Proposed Southeast Gas Pipelines Face Growing Opposition Ahead of Federal Decision

A pair of proposed natural gas pipelines stretching nearly 500 miles across Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi is drawing renewed criticism as federal regulators prepare to decide whether the projects can move forward.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has completed its final environmental impact statement and is expected to issue a decision before the end of the month.

If approved, the pipelines, proposed by Kinder Morgan, would cross hundreds of waterways throughout the three states. The company says the projects are necessary to meet increasing energy demand across the Southeast.

Environmental groups, however, argue the pipelines would place significant environmental and property burdens on local communities while serving energy needs beyond Alabama’s borders.

Cindy Lowry, executive director of the Alabama Rivers Alliance, said many Alabama residents would shoulder the risks even though much of the anticipated demand comes from neighboring Georgia, where rapidly expanding data centers are driving electricity consumption.

Critics also question whether additional fossil fuel infrastructure is needed, arguing that investments should instead focus on cleaner energy sources.

Concerns extend beyond environmental impacts. Louie Miller, state director of the Sierra Club’s Mississippi Chapter, said property owners along the proposed route could lose land through the use of eminent domain if FERC authorizes the projects. He said the process allows pipeline companies to acquire private property even when landowners object.

Miller also argued that federal oversight of pipeline safety and inspections has been weakened under the Trump administration. Lowry added that Alabama’s lack of statewide water-use regulations could leave communities more vulnerable to the water demands associated with large fossil fuel projects.

The White House has defended its regulatory approach, saying the changes support its broader goal of expanding domestic energy production under its “energy dominance” agenda.