Written by Chloe Marie – Research Specialist
The Atlantic
Coast Pipeline (ACP) project is a 600-mile underground pipeline
project designed to carry natural gas from wells located in Harrison County,
West Virginia, through Virginia to a terminal facility in Robeson County, North
Carolina. The pipeline is proposed to have a capacity of approximately 1.5
billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. This pipeline project also involves
the construction of three compressor stations: one each in Lewis County, West
Virginia; Buckingham County, Virginia; and Northampton County, North Carolina.
The ACP project is operated as a joint venture of four U.S. energy
companies, including Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas and
Southern Company Gas. Dominion Energy is the majority owner and is responsible
for the construction of the pipeline. Construction
on the ACP project has started but significant delays have occurred due to the
many regulatory approvals that are necessary prior to putting the pipeline into
service as well as numerous legal challenges that have been filed to block
and/or delay construction activities.
This article will review the timeline of actions taken by various
federal and state regulatory entities involved with the construction of the
pipeline; specifically, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, and several state agencies in North Carolina. Subsequent articles planned in this series
will address the legal challenges that have been filed in various courts opposing
the proposed construction activities.
FERC process timeline
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, initiated a pre-filing process with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the ACP project in late October 2014.
The company later sought a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from
FERC under sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) on September 18,
2015, for construction and operation of the ACP.
On July 21, 2017, FERC released a final
environmental impact statement (EIS) concluding that the ACP project
would cause adverse effects on steep slopes and adjacent waterbodies together
with associated aquatic resources as well as forested vegetation and Endangered
Species Act-listed animals. FERC found, however, that these impacts could be
reduced to less-than-significant levels. Consequently, FERC granted
the company’s request for a certificate to construct and operate the proposed
pipeline on October 13, 2017.
North Carolina process timeline
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, applied for an air permit from the
Division of Air Quality (DAQ) of the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ) in September 2015 for the construction and operation of the
Northampton compressor station. This air permit application was subject to revisions
in July 2017. On February 27, 2018, DAQ approved
and issued the air quality permit for the ACP project.
The North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) received a water
quality permit application from Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, in May 2017 and,
after much back and forth between DWR and the company regarding submission of
additional information, DWR issued
a Section 401 water quality certification for the ACP project on January 26,
2018. DWR specified as part of its approval that the water certification would
become effective only after Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, obtained an Erosion
and Sediment Control (ESC) permit from the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land
Resources (DEMLR). After multiple disapprovals of the ESC plans submitted by
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, DEMLR conditionally
approved said plans in November 2017, subjecting them to certain
modifications for the pipeline section that would cross Cumberland, Robeson and
Sampson counties. DEMLR finally approved
the plans in their entirety on February 1, 2018.
In the meantime, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, filed for two general
stormwater permits in November 2017 for impacted areas of Nash
and Cumberland
counties. DEMLR issued these permits also on February 1, 2018.
Virginia process timeline
On July 6, 2017, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, submitted to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) combined Stormwater Management and
Erosion & Sediment Control Plans for the ACP project. The Virginia Water
Control Board conditionally
approved issuance of a Section 401 water quality certification on
December 12, 2017, pending review of certain information by VADEQ contained in
the plans.
On October 19, 2018, VADEQ approved
the combined Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control Plans;
thus, giving full effect to the water quality certification and allowing
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, to begin pipeline construction in Virginia.
On February 21, 2017, VADEQ received a draft air
special use permit application from Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC,
for the construction and operation of the Buckingham compressor station. The
State Air Pollution Control Board held a
public hearing on January 8, 2019, on the proposed permit in order
to consider specific documents that the Board received on November 8 and 9,
2018.
West Virginia process timeline
On July 21, 2016, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) issued
an air permit to Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, for the construction of the Marts
compressor station that will operate in Lewis County.
On December 6, 2017, WVDEP announced
that it had waived its Clean Water Act authority regarding the Section 401
individual certification for the ACP project. In justifying such waiver, WVDEP
declared that the “special West Virginia conditions that exist in the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide permit are designed to mirror what would
be in a 401 individual certification issued by West Virginia.”
On January 26, 2018, WVDEP issued
a “Stormwater Associated with Oil and Gas Related Construction Activities
General Permit” for the ACP project.
Legal challenges faced by ACP
While the Atlantic Coast Pipeline has faced lengthy regulatory approval
processes, it also has defended against numerous legal challenges filed against
proposed construction activities related to the pipeline. Our next three Shale Law in the Spotlight
articles will address these legal challenges. Stay tuned!
This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
No comments:
Post a Comment