Federal agency gives proposed NC gas pipeline a key approval. What to know.
Owners of the MVP Southgate natural gas pipeline project now have until June 2026 to finish building it, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in an order issued Tuesday.
Previously, the project would have needed to be built and in service by June 18, 2023, a deadline its owners missed due to permitting problems in both North Carolina and Virginia amid ongoing questions about the fate of the Mountain Valley Pipeline mainline.
The extension allows the owners of MVP Southgate to move forward with building the interstate pipeline if they secure state-level permits. Without FERC’s order, they would have been unable to build the pipeline.
The 75.1-mile pipeline would be an extension of the 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline that will carry natural gas from West Virginia south. The Southgate extension would run into Rockingham and Alamance counties from the main pipeline in Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
Shawn Day, a spokesman for the Mountain Valley Pipeline project, told The News & Observer the companies involved are “pleased” with FERC’s decision and committed to the pipeline.
“At the appropriate time, Mountain Valley intends to pursue all necessary permits and authorizations to complete construction of the MVP Southgate project. There is no update or estimate for construction start or in-service dates available at this time,” Day said in an email.
At one point, both the mainline and the Southgate extension seemed stalled. But Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who is a staunch supporter of the fossil fuel industry, insisted that federal approval of the mainline be inserted into the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
That also revived the Southgate extension.
Who is building the Mountain Valley Pipeline?
Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Southgate extension are owned by a consortium of natural gas and energy companies that includes:
Equitrans Midsteam Corp., which will operate the pipeline
NextEra Capital Holdings
Con Edison Transmission
WGL Midstream MVP
RGC Midstream
Who supports the pipeline?
In North Carolina, many Republicans, including Sen. Phil Berger, support MVP Southgate, arguing it is necessary for energy security and economic development.
Berger called FERC’s Tuesday decision a “positive sign.”
“Pipeline planners have worked diligently over the years to ensure compliance with regulators, making hundreds of route adjustments along the way. Once finished, this project will bring a vitally important natural gas pipeline to North Carolina, bolstering our state’s energy independence and easing energy costs for businesses and residents,” Berger said in a statement.
Nearly every Republican in the North Carolina Senate sent FERC a letter supporting the pipeline. The lone senator who did not sign it, Amy Galey, represents the Alamance County district where the pipeline would end and voted against the project when she sat on the county board.
If completed, MVP Southgate would become the second pipeline that carries natural gas to enter North Carolina. Supporters of the project have said the other pipeline, Transco, is full and that additional capacity is necessary for energy resilience.
MVP Southgate could carry as much as 375 million cubic feet of natural gas each day. Dominion Energy has an agreement to buy 300 million cubic feet, while the other 75 million is not yet spoken for.
Who opposes the pipeline?
Many Democrats, including Gov. Roy Cooper and U.S. Reps. Kathy Manning and Valerie Foushee, have said it poses too much risk for a state that is in the midst of a transition away from fossil fuels. More than 50 Democrats in North Carolina’s legislature sent FERC a letter opposing the project, arguing it is unnecessary and that it would impact poor, rural areas.
Thousands of residents of North Carolina and Virginia also either signed on to or sent FERC comments asking for the agency to deny the construction extension.
In a letter to FERC commissioners this week, Foushee and Manning joined with Virginia Democrats Jennifer McClellan and Bobby Scott to reiterate their opposition.
“If built, this pipeline would lock homes and businesses in the Southeast into the long-term use of natural gas during a critical moment in which we must transition away from fossil fuels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” the lawmakers wrote.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas. It is better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide but is also shorter-lived in the atmosphere, leading some scientists to argue that curbing its use could more quickly lower greenhouse gases.
Environmental groups also argued that the project should not be opposed
What did FERC say?
Three FERC commissioners voted in favor of granting the Southgate project an extension, while Commissioner James Danly recused himself.
During a press conference after Tuesday,’s meeting, FERC Chairman Willie Phillips said the commissioners’ conclusion was merited despite outcries from people opposed to the pipeline facility.
“We look at the facts, we look at the law, and it leads you to the path that it leads you to,” Phillips said.
He continued, “Here, regarding MVP, all my colleagues agree unanimously that this was an application that met the just and reasonable standard and the standard under the Natural Gas Act that this project was in the public interest.”
What other permits does the project need?
MVP Southgate still needs permissions from state and federal agencies.
In Virginia, the project needs an air quality permit for the Pittsylvania compressor station where the Mountain Valley Pipeline mainline ends and gas is moved into MVP Southgate. The compressor has previously been denied amid environmental justice concerns.
The project would also need to obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stream crossing permits in both Virginia and North Carolina.
And in North Carolina, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality has twice denied the project key water quality certifications, citing concerns about the need to harm natural resources in North Carolina even as the mainline that would make the project viable was in question.
Building MVP Southgate would require impacting 301,994 square feet of regulated stream buffer areas, 13,986 linear feet of streams and 12.4 acres of wetlands, according to the previous North Carolina permit effort. Building the pipeline would require clear-cutting land, damming streams and digging trenches through streams and wetlands to insert the pipe, a DEQ official wrote in an April 2021 effort affirming the agency’s denial.
That damage would take place in the Haw River watershed, and Haw River Assembly Riverkeeper Emily Sutton has been a vocal opponent of the project.
Tuesday, Sutton said in a statement, “The health and safety of our communities and the Haw River watershed should not be jeopardized for the profits of fossil fuel interests. We will continue to fight to protect the people and places we love.”
How could this impact NC’s energy future?
More pipeline capacity is necessary for Duke Energy to shift coal-fired power plants to plants that burn natural gas.
In its most recent plan outlining what resources it plans to build to generate power, Duke said it wants to build 6.2 gigawatts of new natural gas plants by 2035. Duke officials also wrote that without an additional pipeline, the state’s energy generation would face risks of not being able to secure enough fuel, customers could be vulnerable to cost swings of Transco-supplied gas and retiring coal plants would be a riskier proposition.
The company has argued that new natural gas is necessary because it can be called upon at any time, rather than needing the sun to be shining or wind to be blowing like renewable sources.
“New natural gas electric generation is required in the Carolinas to meet increasing load, to support reliability, to satisfy the Companies’ integrated resource plans and to keep the Companies on track to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050,” Nelson Peeler, Duke’s senior vice president of transmission and fuels strategy and policy, told FERC in a letter supporting the extension.
Opponents of the natural gas projects argue that Duke should instead be building more solar and wind resources, as well as battery storage to capture excess energy generated when the resources are at their peak.
This story was produced with financial support from the Hartfield Foundation and 1Earth Fund, in partnership with Journalism Funding Partners, as part of an independent journalism fellowship program. The N&O maintains full editorial control of the work.
