link to page 1 
INSIGHTi
Mountain Valley Pipeline: Permitting Issues
October 13, 2022
The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is planned as a 303-mile natural gas transmission pipeline,
currently under construction, which would link natural gas fields in the Marcellus shale region of West
Virginia to the existing Transco gas transmission pipeline in south central Virginia (Figure 1). Although
the MVP is over 90% constructed, several of its federal permits have been vacated in federal court;
construction is currently suspended. A separate pipeline, the proposed Southgate Project—which is still in
development—would extend the MVP into North Carolina. The MVP’s permitting challenges, as well as
legislative proposals to approve it, are the subject of debate in Congress.
Figure 1. Mountain Valley and Southgate Pipeline Routes
Source: Courtesy of Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
MVP Federal and State Permit Status
Like many other large infrastructure projects, the MVP requires authorizations from a range of agencies
under various federal statutes. Key agency requirements, and their status, are summarized below.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Because it is an interstate natural
gas pipeline, the MVP requires a certificate of public convenience and necessity from
FERC pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. FERC issued a certificate to the
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12032
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
MVP in 2017, and has extended the MVP’s construction deadline twice, most recently to
October 2026.
National Park Service (NPS). The MVP crosses NPS lands under the Blue Ridge
Parkway, so it requires an NPS right of way. The agency issued the right of way in 2017
and reissued it in 2020 for 10 years (a typical duration).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Federal agencies approving certain parts of the
MVP must consult with FWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
FWS issued a biological opinion in 2020 purporting to satisfy ESA requirements for the
project. However, that biological opinion was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2022. The court denied a petition for rehearing en banc.
FWS must now re-consider the project’s potential impacts on certain species and issue a
revised Biological Opinion.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The MVP requires from the Corps a permit
under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and under the Rivers and Harbors Act
to allow its crossings of waters of the United States. The Corps first decided that the
MVP’s crossings could be authorized by a general permit, but the Fourth Circuit rejected
that option in 2018 and again in 2020. The MVP therefore applied for an individual
permit in February 2021; there has been no agency decision as yet. The Corps has
indicated that it will not grant the permit until there is a final Biological Opinion from
FWS.
U.S. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The FS and BLM
must approve rights of way for the MVP to cross federal land under their jurisdiction,
including the Jefferson National Forest. This action also requires an amendment to
planning documents for the Jefferson National Forest. The Fourth Circuit has twice
vacated and remanded Forest Plans and associated BLM rights of way purporting to
authorize the MVP, first in 2018 and then again in 2022. As a result, the pipeline
currently lacks approval for a right of way through the forest.
In addition to federal agency authorizations, the MVP requires certain permits from state agencies under
federal statute. Under CWA Section 401, state agencies must certify that the federal CWA Section 402
permit will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. The MVP’s February 2021 permit
application to the Corps included a request for certification under the Virginia Water Protection program.
Virginia granted the new permit in December 2021. That approval is currently under review by the Fourth
Circuit. West Virginia granted its Section 401 permit for the project also at the end of 2021. West
Virginia’s approval is the subject of ongoing litigation at the Fourth Circuit.
Legislative Proposals to Approve MVP
The MVP has been a controversial project since it was proposed, including in Congress. Opponents of the
project have expressed concerns about the need for the pipeline, its potential impacts on the environment,
and its potential risks to the public, especially in minority and low-income (environmental justice)
communities. MVP’s proponents cite its purported benefits to the economy (e.g., jobs and lower energy
prices), domestic gas supply reliability, and its potential role supplying natural gas exports to U.S. allies
overseas.
In the face of the ongoing litigation over federal permits and extensive agency reviews that have delayed
completion of the pipeline, two legislative proposals in the 117th Congress would require agencies to
approve the pipeline. Both the Simplify Timelines and Assure Regulatory Transparency Act (S. 4815) and
the draft Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 (proposed for inclusion in a Continuing
Resolution) would require federal agencies to issue outstanding permits, biological opinions, rights of
Congressional Research Service
3
way, and any other necessary authorizations for the MVP within 21 or 30 days of enactment, respectively.
Both proposals would exempt these authorizations from judicial review. The Energy Independence and
Security Act would also give the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (rather than the Fourth
Circuit) jurisdiction over any claim arising from its MVP provisions.
Despite its permitting setbacks, the MVP’s developer remains committed to completing the project,
targeting an in-service date by the end of 2023. Whether the MVP can be completed on this schedule, or
at all, without congressional action is uncertain, although some analysts assert that the project remains
viable without such intervention. As the MVP’s permitting process and related litigation continue, the
status of the pipeline and its associated natural gas supplies may be an issue for Congress.
Author Information
Paul W. Parfomak
Adam Vann
Specialist in Energy Policy
Legislative Attorney
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN12032 · VERSION 1 · NEW