Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
i(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.er, Heritage, Rights (The POWHR Coalition) powhr.orgSpencer Phillips, PhD Sonia Wang Cara BottorffeKey-Log.economics LLCResearch and strategy for the land community.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is proposed to carry natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica Shale approximately 3 Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.00 miles through 11 West Virginia and 6 Virginia counties before terminating at the existing Transcontinental pipeline compressor station in PittsylvaEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
nia County, Virginia. Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, which would construct and operate the pipeline as a joint venture of EQT Corporation and NextEra i(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016. for local communities along the proposed route.FIGURE 1: Eight-County Study RegionNote: Roanoke County includes the independentcities of Salem and RoanokeSources: MVP route digitized from online maps and MVP lie filings (http://mountainvallevpipeline.info/maps/); Study Region (counties), federal la Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.nds, and Ml shade from USG5 and httpy/nationaimap gov/small_scale/Promised economic benefits, however, are only part of the impact the Federal EnergyEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
Regulatory Commission (FERC) must review before deciding whether to approve the construction and operation of the pipeline. Under its own policy and ti(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.e proposed pipeline. These include the various ways in which environmental effects would result in changes in human well-being—including economic benefits and costs. While estimates of the positive economic effects, including construction jobs and local tax payments, have been developed and promoted Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016. as reasons to move forward with the pipeline, no systematic consideration of the potential negative economic effects—economic costs—of the MVP has beEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
en completed.To help fill the gap in current information, the POWHR (Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights) coalition of community groups from an eight-i(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.r, Monroe, and Summers Counties in West Virginia and Craig, Franklin, Giles, Montgomery, and Roanoke Counties in Virginia (Figure 1). The MVP's construction, operation, and presence would impose three types of costs on this region. First, the pipeline would impact property values along the approxima Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.tely 143 milesof pipeline proposed for the study region. Affected properties are those touched by the 50-foot-wide right-of-way, within the 1.4-mile-wEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
ide evacuation zone, and throughout the viewshed of the proposed pipeline. Second, construction and the ongoing operation of the pipeline would alter i(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.d in part due to a loss of scenic and quality-of-life amenities, there would be decreases in visitation, in-migration, tourism, small business development, plus a loss of jobs and personal income those activities would otherwisesupport.Considering this eight-county region alone, estimated one-time c Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.osts range from $65.1 to $135.5 million. These one-time costs comprise lost property value and the value of ecosystem services lost during constructioEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
n. Annual costs following the construction period include lower ecosystem service productivity in the MVP's right-of-way, lower property tax revenue di(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.t for as long as the MVP right-of-way exists—that is, in perpetuity. (See "At a Glance," page iii for details.) Putting the stream of costsEconomic Costs of the Mountain Volley pipelintinto present value terms1 2 3 and adding the one-time costs, the total estimated cost of the MVP in the eight count Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.ies is between $8.0 and $8.9 billion.The costs represented by the estimates presented here are what economists call "externalities," or "external costEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
s,” because they would be imposed on parties other than (external to) the company proposing to build the pipeline. Unlike the private (or internal) coi(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.lities is what demands public involvement in decisions about the MVP. Without consideration of all of the costs of the project, too much pipeline (which may mean any pipeline at all) is the inevitable result. FERC must consider the true bottom line and ensure that the full costs of the pipeline, esp Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.ecially those external costs imposed on the public, are rigorously examined and brought to bear on its decision about whether or not to permit the MVPEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
project to proceed.For reasons explained in the body of this report, estimates of external costs developed as part of this study and reported here ari(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.es or landscapes that have historical or cultural significance. Like lost aesthetic quality or a decrease in the capacity of the landscape to retain soil, filter water, or sequester carbon, historical and cultural impacts matter to humans and, therefore, can be expressed as monetary value. We have a Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.lso not included the cost to communities of increased emergency response planning and capacity necessary during the operation of the proposed pipelineEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
or of increased law enforcement, road maintenance and repair, or other costs that would accompany its construction?Another important category of costi(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.lue of keeping such places unspoiled for the sake of some future direct or active use. In light of this, it is important to consider the estimates of economic costs provided here as a fraction of the total economic value put at risk by the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline.Finally, while this report Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016. covers many of the costs that will happen if the MVP is constructed and operated, it does not include an assessment of natural resource damage and otEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
her effects that might happen during construction and operation. For example, there is some probability that erosion of steep slopes and resulting sedi(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.e along the length of the MVP during its lifetime. If, when, and where such events occur with the MVP, there will be clean-up and remediation costs, costs of fighting fires and reconstructing homes, businesses, and infrastructure, the cost of lost timber, wildlife habitat, and other ecosystem servic Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.es, and most tragically, the cost of lost human life and health? The magnitude of these damages, multiplied by the probability that they will occur, yEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
ields additional "expected costs," which would then be added to the more certain costs estimated in this study. The same is true of the costs that coui(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016. the pipeline corridor, the impact on land values resulting from buyers' concerns about pipeline safety, and reductions in economic vitality stemming from changes in the landscape—will occur with or without any discreet or extreme events like landslides or explosions ever happening. These impacts an Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.d their monetary equivalents are simply part of what will happen in West Virginia and Virginia if the MVP is approved, built, and operated.1The presenEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
t value of a perpetual stream of costs is the one-year cost divided by the 1.5% real discount rate recommended by the office of Management and Budget i(g©ữĩ)©mũ(gEffects onProperty Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development■in Vir'ginia;an^West Virginia. ■ ..42491Report to: Protect Our Wate Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016. study of tnese cost for one Virginia county in our study region is underway, with results expected in the coming weeks.3While no one was killed in the incident, one need look no further than the recent explosion of Spectra Energy's Texas Eastern gas transmission line in Pennsylvania to see such imp Economic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.acts. See, for example, https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsvlvania/2016/05/04/pa-pipeline-explosion-evidence-of-corrosion-found/iiProperty Value, EcosyiEconomic Harms Attachment 3, Key-Log Economics, LLC, Economic Costs of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 2016.
tem Service, and Economic Development Effects in Virginia and West VirginiaAt a Glance:Gọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook