Supreme Court Greenlights Mountain Valley Pipeline

Earlier today, the US Supreme Court gave the final go ahead for the Mountain Valley Pipeline to complete construction. This pipeline, begun in 2017 has been delayed a number of times due to debate over environmental concerns. Now, with Supreme Court’s ruling, they can finish the roughly 3.5 mile stretch through the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. And, unsurprisingly, there is controversy afoot. So, what’s happening with this pipeline, what is the greater context, and what are the implications?

What’s Happening?

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted an emergency request from Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline project, to lift a construction stay imposed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The stay had halted the completion of the final section of the 303-mile natural gas pipeline that runs from West Virginia to Virginia, passing through the federally owned Jefferson National Forest. The pipeline project, valued at $6.6 billion, is led by energy company Equitrans Midstream, along with other partners like NextEra Energy, Consolidated Edison, AltaGas, and RGC Resources.

Proponents of the project, including Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, argue that the pipeline will create jobs during construction and operation and provide access to clean natural gas for residents. They also claim cost savings from fuel switching and reduced energy bills for consumers.

On the other side, environmental groups have opposed the pipeline, expressing concerns about potential harm to soil and water quality in the Jefferson National Forest, and the increased use of natural gas, a major greenhouse gas emitter. They argue that the pipeline poses risks to sensitive ecosystems and endangered species along its route.

The Context & Implications:

The decision to allow the pipeline to continue is a definitive victory for the energy industry, who will likely see this as precedent for the completion of other pipelines on delay such as the notorious Keystone Pipeline. Likewise, companies behind this, and other pipelines are likely in for an economic buff. Equitrans Midstream, the lead partner in the MVP project has already seen a 9.4% boost to their stock price as result of this news. With likely more to come as fuel switching proposals will come to fruition across the mid and south-Atlantic states. A 2014 report in Roanoke county Virginia had stated that fuel switching in the public sectors alone would yield a near $1.6 million in annual savings, (just over $2 million adjusted for inflation).

Economic boons aside, the rivals of the decision and their claims of environmental ruin are not without merit. Across the Unites States, pipeline incidents average about 1.7 incidents per day. This totals over 8,000 incidents containing 164 fatalities, over $7.5 million in property damage, more than 1,100 fires and nearly 400 explosions since 2010. What this has mean for the environment over that time frame is not readily quantifiable but one can be relatively confident that pipeline incidents are likely not friendly to the surrounding wildlife.

Yet, despite these numbers, there is an argument to be made in favor of the pipeline as even the 1.7 incident/day number is more favorable than railway incidents (3/day), and drastically better than trucks (more than 1,000/day). Considering none of the options can avoid possible damage to the environment, the numbers would state that the pipeline is the lesser of those evils.

Then there is the human and economic implications and context, in more than just savings for the government and private companies. Many of the residents of Virginia and West Virginia lack access to fuel alternatives for energy bills, and energy costs can be rather high, as they rely on trucks and trains for delivery of such materials, which are often made more expensive by the mountainous terrain of the states. The MVP would most certainly cut costs for the consumer as well as provide access to those who would otherwise be disqualified based on their location.

Ultimately, we must choose for ourselves which side of the argument holds more weight and in which camp our priorities are more aligned. While the pipeline brings with it a risk to the environment, is it of greater danger than other means of transportation? And, if so, is it worth it to use that other transportation if it means withholding access to energy from thousands of Americans?