SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
joe manchin
Is the Mountain Valley Pipeline Safe? We Who Live in Its Blast Zone Need Answers
If the allegations contained in a lawsuit are true, it demonstrates a willful endangerment of citizens and a gross violation of federal laws and policies.
Jun 18, 2025
In late 2014 people across West Virginia and southwest Virginia were informed that a collaboration of energy companies had created a limited liability company called Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC. The company was created to develop the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 303-mile methane-gas pipeline traveling through West Virginia and Virginia mountains, farms, streams, and communities. It is most commonly called the “MVP.” It crossed my organic farm and many places where I travel, work, and play.
From the beginning there were questions about the necessity and the viability of this project. What transpired is a years-long battle to stop the pipeline. By 2022 it was apparent that the MVP was a doomed project, having gone from a price tag of $3.5 billion to over $8 billion and not being able to legally obtain critical permits. It is now projected to eventually cost nearly $10 billion.
The pipeline was rescued in 2023 by then-West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin when he held the debt ceiling legislation hostage until he got his “Dirty Deal,” inserted into the final Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. This then created a situation where degraded and corroded pipe, which had sat in the sun for years beyond the manufacturer’s recommendations, was going to be buried by MVP developers. Despite warnings from citizens, environmental, and safety experts, MVP was allowed to use much of this expired pipe.
Congress, PHMSA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) each must conduct investigations to determine if public safety has been compromised and if officials with MVP broke federal law.
In October of 2023 citizens did get the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to issue additional safety procedures for any of the pipe remaining to be installed across West Virginia and Virginia. Meanwhile MVP was barreling full steam ahead, installing the pipe in some of the most difficult and environmentally sensitive areas of the route. They worked around the clock in sometimes brutal conditions from early June 2023 through June of 2024, despite the fact that Sen. Manchin and others said it could be completed in as little as four months. More lies and deception from those advocating for the pipeline.
Throughout this time, citizens monitoring the construction would hear rumors of shortcuts and pipeline failures like the one that happened in Bent Mountain, Virginia in May of 2024 just days before the pipeline was given the green light to enter service.
In my community of West Virginia, I heard rumors of pipeline being buried that was not properly approved by inspectors, but I heard nothing more about this after January of 2024 when MVP left my farm. That was until June 4 when I read a story by Mike Tony of the Charleston-Gazette-Mail. The story revealed that a wrongful termination lawsuit had been filed in Monroe County, where I live, in April of 2025. It was recently moved to the federal Court in nearby Bluefield, West Virginia. Subsequent stories by Laurence Hammack of The Roanoke Times and by Carlos Anchondo of E&E News have raised dire concerns among those of us who live in the blast zone of the MVP pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia.
The lawsuit alleged that a pipeline inspector was fired by MVP after refusing to sign off on pipe and/or welds he felt were unsafe. In fact, according to the filing in the Monroe County Court, he was told that if he wanted to keep his job, he was to bury the pipe. He refused, and, according to the complaint, he was transferred and later fired. In my eyes, this man is a public hero. He did his job and was fired for it. I wonder how prevalent this kind of excessive pressure is on those doing this job across the pipeline industry.
If the allegations contained in the lawsuit are true, it demonstrates a willful endangerment of citizens and a gross violation of federal laws and policies. It is imperative that this does not get swept under the rug by Mountain Valley Pipeline with some sort of out of court settlement and a nondisclosure agreement. Congress, PHMSA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) each must conduct investigations to determine if public safety has been compromised and if officials with MVP broke federal law.
This is particularly troubling for me as I suspect that some of the pipe and welds in question are near my home or in other places where I frequent often. I also suspect this is not a situation that is isolated to just Monroe County, West Virginia. This week I will be in Washington D.C. seeking answers from FERC, PHMSA, and our elected officials.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crushing Blow to the Labor Agenda' as Manchin, Sinema Block Biden NLRB Nominee
"These two senators effectively handed Trump control of the board when his term begins," noted one observer.
Dec 11, 2024
In a move likely fraught with major implications for worker rights during the impending second administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump, Democratic-turned-Independent U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday blocked Democrat Lauren McFerran's bid for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
With every Republican senator except Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas voting against President Joe Biden's nomination of McFerran for a new five-year term, the fate of the woman who has led the agency since 2021 was up to Manchin and Sinema—who, as More Perfect Union founder and executive director Faiz Shakir put it on social media, "consistently spoiled the story of 'what could have been'" by years of fighting to thwart their own former party's agenda.
Sinema struck first, her "no" vote on McFerran grinding the confirmation tally to a 49-49 tie. Manchin, who showed up later, cast the decisive vote, negating speculation that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Senate president who lost the presidential contest to Trump last month, would break the stalemate.
"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee—with a proven track record of protecting worker rights—did not have the votes," lamented Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Chris Jackson, a former Democratic Lawrence County, Tennessee commissioner and longtime labor advocate, called Manchin and Sinema's votes "a crushing blow to the labor agenda."
"By casting decisive NO votes against President Biden's NLRB nominee, they've guaranteed Democrats will lose control of the national labor board until at least 2026," Jackson said. "Their votes effectively hand Donald Trump the keys to the board the moment he takes office again. This is a betrayal of working families—and a gift to corporate interests, which is par for the course for these two."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union, said on social media that while "Manchin and Sinema are responsible for killing voting rights, worker rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, childcare, vision, and dental for seniors, and an economy built for the people," the two obstructionist senators "are not the story."
"Don't bury the lede," implored Nelson. "The entire GOP has relentlessly fought against anything good for the vast majority of the people of this country. The GOP shows once again their total disdain for their constituents."
"But they better watch what they do in implementing their plans to make it worse," she warned. "These laws are set up to mostly protect corporations and getting rid of the last pathetic bits of worker rights under the law will simply lead to more disruption and CHAOS."
Trump's first term saw relentless attacks on workers' rights. Critics fear a second Trump administration—whose officials and agenda are steeped in the anti-worker Project 2025—will roll back gains achieved under Biden and work to weaken the right to organize, water down workplace health and safety rules, and strip overtime pay, to name but a handful of GOP wish-list items.
The latest votes by Manchin and Sinema—who are both leaving Congress after this term—sparked widespread outrage among workers' rights defenders on social media, with one account on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting: "Manchin is geriatric and Sinema has a long fruitful career ahead of her in a consulting firm that advocates child slave labor, but at least they kicked the working class in the teeth one last time. Nothing to do now but hope there's a hell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need A Real Path To Clean Energy, Not Dirty Fossil Fuel Deja Vu
Though the EPRA alleges to improve energy projects’ approval processes, it does so through fossil fuel racism, with giveaways to big oil and gas while hurting vulnerable communities and the environment.
Dec 06, 2024
To achieve a “clean energy revolution,” we cannot replicate the injustices of our current and past energy systems. As the next administration promises massive increases for fossil fuel projects and near total removals of environmental protections and agency functions, we must hold the line and set a standard for the future we need and deserve.
The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA) (S. 4753) introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), is being sold as a “necessary” and bipartisan path. But why does it feel so dirty, and so familiar?
Fossil Fuel Racism
We’ve seen this before. There have been multiple attempts to advance legislation that weakens environmental protections and sacrifices vulnerable communities to fast-track energy projects driven by fossil fuel interests. As foreshadowed during previous attempts in 2022, “The industry will keep trying these secretive, last minute efforts to push forward dirty deals.”
Unjust energy policies being marketed as for the “common good” is an age-old practice—as old as redlining, the industrial revolution, and earlier. Our energy systems have long been controlled by extractive, industry-driven forces, resulting in what is known as “fossil fuel racism.” Fossil fuel racism creates disproportionate impacts on people of color from the fossil fuel cycle and requires:
- Sacrifice zones, where the hazards of energy production and consumption are centered in disadvantaged communities;
- Disproportionate racialized impacts from climate change driven by fossil fuels; and
- Outsized industry influence in politics undercutting democratic spaces.
So what’s different about EPRA? Nothing. Not only does it contain goals straight out of Project 2025, the American Petroleum Institute and “two dozen energy companies and trade groups’” lobbying reports mention EPRA by name. Though the bill alleges to improve energy projects’ approval processes, it does so through fossil fuel racism, with giveaways to big oil and gas while hurting vulnerable communities and the environment. Here’s how:
1) Sacrifice Zones and Fossil Fuel Expansion
The Energy Permitting Reform Act continues to exploit environmental justice communities by reinforcing sacrifice zones, which include predominantly people of color and low income, by greenlighting fossil fuel projects. EPRA would undo the Biden administration’s pause on approving Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export projects, overwhelmingly situated in these communities. EPRA would also dramatically shorten time for the Department of Energy (DOE) to perform environmental reviews and mandates automatic project approvals after 90 days, regardless of potential negative impacts. Additionally, modeled emissions reductions used to justify support for EPRA rely on continued use of environmental justice communities as sacrifice zones.
2) Climate Crisis and Public Health
People of color and low income disproportionately experience the worst climate crisis impacts. The modeling that claims the transmission pieces of EPRA would reduce greenhouse gas emissions are cherry-picked scenarios and assumptions, according to and underscored by over 100 scientists. Modeling also ignores localized pollution contributing to increasing health crises. The models’ reliance on greenhouse gas calculations overlooks realities for communities on the ground.
3) Industry Control and Democracy Broken
The bill undermines the ability of communities burdened by pollution to have a say regarding projects that threaten their health and environments. EPRA would reduce the time communities and Tribes have to challenge projects in court from six years to 150 days. It goes further to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act by voiding essential environmental impact assessments for fossil fuel projects.
Environmental Injustice and Community Impact
EPRA sets a dangerous precedent and has serious implications for frontline communities. Zulene Mayfield, of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) in Chester, Pennsylvania, is fighting a proposed LNG facility in her backyard. Chester—a majority working class, Black neighborhood—is already dealing with a health crisis from trash incinerators and sewage treatment facilities. Community members received no public notice about the project and were locked out of public hearings. With EPRA’s extreme project approval timeline coupled with an intentional lack of transparency, safeguards from hazardous projects are gone.
Hilton Kelley of Community In-Power and Development Association Incorporated (CIDA Inc.) in Port Arthur, Texas has also been fighting to free his community from fossil fuel racism. As a resident of the “cancer belt,” he is now dealing with two new LNG facilities in his neighborhood.
Voices against EPRA are rising with over 680 organizations opposing the bill. Environmental Justice leaders have spoken out including Richard Moore of Los Jardines Institute: “It [EPRA] is a stark reminder of the priorities of those who continue to put corporate profits above the health and well-being of our communities.”
Finding a Path to True Equitable Energy Reform
EPRA is built on a false policy dichotomy. We don't have to sacrifice environmental protections and communities to fast-track clean energy projects. There are other legislative proposals that are designed to protect communities with significant support, such as the A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act, which was written in partnership with environmental justice communities. This bill would cement key protections including cumulative impacts analysis; first, early, and ongoing engagement models; and civil rights and NEPA requirements. The Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act (CETA) similarly strengthens engagement through environmental justice liaisons facilitating relationships between project sponsors and communities.
Our communities are opportunity centers full of vision, solutions, and wisdom—not sacrifice zones. Our communities are worth investing in to achieve a just, sustainable energy future and address the climate crisis now, if decision-makers would only open their eyes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular