RICHMOND, Va. – In light of a new court ruling, opponents want to force regulators to look at the climate impact of the gas from two huge proposed pipelines.

Last week the Washington, D.C. District Court ruled in favor of the Sierra Club that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have considered the greenhouse emissions from gas carried by a pipeline from Alabama to Florida.

Kirk Bowers, pipelines program coordinator for the Virginia chapter of the
Sierra Club, says his group will push for that decision to be applied to the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines.

He says burning gas from those pipelines would mean more carbon than all Virginia power plants now emit – nearly 100 million tons a year.

"And that's almost double what we have now,” he points out. “And that means that we're blowing our carbon budget at a time when we can't afford to use more fossil fuels and emit more greenhouse gasses."

The companies behind the pipelines did include those carbon emissions in their applications. But Bowers calls their estimates "incomplete, inaccurate and low."

Energy companies have plans for about a dozen new pipelines to carry Marcellus and Utica gas. They argue the projects are justified by future demand, although others dispute that.

Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast are two of the three pipelines that would go from northern West Virginia to eastern Virginia and North Carolina.

The Sierra Club has pushed for FERC to consider cumulative impacts and overall need – arguing the commission was created to prevent duplicate projects.

But Bowers says FERC insists on looking at each pipeline separately.

"FERC said they weren't in the business of determining whether they should have three pipelines or not,” he states. “And we've got all these reasons why we don't need more pipelines, and FERC said they're taking a blind-eye approach."

Bowers says FERC also will grant permission for pipelines to go ahead, even before the application process and court challenges are finished. He says in fact, the Alabama pipeline was finished and operating before last week's court ruling came down.





get more stories like this via email

Montana is a U.S. leader in the growing industry of sustainable aviation fuel. Experts in the field, and in the agricultural sector, hope to see new policies to support its development.

Sustainable aviation fuel can be made from a variety of agricultural inputs, including seed crops, which produce oils processed into fuel with a low-carbon footprint. Industry growth could mean new buyers for ag producers in the state, where Montana Renewables was the highest domestic producer of sustainable aviation fuel last year.

Bruce Fleming, CEO of the company, said China and Brazil are outpacing U.S. growth.

"If we can get our policy figured out, if we can get American innovation going and not fall behind, then we've got solutions here that will benefit the ag sector, particularly the farmers and ranchers," Fleming explained.

In terms of policy, Fleming acknowledged the "goalposts keep moving," because they vary between agencies at the state and federal levels, making it difficult to plan. He hopes to see policies that embrace the SAF innovation, as the nation did for ethanol.

Nicole Rolf, senior director of government affairs for the Montana Farm Bureau Federation, said the opportunity for farmers to grow and market new commodities is enticing, but she will be watching for tax credits and other policies to support producers.

"How do we make sure that we put the right incentives in place so that we're truly using American-grown feedstocks, and crops and commodities, to feed these sustainable aviation-fuel suppliers?" Rolf asked.

The industry sees both challenges and benefits in Montana. For instance, there are currently no local oilseed crushers, so farmers must ship seeds for processing out-of-state. Rolf pointed out Montana is prepared to ship the finished product by rail and other means, as it already does for other energy products.

Utility providers foresee a big rise in electricity demand which could lead to double-digit rate hikes if it is met with new natural gas-fired power plants, according to a new report.

PJM is the nonprofit independent system managing the power grid in Pennsylvania and 12 other states. It forecasts the need for 67 more gigawatts by 2039.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said relying on natural gas for the increased power demand could drive up Pennsylvania's rates faster than the national average. He cautioned addressing the climate effects of increased carbon emissions later could make costs skyrocket even more.

"It costs almost as much to retrofit a gas-fired power plant so that it won't emit greenhouse gases as it costs to build the plant in the first place," O'Leary pointed out. "Right now, Pennsylvanians get about 60% of all of their electricity from natural gas."

O'Leary noted PJM anticipates needing around 100 gigawatts of new capacity, combining 30 gigawatts of retiring coal and older gas plants with additional demand, equating to about two-thirds of the system's current generation capacity.

The Institute's report recommended prioritizing renewable resources and called on PJM to reevaluate its demand projections, since it has a history of overestimating future needs. He added more than 90% of PJM's upcoming projects are solar, wind and battery storage, which underscores the growing role of renewable energy and efficiency measures.

"I think in total, there are more than 90 gigawatts, currently, of renewable resources currently queued up and wanting the opportunity to provide energy to PJM," O'Leary reported. "That should be the first place that PJM turns."

He added states like Texas have made enough progress on renewables, solar and wind power now supply almost one-third of the state's electricity. The report showed the growth in renewable energy has also seen rates come down significantly, surpassing Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, where it was once thought the natural gas boom lowered energy costs.

A new report contended Alabama needs to invest more in energy efficiency so it can do more to lower power bills and curb the effects of climate change.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's report, "Energy Efficiency in the Southeast," said Alabama trails other states in utility company energy efficiency investments. It found this leads not only to higher energy bills for customers, but increased carbon emissions contributing to the warming climate.

Eddy Moore, decarbonization director for the alliance, said there are multiple benefits to prioritizing energy efficiency.

"If we take energy efficiency seriously, there will be everyday cost savings, there will be delays of expensive investments," Moore outlined. "There's also a reliability benefit."

The report found utilities like Duke Energy in North and South Carolina outperform others in the Southeast, with Alabama Power at the bottom of the list.

Heather Pohnan, senior energy policy manager for the alliance, said the barriers to energy efficiency in Alabama include limited funding, minimal program investment and challenges in reaching low-income and rental housing markets. She noted federal funding, from sources like the Inflation Reduction Act, could be a substantial resource.

"The IRA includes tens of billions of dollars for energy efficiency," Pohnan pointed out. "It was a massive investment that includes tax credits, consumer rebates, loan programs and competitive grant opportunities."

She noted Alabama has yet to apply for key resources, like Home Energy Rebate funds. The future of the funding is unclear with the new leadership headed to the White House. But the report argued energy efficiency will be essential to bolster Alabama's power grid against the rising electricity demands of data centers and population growth and to mitigate the effects of extreme weather events.