Federal Regulators Approve Pacific Northwest Gas Pipeline Expansion

Federal Regulators Approve Pacific Northwest Gas Pipeline Expansion
A file photo of a close-up of an industrial manometer showing gas distribution pressure in a pipeline. (Anton Zubchevskyi/Shutterstock)
Savannah Hulsey Pointer
10/20/2023
Updated:
10/20/2023
0:00

Federal regulators approved the expansion of a natural gas pipeline in the Pacific Northwest in a contentious move on Oct. 19. The decision was over the objections of environmental groups and senior officials in West Coast states, who argued that it conflicts with the region’s plans to combat climate change and could increase the risk of wildfires.

The purpose of the greenlit GTN Xpress Project is to increase the daily capacity of the Gas Transmission Northwest pipeline, which travels through Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, by approximately 150 million cubic feet. Thursday’s approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave it the go-ahead for GTN Xpress to put those plans into action.

TC Energy, owner of the pipeline, intends to modify compressor stations in Kootenai County, Idaho, Walla Walla County, Washington, and Sherman County, Oregon, to accommodate the change. Compressor stations aid in maintaining pipeline pressure and gas flow over extended distances.

In a statement posted to their website, TC Energy said of the victory, “The GTN XPress Project will play a critical role in keeping energy affordable and reliable for consumers in California and the Pacific Northwest. We appreciate FERC’s bipartisan action today to approve the Project and will work diligently to place it into service as soon as possible.”

Audrey Leonard, staff attorney for the non-profit environmental organization Columbia Riverkeeper, asserted that the decision represented a precedent of unnecessary fracked gas in the Northwest, according to The Associated Press. She also claimed the energy agency has failed to listen to senators, governors, state attorneys general, tribes, and members of the public.

Ms. Leonard stated that potential spills and explosions on the 1960s-built pipeline would not only damage the environment but also increase the risk of wildfires in the arid regions it traverses.

The attorney asserted that any explosion in eastern Washington or eastern Oregon would be catastrophic. She said Columbia Riverkeeper will file a petition for a rehearing in response to the federal regulators’ decision.

The pipeline, TC Energy of Calgary, Canada, is the same corporation that was responsible for the now-defunct Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.

Officials and environmentalists opposed to the project have expressed concern about TC Energy’s safety record. In July, its Columbia Gas Transmission pipeline exploded in Strasburg, Virginia, and in December, its Keystone pipeline leaked nearly 600,000 gallons of bitumen crude in Kansas.

Oregon, along with Washington and California, has enacted legislation mandating the transition to 100 percent renewable electricity sources by 2040 and 2045, respectively.

The attorneys general of the three states, citing the draft environmental impact statement prepared by the energy agency for the project, stated that it would result in more than 3.47 million metric tons of annual emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases for at least the next three decades.

Before beginning construction, the agency suggested requiring the company to instruct its employees and contractors on environmental mitigation measures.

However, environmental groups assert that the assessment did not adequately address the damage caused by the project, which includes the use of hydraulic fracturing to obtain the natural gas that will flow through the pipeline.

This comes just months after North Dakota officials blocked a proposed carbon capture pipeline on Aug. 4, finding in favor of landowners who opposed the project.

Summit Carbon Solutions was planning to construct a 320-mile carbon dioxide pipeline in the state to transport greenhouse emissions from ethanol plants to an underground storage facility.

The North Dakota Public Service Commission voted 3–0 to deny the requested siting permit, and according to the commission, the company may either reapply for a permit or bring the matter before the courts.

Farmers in South Dakota banded together to stand against the project, much of which would cut through productive areas of their family farms.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.