Is Transco Expansion Project the Next Mountain Valley?

A proposed expansion of Williams’ sprawling Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line (Transco) system aimed at serving growing Southeast US demand is already facing intense opposition, raising questions about whether it will meet the fate of similar projects that were scrapped or severely delayed. 

The Southeast Supply Enhancement Project (SSEP) would move about 1.6 billion cubic feet per day from Virginia to Alabama, pulling in much of its gas from the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) that went into service Jul. 1— five years behind schedule.

Williams says the expansion will relieve constraints in Zone 5 of its 10,000 mile Transco system starting in late 2027 by adding firm transportation to gas-fired power plants, industrial end-users and utilities across the Southeast. 

But in a slew of filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), environmental, safety and consumer advocates lambasted the project even before FERC has launched the pre-filing review process. They urged the commission to reject the project outright or, short of that, conduct a climate impact study that goes well beyond the standard review for brownfield expansions. 

“This proposal would cause irreparable environmental harm to our communities’ ecosystems,” the Chesapeake Climate Action Network said, echoing the concerns of many detractors. 

Brownfield Advantage? 

Williams says the capacity will largely be added through enhancements to existing compressor stations, although it will include 55 miles of new pipe. That may reduce some of the construction related hurdles that ultimately killed projects such as the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and created years of headaches and cost overruns for MVP. 

“SSEP should be able to avoid many of the same setbacks MVP faced given that the project scope is limited to looping existing Transco corridors and modifying existing compressor stations, while MVP and other canceled projects were mostly greenfield,” Alex Gafford, senior energy analyst for East Daley Analytics, told Energy Intelligence. 

“The project also is further south, mostly avoiding states that MVP struggled to get water-crossing permits from,” Gafford said, referring to Virginia and West Virginia. 

But the concerns go well beyond the pipe itself, with opponents decrying the potential harm of burning and transporting more gas to create electricity. And some suggested they are prepared to take legal action to stop it. 

“This expansion will dramatically escalate the rush by Southern utilities to build new gas plants, locking our region into a generational investment in gas while undermining cleaner and more affordable renewable energy options, hindering grid reliability and driving up energy costs,” the Southern Environmental Law Center said. “It would also mean even more polluting infrastructure that harms frontline communities and routinely leads to methane leaks and explosions.” 

The nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust urged FERC to “consider the upstream emissions and the potential for increased emissions associated with higher-pressure gas transmission and compressor station operation when considering whether to grant this permit. This also requires quantifying the emissions and discussing the physical impacts these emissions will have on the human environment.” 

But some industry groups and Republican lawmakers argued the expansion is needed to ensure adequate gas supply to a growing region expected to see a surge in gas and power demand for data centers tied to artificial intelligence.

“Without this project, there is a risk for future supply shortages and increased costs for energy consumers,” utility Southwestern Virginia Gas said in its filing. 

“SSEP provides a foundation for increasing the integration of renewable energy sources like solar and wind,” the Carolinas Natural Gas Coalition told FERC. “With the intermittent nature of these renewables, maintaining grid stability is imperative. Natural gas offers 24/7, always-available flexibility, enabling the Carolinas and the Southeast region to incorporate more renewable energy without compromising the reliability of our energy supply.” 

And Williams, in response to the criticisms, said the project “provides a low-emissions alternative to coal-fired electricity generation and includes efficient pipeline looping and modifications adjacent to the existing Transco corridor.” 

Environmental Justice 

Tom Sharp, director of midstream intelligence at consultancy Arbo, agreed that looping and enhancement to existing compressor stations “present a much easier path forward” than building hundreds of miles of new pipe. 

But he said one line of argument among project opponents may resonate with FERC: the potential harm compressor stations can do to disadvantaged communities. 

“In short, they argue that Transco’s conclusion of minimal and temporary impacts on environmental justice (EJ) communities in their draft resource report is unsupported, and FERC should expand the scope of its EJ analysis, particularly for communities around compressor stations 150 and 155” in North Carolina, Sharp told Energy Intelligence. 

But he said FERC “has learned a lot about proper EJ analysis recently” as a result of litigation surrounding the Rio Grande LNG project on the Gulf Coast. “This project is still in pre-filing, so the commission has ample time to adjust.”