Bill Overview
Title: Pipeline Permitting for Energy Security Act
Description: This bill modifies requirements under the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to expedite water quality certifications, environmental reviews, endangered species consultations, and make related changes. The bill also establishes requirements to expedite the approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is a natural gas pipeline located in Virginia and West Virginia.
Sponsors: Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]
Target Audience
Population: People living near current and potential pipeline projects in environmentally sensitive areas
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill targets modifications in environmental procedures for pipeline projects, so the primary population affected would be those living near pipeline projects and environmentally sensitive areas.
- The Mountain Valley Pipeline is specifically mentioned, affecting the populations of Virginia and West Virginia.
- Expedited pipelines may mean economic benefits such as jobs and energy security for some, potentially affecting populations relying on traditional energy sectors.
- On the other hand, communities concerned with environmental protection and heritage, possibly including indigenous communities, environmental activists, and local residents, will be impacted.
- The habitat of endangered species may be affected, indirectly impacting ecological researchers and conservationists.
- Potential broader environmental effects mean that those concerned with climate change policy, both locally and globally, might be indirectly affected.
Reasoning
- We will include a variety of individuals, from those directly residentially proximate to the Mountain Valley Pipeline, to those economically involved, such as in the energy sector, to environmental activists both local and remote, ensuring a spectrum of direct, indirect, and opposition perspectives.
- The budget limits relatively narrow the scope in terms of directly impacted individuals, focusing on immediate community members, job-associated individuals, and specific advocacy groups.
- Virginia and West Virginia journaling a combined populace necessitate focusing on subsections, like local rather than state-wide groups, due to the precise impact zone anticipated.
- Overall, the impact may range substantially in intensity depending on proximity to the pipeline and personal connections to the environmental and energy policy.
Simulated Interviews
Pipeline Construction Worker (Charleston, West Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This project is vital for my job security and income.
- The policy streamlines our work, meaning more reliable employment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Roanoke, Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm deeply concerned about the environmental impact these policies will have.
- Expediting pipelines often sidelines critical environmental evaluations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 7 |
Ecologist (Blacksburg, Virginia)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My work's integrity is tied to thorough environmental assessments.
- This policy jeopardizes the habitats I study and seek to protect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Richmond, Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps my business grow with more projects expedited.
- I'm happy for the streamlined processes, as they mean more predictable demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Local Farmer (Pipestem, West Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how this policy might impact my water sources.
- While development may bring jobs, it risks damaging our natural resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Retired (Norfolk, Virginia)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about leaving a compromised environment for my grandchildren.
- Policies like these are too hasty and permanent to be beneficial in the long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 7 |
Energy Analyst (Maybrook, Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might improve energy security, which is beneficial overall.
- It's a balancing act of benefits and environmental cost, important for policy scrutiny.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
University Student (Morgantown, West Virginia)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expediting pipelines contradicts the climate science we're studying.
- I feel this policy neglects its environmental responsibilities for short-term gains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 7 |
Electrical Engineer (Fairmont, West Virginia)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy might allow for more efficient energy planning and usage.
- It's important to carefully consider environmental factors alongside efficiency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Tourism Operator (New River Valley, Virginia)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've noticed fewer tourists as concerns over environmental health rise.
- Policies like this reduce natural allure, potentially harming my livelihood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $17000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- There may be significant environmental opposition and potential legal challenges that could affect implementation timelines and costs.
- Balance between energy security benefits and environmental protection is critical.
- Potential precedents set by expedited processes might influence future policy and regulation adjustments.