There is much more than has been told!

From an Article by Laurence Hammack, Roanoke Times, January 28, 2019

WASHINGTON — The good of the Mountain Valley Pipeline — a steady supply of needed natural gas — met the bad Monday, when opponents told a federal appeals court there’s really no public need for a project that is already polluting Southwest Virginia.

In a sweeping attack, a coalition of environmental groups asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reverse a federal agency’s approval of the 303-mile pipeline.

When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission green-lighted the pipeline in October 2017, it voted 2-1 that its public benefits will outweigh any adverse impacts. But in finding there was a market demand for the natural gas, FERC relied entirely on contracts between the pipeline’s owners and its shippers, which are all part of the same corporate structure.

The complex affiliations of Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC were not the result of “arms-length negotiations” that would have demonstrated a true market based on public need, the court was told by Ben Luckett of Appalachian Mountain Advocates, a nonprofit law firm that represented pipeline opponents during Monday’s oral arguments.

Attorneys for FERC and Mountain Valley countered that the partners would never have invested in the $4.6 billion venture unless they were convinced it was worth the risk — an argument that seemed to resonate with the three-judge panel hearing the case. “They’re putting skin in the game, which tends to show they are using their best judgment about future demand,” Judge Gregory Katsas said in one of several questions put to Luckett.

And the pipeline’s capacity is fully subscribed to the Mountain Valley shippers, is it not? asked Judge David Tatel. Yes, Luckett responded, but 80 percent of the end users — the homeowners, businesses or power plants that will actually burn the gas — have yet to be identified and are based solely on speculation.

That may be so, Judge David Sentelle interjected, but the Mountain Valley shippers “are purchasers. They are buyers. They are creating a demand for the gas that is passing through the pipeline.”

In past decisions, the D.C. Circuit generally has been reluctant to second-guess FERC’s judgment. A written decision is expected within three to six months.

Of more than a dozen claims raised by Appalachian Mountain Advocates, the three judges devoted most of their questions to FERC’s reliance on so-called precedent agreements to identify market demand.

One such agreement involves RGC Midstream, which has a 1 percent ownership in the pipeline and is helping to pay for its construction. Its parent company, RGC Resources, has another subsidiary — Roanoke Gas Co. — which as a shipper will pay a fee to Mountain Valley for the transportation of the fuel it will then sell to its customers.

Challenging the government’s reliance on such agreements was seen by some as a long shot. “We do not expect the D.C. Circuit will ultimately rule against FERC given the court’s deference to the agency’s expertise on issues that fall under its jurisdiction,” Height Capital Markets, an investment banking research firm that has been monitoring the project, stated Monday in its weekly update. “However, an unfavorable decision here risks further delays and cost increases for the beleaguered project.”

Since it began work on the pipeline a year ago, Mountain Valley has been warned repeatedly by environmental regulators in West Virginia and Virginia that it is violating standards meant to limit erosion and sedimentation.

A lawsuit filed by Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality accuses construction crews of breaking the rules more than 300 times in the six counties — Giles, Craig, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Pittsylvania — through which the pipeline will pass.

Mountain Valley has also lost two permits awarded by federal agencies following FERC’s initial approval of the pipeline. In separate legal challenges, environmental groups have said that the U.S. Forest Service did not properly address erosion controls when it allowed the pipeline to cross through the Jefferson National Forest, and that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to follow state-imposed conditions meant to reduce sedimentation during work in streams and wetlands.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those permits in July and October. Mountain Valley has said it hopes to obtain new authorizations in time to complete the project by the end of this year.

In challenging FERC’s approval in the D.C. Circuit, Appalachian Voices and 23 other organizations and individuals cited a number of environmental concerns raised by burrowing a 42-inch diameter steel pipe along steep mountainsides and through pristine waters.

Other than the question of public need, the only other claim mentioned during Monday’s 30-minute session was the assertion that FERC had failed to adequately consider the impact of greenhouse gases to be released from the burning of natural gas provided by the pipeline.

Lawyers for FERC and Mountain Valley said that questions about where the gas eventually will wind up made it difficult to gauge its impact on climate change. “The tools for that simply don’t exist,” said Lona Perry, a U.S. deputy solicitor who made arguments on behalf of FERC.

“But why?” Tatel later asked when an attorney for Mountain Valley raised the same defense. “You didn’t have any doubt that all this [gas] will be burned, correct?”

##########

See also: Appalachian Mountain Advocates of Lewisburg, WV, and Charlottesville, VA

Reason is slow and difficult to achieve on pipelines

From an Article by Robert Zullo, Virginia Mercury, August 16, 2018

A federal court in Richmond that has served as a major legal battlefield this summer over federal and state permits for the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines got a new case added to its docket Thursday.

The Southern Environmental Law Center and Appalachian Mountain Advocates filed a challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the federal approval that underpins the entire project and conveys the right to seize land from uncooperative property owners along the 600-mile route.

The new suit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, the same court that has vacated several key permits for the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines.

In response to the court’s action, FERC ordered construction halted last week on the ACP, developed by a group of energy companies led by Dominion Energy. On the same day, in a 2-1 vote, the agency’s commissioners denied a request for rehearing on the certificate.

At least two of FERC’s four sitting commissioners say the pipeline isn’t in the public interest. The fifth, Robert Powelson, left FERC this month.

In a dissent, Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, who also voted last year against issuing certification for the ACP and the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which will cross into Pittsylvania County, said the ACP remains contrary to the public interest and that FERC should have explored more opportunities for co-locating the two projects.

Photo in original article: The Lewis F. Powell Jr. federal courthouse in Richmond is home to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which struck down a key approval for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Monday. (Ned Oliver/ Virginia Mercury)
“I disagree with the commission’s approach to evaluating system and route alternatives, particularly in light of the recently-issued Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Fourth Circuit) decision which vacated the National Park Service’s federal authorization allowing the ACP Project to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway,” LaFleur wrote, adding that she also took issue with how FERC treats climate and environmental effects.

Another commissioner, Richard Glick, abstained from the vote “solely to enable those parties challenging the certificate to have their day in court.”

Glick added that if he had voted, the rehearing order would have failed on a 2-2 vote and the “appellate courts would not have had jurisdiction to review the commission’s decision to grant the certificate.”

FERC has come under scrutiny for its use of “tolling orders” to prevent opponents of the projects it certifies from getting into court to fight them.

“I share many of the concerns articulated in Commissioner LaFleur’s dissenting opinion and I do not believe that the ACP Project has been shown to be in the public interest,” Glick wrote. “It is fundamentally unfair to deprive parties of an opportunity to pursue their claims in court, especially while pipeline construction is ongoing.”

The SELC and their allies have argued that the gas from the Atlantic Coast Pipeline isn’t needed for utilities, as the companies pushing the projects have insisted.

Gas-fired plants in Virginia and North Carolina are already connected to the existing system and testimony at the Virginia State Corporation Commission indicates that Virginia ratepayers could be on the hook for nearly $2.4 billion in extra costs because of the pipeline. FERC has guaranteed a 14 percent rate of return for the project, which could cost more than $6.5 billion.

‘”At a time when clean, renewable energy is affordable and abundant, the only reason to lock us into decades of dependence on climate-disrupting fracked gas is that polluting corporations are making billions of dollars off it. It’s a shame that we have to go to court to force FERC to do its job, but we are committed to using every available avenue to stop the ACP and all the other coal, oil and gas projects that threaten our climate and communities,” said Joan Walker, a representative with the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Dirty Fuels Campaign,” in a statement.

Dominion Energy spokesman Aaron Ruby did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The company has said it is “already working with the key agencies to resolve the issues in FERC’s order so we can resume construction as soon as possible.”

Chinese looking for opportunities at WVU

From an Article by Kate Mishkin, Charleston Gazette, June 23, 2018

A nonprofit law firm has filed a lawsuit against West Virginia University after the school failed to hand over public records about a deal between West Virginia and a Chinese energy company.

The $83.7 billion investment deal, forged in November 2017 between the state and China Energy, was the largest of several agreements China made with the United States. At the time, Gov. Jim Justice called the memorandum of understanding “the largest investment in our state’s history.”

WVU President Gordon Gee touted the deal as a “culmination of years of relationship building, both by West Virginia University and the state.”

Details about the deal remain murky, though. Appalachian Mountain Advocates asked for more information about the deal in November, asking for a number of documents from the WVU Energy Institute or its staff, including a copy of the agreement and emails that discussed the deal.

The university declined that request in December, saying the documents weren’t public, and they included trade secrets and information about economic development. Plus, a Freedom of Information Act officer for the university wrote, there were more than 15,000 emails that fit the description, and that parsing through those emails would be too great a task.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday, names WVU as a defendant and seeks to unveil some of the details about the agreement.

WVU said in November it would work with state government to coordinate the investment, and the university had been researching coal liquefaction with Chinese government-owned coal mining company Shenhua Group and energy company Guodian Group. WVU, the state Department of Commerce and the Appalachian Development Group have been working to secure a loan from the U.S. Department of Energy for an Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub.

See also: Appalachian Mountain Advocates

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For all the $83B in China Energy — what do we really have?

Newspaper Editorial, Morgantown Dominion Post, June 25, 2018

“Promise of big foreign investment in gas industry starting to look nebulous”

No, eight months don’t make two decades. But the size of the headlines in November, heralding an $83 billion investment in West Virginia over 20 years by China Energy, have shrunk. That’s not to say they disappeared, but lately they look to be a lot less sensational.

Last week, executives from China Energy failed to show for a regional petrochemical conference, quelling hopes for news about their plans. Those plans included projects focused on power generation, chemical manufacturing and underground storage of natural gas liquids and derivatives. Since then there appears to be growing reason for concern whether this investment will ever live up to its promise.

Two of the first announced projects — proposed gas-fired power plants in Harrison and Brooke counties — were initially said to be among the first of China Energy’s investments. The company behind those plants later said it’s not expecting any China Energy backing.

Then this year, in what started with tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels and washing machine, accelerated in March with tariffs on Chinese aluminum and steel, became an all-out trade war. In mid-June the Trump administration slapped tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods, which Beijing has matched in a tit-for-tat showdown.

The governor discounted the recent resignation of the state’s Commerce secretary, who signed the memorandum of understanding with China Energy representatives. But we cannot help but think he was probably better acquainted with these plans than anyone.

Then China Energy officials cancelled their visit at the Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction Conference, in Pittsburgh. And all this comes on the heels of still no details about this investment or the sites being looked at for investment. So, where does the China Energy memorandum of understanding stand today? That’s a good question and rest assured it’s probably better than the answer you’ll get.

The governor would have us believe that this deal is safe because of his relationship with the president. WVU Energy Institute’s director assessed these developments as a “speed bump,” not a “road block.”

We hope this optimism is not misplaced, because our state looks to be on the rebound as this fiscal year ends. A small budget surplus looks to even be in the picture. It’s about time, too. But if this impasse continues for long our economic recovery may be on a slow boat to China.

See also: $83 Billion West Virginia Petrochemical Deal with China on Skids Due to Trade War, Corruption Probe | DeSmogBlog