Some experts are questioning Mountain Valley Pipeline's emissions estimates

How will Mountain Valley Pipeline affect the climate? Experts are debating its emissions.

Environmentalists are blasting provisions in the debt ceiling bill to expedite the Mountain Valley Pipeline, saying the project will lead to a massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

But just how many million metric tons of emissions will the pipeline pump into the atmosphere? That’s the subject of a burgeoning debate among energy analysts.

Many climate activists have cited a 2017 analysis by Oil Change International that found the pipeline would lead to annual emissions of more than 89 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent — the same as adding 26 coal plants or 19 million passenger cars.

Yesterday, protestors with the group Climate Defiance cited this analysis when interrupting a speech by Heather Boushey, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, at a sustainability conference:

Jamie Henn, the founder and director of Fossil Free Media, also invoked those Oil Change International findings when encouraging people to attend a rally against the pipeline next week:

But several energy analysts told us the Oil Change International emissions estimates are too high. They pointed to two assumptions that led to higher emissions estimates than they deemed accurate.

First, the analysis assumes that 100 percent of the gas that the pipeline transports will increase U.S. gas consumption.

• In other words, it assumes that none of the gas would be burned if the pipeline were never built. 
• But experts said much of the gas would still be burned — it would just come from other, pricier sources.

“Oil Change International’s methods assume that 100% of the natural gas flowing through Mountain Valley leads to increased consumption of natural gas. That’s simply not how commodity markets work,” Jesse Jenkins, an energy modeler at Princeton University, said in an email. “Generally whenever you add new supply, much of that supply offsets more expensive supply.”

Second, the analysis assumes that the pipeline will leak a lot of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere more than carbon dioxide in the short term.

• In particular, the analysis relies on a methane leakage rate of 3.6 percent.
• But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated a methane leakage rate of 1.4 percent across the entire U.S. gas supply chain, while a 2018 paper published in the journal Science found a methane leakage rate equivalent to 2.3 percent of U.S. gas production.

“A methane leak rate of 3.6 percent is not outrageously high, but it’s on the high side,” said Daniel Raimi, a fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future. “It certainly makes the numbers look higher.”

A third energy analyst agreed with Jenkins and Raimi’s critiques, saying a more accurate estimate of the pipeline’s annual emissions would be 6 to 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, rather than 89 million metric tons. The analyst spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve relationships with environmentalists who oppose the pipeline and who might view lower emissions estimates as a tacit endorsement of the project.

The response

Lorne Stockman, the lead author of the analysis and research co-director at Oil Change International, defended his assumptions about both gas consumption and methane leakage. 

In particular, Stockman argued that if the pipeline were never built, not all of the gas would still be burned. Instead, he said, renewable energy could replace some of that gas, especially since it’s cheaper to build new solar and wind farms than new gas plants.

Still, Stockman said he is “happy to admit that our methodology is not necessarily perfect and that we weren’t attempting to have a definitive number here. This is all based on very limited data.”

Ultimately, Stockman contended that even if the pipeline will lead to lower emissions than his analysis suggests, it still shouldn’t be fast-tracked by Congress.

“16 million tons of CO2 per year is still 16 million tons more than we should be adding at this point in the climate crisis,” he said.

Kaine’s wrath

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has introduced an amendment to the debt ceiling bill to strip the pipeline provision, seems to agree with this sentiment.

Kaine voiced frustration yesterday that the White House didn’t give him a heads up on its support for the provision, which could help Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) win reelection if he runs next year against popular West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R).

“I want Joe Manchin to do well, but I mean, this is a Virginia project, and they didn’t even bother to pick up the phone and call me,” Kaine told reporters, per the Associated Press’s Seung Min Kim.

Still, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has signaled he will oppose all amendments to the debt limit bill, which passed the House last night with just days until the government could fall behind on its financial obligations.

“We can’t send anything back to the House,” Schumer said yesterday. “That would risk default.”

On the Hill

Senate committee passes bipartisan nuclear energy bill

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 16-3 yesterday to advance a bill that would accelerate domestic production of new nuclear technologies and establish the United States as a leader in nuclear power. 

The Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2023, which was introduced by Chairman Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), ranking member Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), seeks to accomplish the following goals: 

• Empowering the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to lead in international forums to develop regulations for nuclear reactors.
• Requiring the NRC to help enable the timely licensing of nuclear reactors at brownfield sites.
• Reducing regulatory costs for companies seeking to license advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
• Boosting funding for cleaning up abandoned uranium mining sites on tribal lands.

“Investing in clean, reliable nuclear energy is essential to meeting our climate goals and advancing our economic and national security interests,” Carper said in a statement. “I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to pass this legislation and send it to the President’s desk.”

Pressure points

Pipeline deal in debt ceiling agreement angers climate advocates. Is it legal?

Despite outcry from environmentalists, the deal between the White House and House Republicans to force the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline is likely to withstand legal challenges, The Washington Post’s Rachel Weiner reports. 

The language in the debt ceiling deal directs the federal government to approve any outstanding permits for the 303-mile pipeline and blocks courts from reviewing them or any other agency action in approval of the project. It comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has repeatedly blocked permits for the project on the basis that it fails to account for environmental damage. 

The move might be controversial, but it is still constitutional, environmental law experts said. On numerous occasions, courts have ruled that Congress and federal agencies could pass legislation to approve projects that are considered to be necessary but would otherwise be blocked. 

“Can they do this? Almost certainly, yes,” said Jay Austin of the nonprofit Environmental Law Institute.

In the states

California law will base electricity bills on income levels

A new California law requires utilities to charge customers for electricity based on how much money they make, rather than how much energy they use, in an effort to address rising costs and electrify the state’s roughly 13 million homes, The Post’s Shannon Osaka reports. 

Under the proposal, which will take effect as soon as next year, Californians making more than $180,000 a year could pay more than four times as much in fixed electricity charges as residents making less than $28,000 a year. 

The law would split utility costs into two buckets: fixed charges, which everyone has to pay to connect to the grid, and variable charges, which depend on how much electricity a person uses. The California Public Utilities Commission has until July 2024 to decide what those income-based rates will look like. 

Hundreds of angry comments from Californians have flooded the commission’s website. Many residents have voiced concern that the high fixed charges will discourage people from installing rooftop solar panels or retrofitting their homes to be more energy efficient.

In the atmosphere

• Florida intensifies oversight of insurers after they cut disaster estimates — Brianna Sacks for The Post  
• Peru battles record dengue outbreak, in a warning for a warming world — France Vinall for The Post  
• Exxon, Chevron shareholders soundly reject climate-related petitions — Sabrina Valle for Reuters  
• Treasury issues more advanced energy project tax credit guidance — Erin Slowey for Bloomberg Tax  
• DOJ announces civil action against coal mines owned by West Virginia governor’s son — Zack Budryk for the Hill 

Viral

Thanks for reading!