Bill Overview
Title: Pipeline Fairness and Transparency Act
Description: This bill addresses eminent domain, the environmental review for interstate natural gas pipeline projects, and the visual impacts of natural gas pipeline projects on national scenic trails. Specifically, the bill requires courts, in determining the just compensation for land that is acquired by eminent domain and subject to a conservation easement, to consider the lost conservation value of that land. The bill also revises the process for environmental reviews of natural gas projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must prepare a supplement to a draft or final environmental impact statement if (1) FERC makes a substantial change in the proposed action that is relevant to environmental concerns, or (2) there are significant new circumstances relevant to environmental concerns. FERC must also hold public meetings in each county (or equivalent subdivision) in which a project is to be located. Additionally, in an environmental impact statement, an evaluation of the visual impacts of a project on a national scenic trail must include a cumulative analysis of the visual impacts of the project and similar proposed projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by interstate natural gas pipeline projects and related communities
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The bill affects landowners whose land is subject to eminent domain for natural gas pipeline projects, particularly those with conservation easements.
- Natural gas companies involved in interstate pipeline projects will be impacted due to changes in the regulation and environmental review process.
- Communities located along national scenic trails will be affected due to requirements on visual impact assessments.
- Local governments and residents where pipelines are proposed will be engaged through required public meetings.
- Conservationists and environmental groups will be affected due to the consideration of conservation value and stronger environmental reviews.
Reasoning
- This policy affects a diverse set of stakeholders, including individual landowners, communities near scenic trails, conservationists, local governments, and the natural gas industry.
- The budget constraint means large-scale infrastructure projects such as pipelines may face increased scrutiny, potentially impacting project timelines and costs.
- Landowners may feel more protected as the policy ensures compensation for the conservation value of their land. This may increase their self-reported well-being.
- Natural gas companies might be strained by additional regulations, potentially affecting their growth strategies and operational costs.
- The general public and environmental groups may appreciate enhanced transparency and engagement opportunities, possibly improving their perception of fairness and involvement in local developments.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (West Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I usually worry about pipelines reducing the value of my property.
- This policy could be beneficial as it acknowledges conservation value.
- Compensation for conservation easement is a fair approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see more thorough environmental reviews being required.
- Considering visual impacts alongside environmental ones is crucial.
- This policy sets a good precedent for future projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Natural Gas Company Executive (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This adds additional layers to regulatory processes and could slow projects.
- Increased costs for compliance might impact our margins.
- Engagement with local communities could foster better relationships but needs careful management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Local Government Official (Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better public meeting requirements help local governments plan.
- Local input should be a part of decisions impacting the environment.
- Additional analysis requirements offer a platform for greater community involvement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Hiker/Blogger (Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's focus on visual impacts is important to preserve trail beauty.
- Public involvement could prevent negative impacts.
- Ensuring thorough environmental checks is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Pipeline Construction Worker (Pennsylvania)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional regulatory steps could mean fewer projects in the short term.
- This might affect job availability and stability.
- However, it could improve long-term project sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing legislative focus on conservation is promising.
- Stronger environmental reviews are much needed.
- The visual impact consideration is an often overlooked but crucial element.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Rancher (Nebraska)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Eminent domain typically doesn't account for our values.
- This policy seems fair for landowners with conservation goals.
- Public involvement is a positive aspect for community awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
University Student (Montana)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Glad to see policies aligning with environmental integrity.
- This will provide valuable case studies for sustainable practices.
- Engagement is key to balancing development and conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Real Estate Agent (Alabama)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy changes can influence market perceptions.
- Compensation changes will affect property negotiations.
- Valuable to have transparent processes in place for clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $7400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4800000, High: $7800000)
Year 10: $6500000 (Low: $5500000, High: $8500000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $9000000)
Key Considerations
- The impact on natural gas companies due to potentially more stringent review processes.
- The potential legal complexities and costs associated with the new eminent domain compensation guidelines.
- The need for coordination among various federal and state agencies to implement bill provisions effectively.