Existing 12″ natural gas pipelines proposed for replacement with new 24″ lines. Click for larger view.

by Steve Haner

Natural gas pipeline companies have applied to federal regulators with another proposal to enhance supply into Virginia’s Hampton Roads region, despite the earlier failures of two similar high profile efforts.

Columbia Gas Transmission, part of TC Energy which is best known for the recently-rejected Keystone XL pipeline, is proposing to replace 48 miles of existing, 1950s-era, 12-inch diameter pipe with new 24-inch pipe. Compressor stations and other facilities would also be modernized. This proposal is being marketed as the Virginia Reliability Project and stays within existing right of way from Sussex County to Chesapeake.

Transcontinental (Transco), in a separate application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, wants to add a 6.35-mile loop of new 24-inch pipe in Brunswick and Greensville counties, and improve a compressor there, allowing it to supply an additional 105,000 dekatherms per day to points east and south. It has been named the Commonwealth Energy Connector Project.

From the S&P Global story linked in the adjacent paragraph. Click for larger view.

To some writing for the energy trade press, the combined projects look like an effort to make up for the loss of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, abandoned by Dominion Energy. It was to provide substantial new supply to regional retailer Virginia Natural Gas. Following that retreat in the face of environmental opposition and a change in attitude by elected Virginia leaders, the VNG Header project was also abandoned. Will this third proposal fare better?

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline and VNG Header Projects had successfully negotiated their way through the FERC process and hit the wall later. Now may be different. As previously reported the Biden Administration’s new FERC appointees have added a stronger focus on preventing expansion of greenhouse gases.

In its initial comments filed with FERC in March, the Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency also went straight to that issue:

  • EPA recommends the project need and alternatives analysis consider whether existing and reasonably foreseeable regional infrastructure, including gas and non-gas resources, can or will serve the public convenience and necessity, factoring in energy market and policy trends, including greenhouse gases (GHG) emission reduction policies.
  • EPA encourages FERC to review the application considering alternative options outside of the increase in fossil fuel related infrastructure that might also meet regional needs.

If there is any softening in attitude toward natural gas projects in the Biden Administration in response to the energy issues highlighted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EPA officials behind this 7-page letter (submitted well after the war started) don’t show it.

Compressor stations have been the focus of prior debates and permit battles, and these proposals seek to address some of the past controversies by moving to emissions-free electrical-driven compressors, rather than machinery run off the gas in the pipes. That, of course, also leaves more gas in the pipes for the actual customers down the line.

A coordinated public relations effort is underway on behalf of the Virginia Reliability Project segment, with letters of support from local elected officials, former governors and business advocacy groups already filed at FERC. Many have also offered favorable comments in  local media stories. Three Democratic legislator endorsements are highlighted on one company webpage, led by Senator Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth.

The Teamster’s Union has a letter in the file endorsing the project, as long as it is built under a union contract, asking FERC to insist on a project labor agreement.

The project’s published schedule has construction starting in 2024 and gas flowing in 2025. The same promotional page includes the following:

Enhancing the system to meet existing and growing needs will create significant positive economic impacts across the region to offset the more than $4 billion lost in economic growth over the last five years due to a shortage of available natural gas supply. (Emphasis added.)

Is there hard evidence the failures of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and VNG Header Project have had measurable, negative economic impacts on Virginia? Can advocates for the region show the state has lost the opportunity to attract businesses because its natural gas supply was constrained? If so, details of that economic damage should be released and might help change some minds among those blindly following the “we need no more fossil fuels” mantra.

This may be Virginia’s last chance to show it is not relentlessly hostile to natural gas. State regulatory agencies will also have a role in the approval processes, and under the Ralph Northam (D) Administration their hostility was palpable and effective. The Glenn Youngkin (R) Administration has a chance to send a different message about Virginia’s openness to an “all of the above” energy approach.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

33 responses to “Another Try for Natural Gas to Hampton Roads”

  1. The anti-pipeline wackos in SWVA is preventing Virginia Tech from converting its outdated coal power plant to natural gas by thwarting the Mountain Valley Pipeline…….better to have coal dust particulates falling on students and being sucked into their lungs, then safe, clean burning natural gas flowing through modern, safe pipelines.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Well, if we’re talking about a property owner who does not want to sell his/her property or be forced to – to another property owner for that owners own benefit – perhaps “wacko” is a misleading word?

  2. I would love to know how that $4-billion figure was calculated. Can the gas advocates point to tangible economic-development projects that failed to make the cut due to inadequate gas supplies? Or did they run some numbers through an econometric model that spit out the result? If there’s hard evidence to support their claim, they should release it. If not, well, we all suspect that economic models, like climate models, are Garbage In, Garbage Out.

  3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Upgrading existing lines is certainly a practical solution. Look at its this way, if Virginia hopes to phase out fossil fuels for utilities, that may require others to use them. We consume more elec than most states (due to home heat pumps/data centers) thus going all electric is not going to be easy for Virginia in particular. That implies a massive build up of renewables (or imports).

    1. A not-spoken about aspect —– how will our many USMIL bases maintain readiness if renewables cannot provide full time, full capacity energy?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        They’ll obviously need backup fuels but a pretty important point is that as long as the military is dependent on being supplied with fuels from sources off their base – they are not really stand-alone and are vulnerable , just as vulnerable as a deployed mission dependent on and tethered to a supply line.

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    One the surface, this seems like a much less disruptive way to get gas to Hampton Roads. If so, why wasn’t this the original proposal? Could it be that Dominion wanted far more than just additional gas for Hampton Roads? Like maybe gas into North and South Carolina?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      I seem to remember that one of our former commenters in this area, TomH, made this point–existing natural gas pipelines could be used.

    2. It was never a secret that the ACP was meant to supply North Carolina. That’s why Duke Energy was a partner in the project.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        The primary claim for the ACP was to ‘help” Virginia and Tidewater.

        was that a lie?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well no, want me to to go back in BR and extract some of the statements made by the “pro” pipeline folks?

    3. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The vast majority of the ACP flow was into NC, with only a spur over to Hampton Roads providing a sliver of its supply.

      Yes, Dick, it will be interesting to see if major enviro opposition appears to this, given a very good argument can be made the newer pipe and compressors will also be much safer and leak less. I still expect a war.

  5. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    this is a key aspect: “… replace 48 miles of existing, 1950s-era, 12-inch diameter pipe with new 24-inch pipe.”

    No new right-of-way. Use the existing one.

    If that actually will work then why was a separate corridor needed for the ACP in the first place especially since the gas is not needed for electricity generation – a legitimate public need?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Bigger explosions.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        fair point but still better to expand an existing corridor width than a brand new wider one, IMHO.

        GOT TO BE more cost effective for investors also one might think. And more timely, less regulatory and legal hurdles.

        Not needed for electricity so it’s pure supposed economic development and home/commercial heating is problematical in the longer term.

        What really makes new/expanded pipelines economically appealing is that the price of gas is going up and perhaps prospect of more profits.

        The other side is that if fuel (for any purpose) becomes more expensive, that it drives more conservation of use.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    $4B? That’s a few windmills.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    A LOT more gas to Hampton Roads for what and at what profitability?

    Probably for export. Right?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not without an LNG terminal, which nobody is suggesting. Ironically, Larry, I’m told the lack of sufficient gas supply is preventing the location of some of the companies that otherwise will support the offshore wind! Gas is a feedstock in the manufacturing process for blades, used in other processes. Takes heat to form those towers, I betcha.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not without an LNG terminal, which nobody is suggesting. Ironically, Larry, I’m told the lack of sufficient gas supply is preventing the location of some of the companies that otherwise will support the offshore wind! Gas is a feedstock in the manufacturing process for blades, used in other processes. Takes heat to form those towers, I betcha.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        How long to build an LNG terminal ? How much cost?

        as to the “blades”. jezuz H.Keeerist – do you THINK we MUST manufacture those blades ONLY at the site?

        Have you ever heard of something called the global supply chain? 😉 – You know, like where car parts and Boeing airplane parts – as well as wind turbine parts are made all over the world where things like gas already are available?

        really lame argument Haner…. not your usual zing!

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          But, but, but Larry, proponents for the offshore wind nonsense spend a ton of time claiming its all about jobs in VA! Their PR pitch is constant on that point. They try to hide how much will be spent overseas.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It will do both – like a lot of larger projects. But the idea that we need the gas so we can build wind turbine blades sounds like a pro-gas thing to me…. sorta like saying we need the gas so we
            can build new tunnels… or some such…

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            no. no. Haner. The proponents talk about clean power AND clean power jobs, NOT jobs that come from fossil fuels. I can’t believe you can’t keep this straight! 😉

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        A LNG terminal was part of the ACP rationale. Curiously the original proponents of fracking insisted it was all for domestic supply and energy independence, no exports, That didn’t last long,

        Today the arguments are RUSSIAPUTIN, more LNG exports to Europe! Never let a crisis (even one self created) go unexploited.

        Looking closely at Tidewater LNG export plans, or even just currently unused capacity, needs to be a big part of evaluating proposals for increased pipeline capacity.

      3. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        A LNG terminal was part of the ACP rationale. Curiously the original proponents of fracking insisted it was all for domestic supply and energy independence, no exports, That didn’t last long,

        Today the arguments are RUSSIAPUTIN, more LNG exports to Europe! Never let a crisis (even one self created) go unexploited.

        Looking closely at Tidewater LNG export plans, or even just unused increased capacity, needs to be a big part of evaluating proposals for increased pipeline capacity.

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I was going to save this for James’ usual Sunday photo lineup, but decided that when dealing with Dominion, one must look carefully. All may not be as it first appears…
    https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4D22AQGasHBkMitK5Q/feedshare-shrink_800/0/1648037064526?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=aCJt6_HyB915P4rfRyeRmCDca4rN5x0R5g7tA5EGnlU

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      right over my (dense) head…………

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        It’s a Plato’s Cave thing… did you zoom in on the hooves of one of the “black horses”?

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          Are the black ones real zebra shadows or is it photoshopped?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s a NatGeo photo. I would guess they’re quite real. Drones, eh?

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Seems likely, dramatic lighting

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Africa is known for drama even in lighting.

Leave a Reply