trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/i0bdiPME5zMk1iRt5iZGig2 content esgSubNav
In This List

EPA signoff marks advance for Mountain Valley Pipeline amid permit challenges

Podcast

Next in Tech | Episode 49: Carbon reduction in cloud

Blog

Using ESG Analysis to Support a Sustainable Future

Research

US utility commissioners: Who they are and how they impact regulation

Blog

Q&A: Datacenters: Energy Hogs or Sustainability Helpers?


EPA signoff marks advance for Mountain Valley Pipeline amid permit challenges

Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC moved one step closer to having federal water crossing permits for its 2-Bcf/d natural gas pipeline project restored late last week when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Aug. 16 found that changes supported by West Virginia are consistent with the Clean Water Act.

The EPA action does not yet mean Mountain Valley can resume suspended stream crossing work. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would still need to approve West Virginia's proposed changes and reinstate the general permit, known as Nationwide Permit 12, and the Army Corps is expected to face more challenges from environmentalists.

On top of that, there are also Endangered Species Act complications affecting some stream crossings. Mountain Valley late last week announced it was voluntarily suspending construction in some areas in habitats of endangered species. That came several days after a lawsuit filed by environmental groups over Fish and Wildlife Service authorizations for the project.

Key milestone

Nonetheless, several analysts, including ClearView Energy Partners LLC, pointed to the EPA action as a step toward resolving Mountain Valley's vacated water crossing permit.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit vacated the general permit for stream and wetlands crossings for Mountain Valley, finding the Army Corps lacked authority to substitute its own conditions for those imposed by West Virginia. While the Army Corps had found the dry-cut crossing method to be sufficiently environmentally protective, environmentalists argued the approach would violate state requirements that individual stream crossings be completed within a 72-hour time frame.

Helping to get the project back on track, West Virginia proposed to update several of its own conditions, including lifting the 72-hour requirement when the dry-ditch method is used, allowing pipelines 36 inches in diameter to be covered by the general permit and allowing temporary structures to impede fish movement. Some of these changes would also clear obstacles for the neighboring 1.5-Bcf/d Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC project, which would also move Appalachian gas to mid-Atlantic markets.

The EPA, in an Aug. 15 letter to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, said it reviewed the changes and found each one to be consistent with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The federal agency also found that related discharges are unlikely to affect water quality in any other state. The EPA said it would defer to the state's determination.

Mid-2020 service target

The 300-mile gas pipeline project would transport Appalachia Basin-produced gas from West Virginia to markets in Virginia, the mid-Atlantic and the Southeast. The project is more than 85% constructed, according to the developer, but it has faced legal obstacles on several fronts. Mountain Valley is a joint venture of EQM Midstream Partners LP, NextEra Energy Inc., Consolidated Edison Inc., AltaGas Ltd. and RGC Resources Inc.

Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley, said the project team is confident that the few remaining permit issues will be resolved to allow Mountain Valley to meet the mid-2020 full in-service target.

Concurrent with the EPA process, the Army Corps has been reviewing West Virginia's modifications and has conducted a public comment process that should conclude in the next few weeks, she said. "Mountain Valley anticipates that [the Army Corps] will then be in a position to review and approve Mountain Valley's Nationwide Permit 12, at which time work within the limits of streams and waterbodies will proceed," she said.

Signaling potential litigation ahead, environmentalists, in a June comment to the Army Corps, argued the agency lacked authority to incorporate the West Virginia changes into the general permit, because individual permits are required. By doing so, the Army Corps would be "unlawfully acting beyond the scope of its authority and would be setting itself up for further litigation," according to the letter from Derek Teaney, counsel for Sierra Club and other groups.

Maya Weber is a reporter with S&P Global Platts. S&P Global Market Intelligence and S&P Global Platts are owned by S&P Global Inc.