Mapping human and environmental elements
Due to the results of the initial media and existing literature review, the research team decided to focus on the demographics of the populations in the western edge of Virginia. Due to the scope of the pipeline, spatial analysis was used to explore potential impacts on environmentally-sensitive areas, in particular wetlands and geologic formations that would require non-traditional or invasive construction methods. Intersections between demographics and environmental elements were mapped accordingly.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is noted to have regional importance, thus the team targeted these areas for map-making, surveys, and workshops in these areas
The scocio-economic research conducted here recalled similar studies of disparate pipeline impact on different socio-economic communities; poorer communities are routinely burdened with risks in a disproportional manner.
Key takeaways
Wetland areas and intersection points with the proposed pipeline route
Median income of population affected by proposed pipeline route
In summary:
​
1. The pipeline pre-filing and certification process, as currently conducted, inherently instigates conflicts
2. The process is planned incrementally, and there is little consideration for larger national and regional systems and how energy infrastructure advances those priorities
​
The research results reveal that a true democratic process is lacking. The pipeline process needs to provide a space for robust debate, the consideration of alternative view points, and decision-making that can inform investments in future energy infrastructure. The current process creates divisive conflicts between community members and utilities, between regulatory agencies and communities, and between regulators and utility companies. The FERC process offers no room for communities to envision and propose energy solutions. The orchestrated public forums do little to build relationships between people; rather, they drive wedges between communities. The proliferation of route options that are issued from utilities offers minimal room for meaning input or careful consideration between alternatives.
​
The strict federal approach undermines the healthy tension that connects the States and the Federal governments in the United States. The profit maximizing approach, while efficient at yielding high returns from capital investments, is proven to inequitably distribute the risks among the poor and racial minorities, while favoring wealthy and predominately white communities.
What is needed is a means to combine the expertise from diverse stakeholders in new forums. A way forward might simply be a national dialogue on energy to confront the energy challenges and inform future energy infrastructure planning efforts across the nation. It is clear that the current process not only obscures the clear need to invest in energy infrastructure, but is, more importantly, pouring gasoline on the burning pyre of U.S. political discourse.
Media representation of the ACP
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline grabbed the attention of the public and the media in the middle of 2014; the search phrase “atlantic coast pipeline” registered on Google Trends® as a common search term in the summer of 2014. This meant that, a few months before the pre-filing notification issued by the consortium of owners to the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), there was an initial awareness of the pending plans. Media reports were concentrated between October 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 around the communities nearest to the pipeline, as shown in the map below. Media coverage did not seem to reach broader national audiences, as occurred with the Dakota and Keystone Pipeline projects.
The implementation process
FERC process
The site approval process for pipelines falls under the purview of the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). That process includes consulting with stakeholders, identifying environmental issues through scoping, and preparing environmental documents such as Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. Large projects may also include a preliminary determination based on non-environmental considerations. Certificates are issued by Commission order.
An overview of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) certification process
Briefly, the certificate process has four parts:
-
Applicant's Planning Process
-
Pre-filing*, Notification, and Review Process
-
Application Process
-
Construction Process
*A pre-filing process allows FERC staff to become involved with scoping of environmental issues before the applicant files its application. So, the applicant's planning process overlaps and is combined with the FERC process.
To fully understand the scope of the pipeline project, varying pipeline construction methods were also researched. Large pipeline projects, such as that of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, are often implemented using trench construction. This method essentially calls for the clearing and leveling of the path for the pipeline, with the pipe itself being laid into a trench which is then backfilled. In addition to preparing the land, considerations for pipeline fit, assembly, coating, testing, and maintenance are also considered.
Pipeline construction methods
Besides trench construction, there are other types of pipeline construction available—trenchless, above-ground, drilling, and dam-and-pump. Some of these methods exist in order to construct around objects such as waterways, highways, railroads, unstable soils, or steep terrain.
Stakeholder constellation
Following the construction of the project, several government agencies have roles in the supervision and regulation of the pipeline. Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the primary regulatory agency, focusing primarily on safety, efficiency, and facility requirements. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) plays a small role in the regulation of natural gas pipelines and is responsible for coordinating security for all transportation related operations.
Operations
The stakeholder constellation for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline follows a pattern involving citizens and affected communities offering input to regulating agencies, which in turn liaise with the regulated parties (Dominion and their partners). Ancillary organizations including the media, city officials and researchers (like ourselves) play a mediating role in these interactions. The affected businesses and community members formed new organizations and enrolled existing organizations to serve as direct political action organizations in an effort to mobilize a broader base of support as well as to communicate with governmental leaders. The U.S. Forest Service is an organization that spans the boundary between affected party and governmental organization.
Stakeholders involved in the ACP project
Survey and workshop findings
Survey
In summary, there was a consistent lack of support for the ACP project regardless of the factor in question (e.g. safety, risk, compensation, environmental impacts, etc.). Opposition to the proposed pipeline was considerably higher in the counties directly impacted by the pipeline’s construction and operation than in the Commonwealth overall. This is despite economic analyses which suggest that counties and land owners impacted by construction and operation of the pipeline will receive direct compensation, tax revenues, and job creation (although exact estimates vary by study).
Key survey topics included, but were not limited to:
​
-
How close is too close?
-
How big is too big?
-
What constitutes public value?
-
What value is placed on the environment?
​
The following links present these key topics in more detail. To review the entire range of survey topics, see the full report.
Workshops
​
The workshops targeted local residents and were held in familiar spaces close to the proposed construction.
​
-
Workshop A, Rockfish Valley Community Center: Informational presentations from state and federal representatives offered different viewpoints on transportation and pipeline development
-
Workshop B, Staunton Public Library: Participants were asked to create their own energy planning maps and energy infrastructures, working in subgroups. Groups were provided basic size and space factors to inform their work. Afterward, groups compared and contrasted their findings
-
Workshop C, Stuarts Draft: A guided tour that provided participants a live opportunity to see and touch community sites affected by infrastructure development in physical, social, and economical ways
​
The findings from the Workshops are summarized as follows:
​
-
Workshop A: The consensus among the participants was that the stated need for the pipeline was insufficient, unsubstantiated, and will change after approval is granted and construction started.
-
Workshop B: The participants felt the activities were challenging, and helped them work through the trade-offs between energy sources. In summary, one of the groups made the decision to diversify their energy portfolio, while the other was determined to meet the regional energy needs with renewables exclusively. This placed a higher priority on criteria associated with ‘renewability’ with a potentially negative impact on long-term employment, and acceptance of aesthetic impacts of expansive solar arrays in the region.
From Workshop C: Map of the guided walking tour of pipeline impact areas
-
Workshop C: Participants came to the guided tour to learn more about the pipeline and were able to apply new, physical knowledge of the site to specifics about construction methods, economic development, and water resources. The community members traveled through their own community and were able to engage in civil dialogue and open deliberation on issues of pipeline construction, economic development, and environmental resources.The robust participation and feedback at this workshop revealed that spaces for open dialogue and negotiation between community members and stakeholders is lacking.
From Workshop B: Exploring different energy infrastructure placement strategies
Pipeline surveys conducted at key locations near the pipeline route served as the primary recruiting tool for interested parties to further participate in a series of three workshops. A basic premise for the workshop designs was to discover values and viewpoints of participants, and evaluate how these changed after pipeline related information was presented. As common places for civic group meetings and other public groups, these were chosen to foster public engagement and open dialogue on this local issue.
272 persons in the selected western Virginia communities were asked 18 questions pertaining to their preferences for pipeline and energy infrastructure development. (The full questionnaire is provided in the Report.)
​
Age and gender were generally well-represented in amongst the respondents. Demographics were noticeably skewed in two dimensions: Survey participants had high levels of education and high levels of self-reported earned income.
The findings of this project are presented here in a highly summarized form; for more details about the findings, consult the report.
Elevation profile along the proposed pipeline route as of 2016
​The demographic research recalled similar studies of disparate pipeline impact on different socio-economic communities; poorer communities are routinely burdened with risks in a disproportional manner.