local communities along MVP’s route have voiced strong opposition to the pipeline’s construction. For instance, three families scattered across northwestern Virginia have an ongoing lawsuit against MVP LLC. Their lawsuit originates not from an ideological standpoint nor the concern for the climate threat posed by the pipeline but from the constitutional violation of their property rights (Nolon, 2020). Moreover, while all the environmental challenges of the MVP project were thrown out of court in the summer of 2023, the case filed by the three families reading property rights has a chance of surviving – because it is not linked with the ecological or climate impact of the pipeline. This case exemplifies the ongoing trend of private landowners challenging MVP LL on the unconstitutional use of eminent domain, which refers to the ability of the government to claim private land for public use.

The controversies of the unlawful application of eminent domain have united predominantly environmental activists and conservative farmers on the issue of taking privately owned land for corporate gain. The legal theory behind the use of eminent domain concerns the principle of constitutional law known as “nondelegation.” Nondelegation is basically a complaint that Congress has outsourced some element of its power to the FERC. Bohon v. FERC is one among the many nondelegation lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of the Natural Gas Act of 1938, which gives the FERC authority to functionally allow private corporations to take private land to construct pipelines. This presents a political dilemma where eminent domain, a constitutional provision to reclaim land for critical infrastructure that benefits the public, can be enforced by a private company to build infrastructure to transport goods for export (Baller, 2023). Upon completion, the MVP project would ship natural gas from the Appalachian gas field to other parts of the United States. However, the pipeline and the commodity will be owned by a private company, sold in other markets, and will not service the communities who live along the pipeline’s route. A project that can take private land through eminent domain should provide some public good and be utilized by all citizens. These requirements have been, however, substantially watered down in the MVP project. Consequently, the passage of the Natural Gas Act unconstitutionally gives authority to the FERC and MVP LLC to exploit citizen’s private land for the profit of private companies.

Climate Change and Energy Transition

Another political dilemma surrounding the MVP project involves climate change and energy transition. Across the largely rural, mountainous region, the pipeline’s 50-foot easement traverses 1,108 bodies of water, crosses national forests and parks, plunges into valleys, and climbs steep slopes. Along many final stretches awaiting construction, construction equipment, and churned-up soil signal busy activity. 67% of the pipeline will cover areas that are highly susceptible to landslides (Marie & Pifer, 2021). In addition, the steep terrains of the mountains of Virginia the pipeline passes through increases the risk of environmental degradation. The MVP project had already triggered several landslides, one of which posed a threat to residential homes in West Virginia. These landslides have the potential to rupture pipelines, leading to explosions and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In fact, there have been 137 incidents of interstate pipeline explosions in the United States since 2010, and the MVP project is no exception.

Research by Oil Change International shows that the MVP project will emit approximately 90 million GHGs. This means that upon completion, MVP will become the single largest GHG emitter in West Virginia and Virginia, releasing the same amount of emissions equivalent to 19 million passenger vehicles or 26 U.S. coal plants. On top of the GHG emissions of the MVP, pipelines are prone to leaks. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a very potent GHG, and its warming effect is 86 times as much as carbon dioxide. The creation of MVP will just add to this number, meaning that transitioning to natural gas will not be more beneficial than using coal to power factories. While coal power plants emit a substantial amount of greenhouse gases, it is important to consider that methane leakage from natural gas operations can nearly offset these emissions. This raises important questions about the wisdom of investing in natural gas pipelines, given that their environmental impact may not be significantly cleaner than traditional coal power plants. Practically, all new fossil fuel projects, including the MVP, have become an international hindrance in the fight against climate change (Colibășanu, 2023). This natural gas project collides with the scientific reality that the world needs to cut its GHG emissions to save off worsening wildfires, floods, and heat waves. For the local communities along the pipeline’s route, the project has tangible impacts on the landscape, resident’s daily routines, and even the local economy. Opponents of the pipeline argue that the $6.6 billion budget for the MVP project should be invested in supporting renewable sources of energy. In light of this, the continued construction of the MVP is a huge step back in the global transition to clean energy, and its completion will ultimately contribute to global warming at an age where GHG emissions are already too high.

This summer, Congress stepped in to fast-track the pipeline’s completion despite the climate change concerns linked to the project. Completion of this project is largely due to Joe Manchin, a Democrat who rallied other legislators and the presidents to greenlight the controversies regarding the deal to raise the debt ceiling. Raising the debt ceiling allows the country additional flexibility to keep funding federal operations, like the Interstate MVP project (Joselow, 2023). Put simply, raising the debt ceiling will give President Biden’s administration the power to keep the government running and provide a means to continue funding important social programs. On June 20233, Biden signed legislation that raised the debt limit of the U.S. and approved all permits and authorizations necessary to complete the MVP project. MVP LLC is grateful for the support of the White House and the collaboration between Republican and Democratic legislators for recognizing that the pipeline is a critical energy infrastructure. Proponents of the project emphasize that complete construction and initial operation of the pipeline will increase energy reliability and affordability in the form of lower natural gas prices (Joselow, 2023). The pipeline is not being built for the short-term gains of the private corporations; instead, it will meet the increasing gas demands, increase the potential role of supplying natural gas exports to U.S. allies, and improve reliability for domestic consumers for decades to come.

Legislation to approve MVP

Amid the ongoing controversy regarding agency reviews and permit litigation of the MVP, bills in the 118^th Congress (HR 3500, S 139, and S 1499) have sought to incentivize the completion of the project. The senator of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, a Democrat, lobbied legislators and Biden’s administration to sway the decision to favor the project. In July 2023, the president signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act. This Act clears the path for MVP as it orders regulatory agencies to issue the necessary permits. It also means that the courts cannot second-guess the constitutionality of the permits (Silverman, 2023). Prior to this legislation, concerns about this natural gas infrastructure have pervaded the U.S. public policy for at least a decade on both sides of the political divide. On the Republicans side, concerns over new things like new power transmission for renewables have been dominant, while on the Democrats side, the concern over natural gas pipeline infrastructure like the MVP has been the center stage. The whole debate over permitting completion of the MVP project reached a fever pitch as both the Biden administration and Congress raised issues over national security and reliability in the nation’s energy mix following catastrophic events such as the Winter Storm Uri Texas Blackout.

The MVP has had a long journey since it was proposed. MVP LLC received its certificate from the FERC in 2017, and initial operations began in 2018. However, the project has wandered through a series of legal constraints. Even after MVP LLVC was issued with the FERC certificate, the project had to get permits from level, particularly water permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Marie & Pifer, 2021). Despite being issued with the permit, the U.S. Cout of Appeal annulled MVP’s operations because environmental groups challenged its constitutionality and environmental implications. Just as the MVP resolved to have yet another permit, along came the debt-limit crisis. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia successfully persuaded fellow lawmakers and President Joe Biden to approve the contentious pipeline project as a component of an agreement to increase the debt ceiling.

The signing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRC) of 2023 led to the pipeline’s approval. Section 324 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act acknowledges that construction and operation of the MVP is required in the national interest. Under the 2023 FRC, Congress ratifies and approves all extensions, verifications, authorizations, and approval orders issued pursuant to Federal law necessary for constructing and operating the pipeline (Agarwal, 2021). In addition, the FRC directs the relevant federal agencies, including the FERC, to maintain such authorizations and declares that no court should have the jurisdiction to review any action taken toward a continuation of the project. The legislation confers original and exclusive jurisdiction on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hear claims challenging the validity of Section 324. Despite these established legal provisions, on July 10, 2023, the Fourth Circuit authorized a halt in the construction of the MVP through the Jefferson National Forest as it evaluated the Act’s constitutionality. Subsequently, on July 11, 2023, the Fourth Circuit also approved a motion to suspend the FWS Biological Opinion. Nevertheless, on July 27, 2023, the Supreme Court, in response to an emergency request from MVP’s developer, lifted the Fourth Circuit’s suspensions, allowing construction to recommence.

After the passage of P.L. 118-5 on June 15, 2023, the developer of the MVP contacted FERC to formally request a three-year extension, allowing them until June 18, 2026, to finalize the construction of the MVP Southgate Project. It is worth noting that P.L. 118-5 does not encompass Southgate, which means the Southgate project must navigate its own regular permitting process. This process presents its own set of challenges, including the initial rejection of a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 water quality certification by North Carolina in 2020. Environmental activists, local communities, and several Members raise objections to the perceived preferential treatment granted to the project, which bypasses the standard permitting process. They are concerned about the potential impacts on landowners and their contribution to climate change, among other issues. Nevertheless, the pipeline’s developer is determined to finish construction by the end of 2023 (Silverman, 2023). As the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project progresses, Congress may need to oversee its status, potential safety concerns during construction pauses, market demand for its associated natural gas supplies, and the ongoing Fourth Circuit litigation.

Key Institutions in the Political Debate

Like other large infrastructure projects, the MVP requires authorizations from a range of agencies under various federal statutes. They include:

• FERC – Interstate natural pipelines, like the MVP, require a certificate of public convenience and necessity. This certificate is the grant of operating authority that common carriers receive, proving that a public need exists and that the infrastructure is fit, willing, and able to provide the needed service. FERC issued this certificate in 2017 and has extended MVP’s construction deadline twice, most recently to October 2026.
• S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – The federal agencies approving the construction of the MVP must consult with the FWS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the Biological Opinion issued by the FWS in 2020 in 2022.
• S. Forest Service (F.S.) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) – These institutions must approve the rights of way for the MVP to traverse federal land under their jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit has, on two occasions, invalidated and sent back Forest Plans and the corresponding BLM rights of way for the MVP in 2018 and 2022. In May 2023, the F.S. and BLM released new decision records and granted approvals for the MVP’s rights of way.
• S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) – The MVP project is obligated to obtain a permit from the Corps in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 and the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 for its water crossings. Initially, the Corps granted the MVP project a general permit, but the Fourth Circuit Court twice rejected this decision in 2018 and 2020. Subsequently, in February 2021, the MVP project submitted an application for an individual permit, which the Corps ultimately granted on June 23, 2023.

The Resistance Dilemma

The politics of the MVP confirms Hoberg’s analysis of the resistance dilemma. Delayed project implementation was a consequence of opposition to obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity from the FERC. Local communities and environmental activists raised concerns about the negative impacts of the project on waterways, protected wildlife, and forests and the right of eminent domain during construction (Hoberg, 2021). Opponents also set up blockades to deter construction of the MVP, including a month-long tree-sit near Peters Mountain. FERC’s permit was challenged before a court of law for violations of Virginia’s Stormwater Management Act. The lawsuits challenging further construction of the pipeline were based on MVP LLC’s failure to satisfy the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (Scarff, 2021). When the project was initially revealed in 2014, it was anticipated to have a budget of approximately $3.5 billion and a completion date by the end of 2018. However, it has subsequently encountered a series of delays due to activism, issuance of permits, and environmental concerns raised by residents and environmental justice communities (Green & Crouch, 2021). Consequently, the opening of the MVP has been postponed until the following year. In a recent submission by the project’s owner, the cost has surged from $3.5 billion to $7.2 billion. The 303-mile methane gas pipeline is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2024. While these project implementation delays are intended to address environmental concerns and ensure the project’s fairness, they have impeded the progress toward adopting clean energy sources.

Concclusion

The resistance dilemma unveils the challenges of developing large-scale fossil fuel infrastructure. Resistance by the local community obstructs development initiatives that they perceive will be detrimental to their interests. While local communities and environmental justice groups may resist fossil fuel development projects due to environmental concerns, the state leadership has an imperative to transition to clean energy.

References

AGARWAL, A. (2021). Regulatory Agency Capture: How the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

Baller, C. R. (2023). Civil Disobedience as a Radical Flank in the Mountain Valley Pipeline Resistance Movement (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).

Christopulos, D. (2021). Mountain Valley Pipeline: A Case Study in Local Resistance and Mobilization. Pipeline Pedagogy: Teaching About Energy and Environmental Justice Contestations, 107-139.

Colibășanu, A. (2023). The Caucasus: Borderlands Meeting Point. In Geopolitics, Geoeconomics and Borderlands: A Study of a Changing Eurasia and Its Implications for Europe (pp. 127-158). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Hileman, J. D., Angst, M., Scott, T. A., & Sundström, E. (2021). Recycled text and risk communication in natural gas pipeline environmental impact assessments. Energy Policy, 156, 112379.

Hoberg, G. (2021). The Resistance Dilemma: Place-based movements and the climate crisis. MIT Press.

Joselow, M. (2023). How a fossil fuel pipeline helped grease the debt ceiling deal. The Washington Post, NA-NA.

Nolon, J. R. (2020). Death of Dillon’s Rule: Local Autonomy to Control Land Use. J. Land Use & Env’t L., 36, 7.

Silverman, E. (2023). Mountain Valley Pipeline construction resumes in Virginia. The Washington Post, NA-NA.

Betcher, M., Hanna, A., Hansen, E., & Hirschman, D. (2019). Pipeline Impacts to Water Quality.

Marie, C. J., & Pifer, R. H. (2021). Federal Legal and Regulatory Developments Relating to the U.S. Pipeline Industry. Tex. A&M J. Prop. L., 7, 495.

Bothun, G. (2019). Greenhouse gases: properties and evolution. Affordable and clean energy, pp. 1–17.

Tezak, C. (2019). A Policy Analyst’s View on Litigation Risk Facing Natural Gas Pipelines. Energy L.J., pp. 40, 209.

Alday, K. E. (2021). Givens v. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC and the Unresolved Circuit Split. Tex. A&M J. Prop. L., 7, 137.

Green, L. C., & Crouch, E. A. (2021). Public Health Assessment of Expected Airborne Emissions from the Proposed Lambert Compressor Station Pittsylvania County, Virginia.

Scarff, K. (2021). Beyond Consensus: A Rhetorical Genre Analysis of the Mountain Valley Pipeline’s 401 Public Hearings (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).