Bill Overview
Title: Pipeline Permitting for Energy Security Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 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: Sen. Toomey, Patrick [R-PA]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by changes in pipeline permitting processes
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill directly affects communities in Virginia and West Virginia where the Mountain Valley Pipeline is located.
- Natural ecosystems impacted by expedited pipeline approvals lead to indirect effects on surrounding human populations who depend on these environments.
- The modifications to environmental legislation affect individuals working in sectors reliant on these regulatory processes, such as environmental law professionals, and environmental NGOs.
- If pipeline construction proceeds more quickly, workers in the natural gas industry may experience job growth or security.
- Expedited approval processes can impact property owners and residents near pipeline pathways due to potential changes in environment quality and estate value.
Reasoning
- The policy affects a relatively small but diverse group of people due to its geographic and economic implications.
- The communities in Virginia and West Virginia will see the most direct impacts because of the local nature of the pipeline project.
- Environmental impacts are a concern globally, but locally they may lead to alterations in the ecosystem that affect people reliant on those ecosystems.
- Employment prospects in the natural gas sector could expand, providing economic benefits locally.
- There may be legal and administrative sector impacts due to changes in regulatory processes, which may either lead to job reductions or shifts in responsibilities.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Charleston, WV)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that expedited environmental reviews could lead to overlooked ecological impacts.
- Our organization might struggle to keep up with the pace of reviewing these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
Pipeline Construction Worker (Roanoke, VA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes me feel secure in my job for now.
- I hope there are considerations for safety and the local environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Lawyer (Lynchburg, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes in regulatory processes could impact my workload significantly.
- We might see more cases due to environmental concerns that arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired (Virginia Beach, VA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the impact on property values and quality of life in my cabin area.
- Hopefully, the natural beauty isn't compromised too much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Environmental Policy Student (Richmond, VA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will be a key case study for my research.
- I worry about the long-term environmental implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Natural Gas Company Manager (Huntington, WV)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could streamline projects and increase profitability.
- Environmental concerns need to be balanced with economic growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College Professor (Morgantown, WV)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes such as these are concerning for ecological integrity.
- It's essential to educate students about the implications of legislative changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Real Estate Agent (Charleston, WV)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Property sales may fluctuate with such developments impacting nearby environments.
- There might be more properties needing to be sold if the environment is affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (Blacksburg, VA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the long-term health impacts on my students.
- Community education on environmental safety could become part of our curriculum.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
State Government Employee (Beckley, WV)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The streamlined processes might expedite project timelines, but at what ecological cost?
- I expect more workload once these projects ramp up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $28000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $28000000)
Year 5: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $26000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Potential for environmental degradation and long-term ecological impacts.
- Legal challenges and public opposition might affect the timelines and costs.
- Changes in property values and potential displacement of communities.
- Impact on the market dynamics of energy supply and prices.
- Compliance with international environmental agreements.