开玩笑说挑战障碍需要“国会的行动”，但有时现实确实需要这样的行动。

Equitrans Midstream 董事长兼首席执行官汤姆·卡拉姆 (Tom Karam) 有理由庆祝乔·拜登总统于 6 月 3 日将两党债务上限妥协协议签署为法律，其中特别包括授权和加快建设 303 英里、2 Bcf/d 的山谷管道 (MVP)从西弗吉尼亚州北部到弗吉尼亚州南部。

作为该合资项目的开发商、运营商和 48% 的所有者，Equitrans 对 MVP 天然气系统有很大信心，该系统旨在缓解阿巴拉契亚盆地的大部分外输瓶颈。

由于 MVP 在完成大约 94% 的建设后因法律挑战而陷入停滞，卡拉姆有信心该管道将在今年年底或至少 2024 年初完工并完全上线。管道只有约 20 英里——主要通过水道和河流州线还有待修建。

该法律还修订了《国家环境政策法》(NEPA)，以简化基础设施的许可程序，其中可能包括管道、电力传输和可再生能源项目。

在美国参议员 Joe Manchin、DW.V. 和其他人成功争取将 MVP 纳入国会妥协方案后，Hart Energy 编辑总监 Jordan Blum 于 6 月 5 日对卡拉姆进行了独家采访。

乔丹·布鲁姆（Jordan Blum）：我将从广泛开始。既然我们已经达成妥协并得到了总统的签署，这项立法到底有多大意义呢？

Tom Karam：我认为MVP被纳入债务上限立法的重要性和意义远远超出了MVP。我认为这是一个征兆，并揭示了这样一个事实：我们不应该依赖国会的法案来“及时”建设对我们的经济和能源增长及安全至关重要的基础设施。

所以，我的收获既狭隘又广泛。简而言之，作为一家公司和合作伙伴，我们对 MVP 被国会和白宫有意而明确地确定为对我们的国家安全和国家能源至关重要的基础设施的一部分感到兴奋和感激。这样一来，该项目将在今年年底或 2024 年初左右高效完成。

在更广泛的范围内，我希望并期望我们当选的官员会看到有必要进行全面的许可改革，这对于化石燃料（即天然气基础设施）是否是不可知的无论是可再生风能、太阳能、氢能还是其他。你必须能够在风险调整的基础上吸引资本，然后可以及时部署这些资本来建设我们需要的基础设施，但也符合适当和必要的环境审查和保护。因此，我希望 MVP 成为煤矿中的金丝雀，帮助我们解决这个国家的许可监管问题。

JB：在债务上限立法中，有关于更大许可形式的更广泛的语言，但我假设您认为这还远远不够？

TK：我认为这是一个好的开始。我听说它被称为“发光光”。我认为它更具方向性，而不是确定性。我认为定向债务上限立法中包含的内容是朝着正确方向迈出的良好一步。但您需要与州和联邦机构合作的明确规则，并具有明确的时间限制和阈值。然后，您需要与法院系统合作的规则，以便有时间表，并且您不能继续陷入永无休止的诉讼的循环中。我认为这些事情必须被纳入并考虑到我所定义的我们迫切需要的更广泛、更全面的许可改革中。

JB：是否乐观地认为这可能最终成为另一个更广泛的国会妥协方案的一部分？我知道作为独立的立法很难做到这一点。

TK： 我不知道我能阻止这一点。我认为我从参议员曼钦、参议员[雪莱·摩尔]卡皮托（RW.V.）和[众议院]议长[凯文]麦卡锡那里听到的一切都是，人们有兴趣和渴望卷起袖子，看看他们是否不能制定一项全面的许可立法。

现在我们是天然气基础设施方面的热点，但如果你退一步思考，从长远来看，输电网需要与我们天然气领域一样多的许可改革，甚至更多。基础设施业务需要它。首先，如果有希望部署和普及过渡所讨论的可再生能源，输电网必须首先升级，其次，必须大幅扩大。

JB：说到 MVP，有足够多的民主党人（包括总统）参与其中，这是否令人惊讶？

TK：不。我认为这是我们双路径战略的分水岭。我的意思是，作为一家公司和一个合作伙伴，我们始终坚持认为我们将同时走两条路。第一条途径是允许的常规途径，以获得州和联邦机构颁发的持久许可证，并最终通过[美国上诉法院]第四巡回法庭小组，该小组一直对我们持敌对态度。然后另一条路是继续教育和与包括白宫在内的双方进行沟通，讨论和解释为什么 MVP 对我们的能源安全如此重要。对我来说，一个分水岭事件是美国能源部长[詹妮弗]格兰霍姆在整个政府期间发表公开支持信，指出政府认为 MVP 是国家安全基础设施的关键部分。我认为这证实了很多民主党人和共和党人实际上都在同一立场上，特别是 MVP。我认为这为继续对话打开了大门，使我们能够得到立法中的结果。

JB：显然，这项立法是一件大事，但您能否谈谈 MVP 在诉讼或许可问题方面仍然存在哪些障碍和后续步骤？

TK： 我们感到非常高兴的是，成文的立法既能经受对其合宪性的挑战，又能非常明确地制定一项计划——剩余的许可证应在国会颁发后立即颁发并被视为批准。因此，我们看到了一条在七月初至中旬全面动员起来完成建设的道路。

JB：但是仍然会存在一些诉讼障碍，即使您有信心这些障碍会被克服？

TK：看，我们的对手资金雄厚且经验丰富，他们不会轻易放弃。他们将继续在法庭上挑战我们，我会特别考虑在华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院，因为这关系到该法案的合宪性。我们希望在那里获胜。

JB：整个过程有多繁重？施工已于五年多前开始，规划也早在几年前。现在只剩下 20 英里左右的管道，大部分都是水路交叉口。

TK：是的，没错。这是一个非常痛苦的过程。联邦和州机构都必须颁发多项许可证，并被迫跨越他们以前从未跨越过的障碍。每次第四巡回法院腾出或保留联邦许可证时，他们都会同时确认这样一个事实：我们确实成功地证明了该项目的必要性，我们成功地证明了该项目的适当范围，并且他们从未挑战了该项目的路线。因此，任何监管监督的三个主要支柱都得到了确认，尽管同时他们会因附属问题或解释不充分的问题而退回或撤销许可证。这对我们来说是最令人沮丧的。但我不想陷入试图争论这个案子的兔子洞。我更喜欢向前看。我们很幸运，国会通过了一项法案，要求完成 MVP。现在，我们必须抓住这一胜利，并将其扩大到更广泛的许可改革。

JB：我认为我们仍然称其为 66 亿美元的项目（MVP 的起步价不到 40 亿美元），但总资本支出是否会在某个时候进行调整？

TK：我认为你不会看到任何重大修改。我认为我们将努力接近我们的指导目标 66 亿美元。我告诉你，在我们剩下的四五个月的建设中，我们可能会稍微改变我们的工作安排和流程。我非常担心的一个领域是我们的通行权的安全以及我们动员再次开始施工时承包商的安全。在之前的施工期间，我们遇到过很多很多这样的情况，反对派和活动人士会侵犯通行权，将自己置于危险之中，并将我们的承包商和员工置于危险之中。我们担心，鉴于反对派现在已经失败，他们会进一步提高激进主义程度。因此，我们将通过弗吉尼亚州警察和当地执法部门、西弗吉尼亚州警察和执法部门以及我们自己的安全举措采取重大额外措施，尽一切努力保护通行权、我们的承包商、以及我们的对手。他们完全有言论自由的权利；他们只是无权为我们的通行权或我们的员工制造安全或风险隐患。

JB：如果在年底或 2024 年初完成，大约需要多长时间才能真正达到满负荷生产？

TK：我们将立即开始满负荷运营。将会发生的事情是，我们将机械地完成管道，然后我们将进行所有的水压测试，以确保它适合使用。然后我们将开始接受 2 Bcf/d 的提名。

JB：再说一遍，您能否谈谈这对于阿巴拉契亚盆地的整体生产以及存在的所有瓶颈有多大影响？

TK：这是一个很好的观点。阿巴拉契亚盆地不乏生产商，他们会告诉您，由于该盆地的外卖能力，他们的产能受到限制。这有两个影响。它会影响他们的生产量和随着时间的推移增加产量，但它也会对定价产生重大影响。我们希望 MVP 在短期内能够立即对定价产生有益的影响。随着时间的推移，我们完全期望对生产商在其财务预测范围内增加产量的能力产生积极影响。从那时起，这可能会导致盆地以外的更多项目，从而进一步提高能源安全和负担能力。我们还没有讨论负担能力，但 MVP 显然是一种工具和管道，有助于使来自弗吉尼亚州和南部的天然气处于更实惠的基础上。

JB：这更多地适用于未来的项目，但这将如何影响将管道延伸到人口稠密的东海岸地区的持续问题？

TK：令我惊讶的是，你无法修建一条通往东北部和新英格兰的管道来缓解他们的供应问题和成本影响。相反，他们将从加拿大进口液化天然气和天然气并使用取暖油。对我来说，当你靠近地球上最大的天然气储量——马塞勒斯页岩和尤蒂卡页岩——距离它可能的位置只有几百英里时，我们不应该能够建造天然气管道，这对我来说是不协调的交付并为大量消费者提供价格优惠、可靠性和安全性。

It’s clichéd to joke that challenging obstacles take “an act of Congress,” but sometimes reality really does require such action.

Equitrans Midstream Chairman and CEO Tom Karam has reason to celebrate after President Joe Biden on June 3 signed the bipartisan debt ceiling compromise into law, which specifically includes the authorization and expediting of the 303-mile, 2 Bcf/d Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) from northern West Virginia to southern Virginia.

As the developer, operator and 48% owner of the joint venture project, Equitrans has a lot on the line with the MVP natural gas system intended to relieve much of the takeaway bottleneck from the Appalachian Basin.

With MVP stalled from legal challenges after being roughly 94% constructed, Karam is confident the pipeline will be completed and fully online by the end of this year, or at least early 2024. Only about 20 miles of pipe–mostly through waterways and the state line–are left to be built.

The law also amends the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to streamline the permitting process for infrastructure, potentially including pipelines, electric transmission and renewable energy projects.

Hart Energy Editorial Director Jordan Blum conducted an exclusive interview with Karam on June 5 after U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and others successfully fought to include MVP in the congressional compromise.

Jordan Blum: I'll start off broad. Just how big a deal is this legislation now that we have a compromise and the president’s signature?

Tom Karam: I think that the importance and significance of MVP being included in the debt ceiling legislation goes far beyond MVP. I think that it’s symptomatic and shines a light on the fact that we should not have to rely on an act of Congress to construct–in a timely manner–infrastructure that is critical to continue our economic and energy growth and security.

So, my takeaway is both narrow and broad. The narrow takeaway is, we're thrilled and grateful as a company and as a partnership that MVP was deliberately and definitively determined by Congress and the White House to be a piece of infrastructure that is critical to our national security and our national energy. So that then will result in an efficient completion of the project sometime around the end of the year or early 2024.

On a more broad scope, I hope and expect that there will be some wind at the backs of our elected officials to see the need for comprehensive permitting reform, which is agnostic as to whether it's fossil fuel–meaning natural gas infrastructure–or whether it's renewable wind, solar, hydrogen or other. You have to be able to attract the capital on a risk-adjusted basis that can then be deployed to construct this infrastructure that we need in a timely manner, but also consistent with the appropriate and necessary environmental review and protection. So I hope that MVP turns out to be the canary in the coal mine of what needs to be done to fix our permitting regulation in this country.

JB: In the debt ceiling legislation, there's broader language about bigger permitting form, but I'm assuming you think that's not nearly enough of what needs to be done?

TK: I think it's a good start. I've heard it referred to as ‘permitting light.’ I would call it more directional than definitive. I think what was included in the debt ceiling legislation directionally is a good step in the right direction. But you need definitive rules of engagement with the state and federal agencies with very well-defined time limits and thresholds. And then you need rules of engagement with the court system so that there are timelines, and you can't continue to be in a loop where there's never-ending litigation. I think those things have to be included and contemplated in what I would define as the more broad and comprehensive permitting reform that we so desperately need.

JB: Is there optimism that that might end up being a part of another broader congressional compromise package? I know it's hard to do it as standalone legislation.

TK:  I don't know that I can handicap that. I think everything I've heard from Sen. Manchin, from Sen. [Shelley Moore] Capito (R-W.V.), from [House] Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy is that there is an appetite and desire to roll up their sleeves and see if they can't put together a comprehensive piece of permitting legislation.

Right now we’re the hot spot in terms of natural gas infrastructure, but if you step back and think about it over the long term, the transmission grid needs permitting reform every bit as much, if not more than we in the natural gas infrastructure business need it. The transmission grid has to be, first of all, upgraded and, secondly, enlarged significantly if there's any hope to deploy and get the penetration of renewable power sources that the transition is talking about.

JB: When it comes to MVP, was it surprising that enough Democrats got on board with it, including the president?

TK: No. I think it’s a watershed event for our dual-path strategy. What I mean is we, as a company and as a partnership, have consistently maintained that we were going to travel two paths at once. The first path is the regular way permitted in order to have durable permits issued by state and federal agencies, and to finally get through the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Fourth Circuit panel that has so consistently been antagonistic toward us. And then the other path was to continue to educate and to communicate with both parties to include the White House, to discuss and explain why MVP is so important to our energy security. The watershed event for me was when–through the administration–[U.S. Energy]  Secretary [Jennifer] Granholm issued that public letter of support stating that the administration deemed MVP to be a critical piece of infrastructure for national security. I think that confirmed for a lot of Democrats, as well as Republicans, that they were actually all on the same page specifically with MVP. I think that opened the door for continued conversations to allow us to get the result we did in the legislation.

JB: Obviously, this legislation is a huge deal, but can you talk about just kind of what MVP roadblocks and next steps remain in terms of any issues with lawsuits or permitting?

TK:  We feel very good that the legislation as written will both withstand challenges to its constitutionality as well as very clearly lays out a plan … that the remaining permits shall be issued and deemed ratified immediately upon issuance by Congress. So we see a path for us to be fully mobilized by early to mid-July to complete construction.

JB: But there will still be some litigation hurdles, even though you're confident they'll be overcome?

TK: Look, our opponents are very well financed and sophisticated, and they are not simply going to give up. They will continue to challenge us in the courts, and I would think specifically in the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit as it relates to the constitutionality of the act. And we expect to prevail there.

JB: How onerous this whole process has been? Construction started more than five years ago, the planning was years before then. And now there's only 20 or so miles left of pipeline with water crossings mostly.

TK: Yeah, that's correct. It’s been a very painful process. Both the federal and state agencies have had to issue multiple permits … and been forced to jump through hoops that they've never had to jump through before. Each time the Fourth Circuit would either vacate or stay a federal permit, they would at the same time confirm the fact that we did successfully show the need for the project, that we were successful in showing the appropriate scope of the project and that they never challenged the route of the project. So the three main pillars of any regulatory oversight were confirmed, even while at the same time they would remand or vacate the permit either on ancillary issues or issues of not enough explanation. That was the most frustrating for us. But I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of trying to argue the case. I’d much prefer to look forward. We're fortunate that we had an act of Congress mandate that MVP be completed. Now, we have to take that win and we have to expand it to the broader permitting reform.

JB: I think we're still calling this a $6.6 billion project (MVP started at less than $4 billion), but is that going to be revised up in total capex at some point?

TK: I don't think you're going to see any major revisions. I think we're going to try to come in close to the $6.6 billion that is our guidance. I will tell you that we may change our work schedule and flow a little bit in the four or five months of construction we have re remaining. One area that I'm very concerned about is the safety of our right of way and the safety of our contractors as we mobilize to begin construction again. We've had many, many instances in prior construction periods where the opposition and activists would intrude upon the right of way, putting themselves at risk and in danger, and putting our contractors and our employees at risk and in danger. We're concerned that given the fact that the opposition has now lost, that they will raise their activism even further. So we are going to take significant extra steps through the Virginia State Police and local law enforcement and West Virginia State Police and law enforcement, as well as our own initiatives with security to do everything we can to protect the right of way, our contractors, as well as our opponents. They have every right to free speech; they just don't have a right to create safety or risk hazards for our right of way or our employees.

JB: If this is completed by year end or early 2024, about how long will it take to really ramp up to full capacity?

TK: We will start operating at full capacity immediately. What will happen is we'll mechanically complete the pipeline, then we'll do all of the hydrostatic testing to ensure that it's fit for service. And then we will start to receive nominations for the 2 Bcf/d.

JB: Big picture again, can you talk about just how big a deal this is for overall Appalachian Basin production with all the bottlenecks that have existed?

TK: That's an excellent point. There is no shortage of producers in the Appalachian Basin that will tell you that they are capacity constrained with takeaway capacity coming out of the basin. That has two impacts. It has the impacts on how much they can produce and grow their production over time, but it also has a significant pricing impact. What we're hoping MVP can do, in the short term, is have a beneficial impact on pricing almost immediately. Over time, we fully expect to have a positive impact on the ability for producers–within their own financial forecast–to grow their production. From there, that may lead to additional projects out of the basin, which could further enhance the energy security and affordability. We haven't talked about affordability yet, but MVP clearly is a tool and a pipeline that will help to keep natural gas from Virginia and south on a much more affordable footing.

JB: This applies more to future projects, but how will this impact the ongoing issues with getting pipelines up into those highly populated East Coast areas?

TK: It's amazing to me that you cannot build a pipeline into the Northeast and into New England to ease their supply concerns and their cost impact. Instead, they will import LNG and import natural gas from Canada and use heating oil. It's just incongruous to me that we should not be able to construct natural gas pipelines when you have the proximity of the largest natural gas reserve on the planet–the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale–just a couple hundred miles from where it could be delivered and provide pricing relief and reliability and security to a very significant number of consumers.