On July 1, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Virginia ruled that a natural gas company’s proposed pipeline project was exempt from a requirement to obtain a special exception under the local zoning ordinance. The court’s ruling in Zinner v. Washington Gas Light Co. provides insights for natural gas companies navigating local zoning ordinances when proposing to install pipelines in communities.
The case stemmed from a natural gas company’s proposal to build a pipeline under a neighborhood road in Fairfax County without a special exception from the Board of Supervisors. The zoning administrator determined that the proposed pipeline was a “distribution” line exempt from special exception requirements under the local ordinance and not a “transmission” line requiring a special exception.
Four landowners appealed the determination. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) reversed, agreeing with the landowners that the project was for a transmission line requiring an exception. The circuit court reversed the BZA, and both parties appealed.
Though not controlling under the text of the local ordinance, the Court of Appeals considered the four federal criteria for a “transmission line” found in 49 C.F.R. § 192.3 and concluded that the proposed project failed to qualify as a transmission line under the federal regulatory definition and the local ordinance.
The court highlighted key evidence supporting its conclusion that the project was an ordinary distribution line: (1) the company delivers gas to consumers and does not produce or resell it; (2) the company obtains the gas it delivers from supplier pipelines at a “city gate” rather than transporting it from a storage facility; and (3) while the company uses different pressure systems to deliver gas to consumers, the company only uses low-pressure lines to connect to customers’ homes.
Notably, the Court of Appeals’ decision reviewed the BZA’s legal conclusions de novo and held that the BZA erred in concluding that distribution lines are limited to low-pressure lines connecting directly to customers’ homes, as that requirement did not appear in the ordinance. The court limited its holding to the project at issue, as opposed to ruling that the company’s entire pipeline system was exempt from the special exception requirement. It also dismissed the gas company’s separate appeal, which sought a declaratory judgment barring the zoning ordinance at issue under state law, as moot.
The court’s opinion provides useful insights regarding the type of evidence zoning administrators, BZAs and courts may look to when distinguishing between “distribution” lines and “transmission” lines, or when assessing other special exception requirements, for future pipeline projects. Natural gas companies operating under a FERC certificate should also consider whether preemption is available to avoid the need for such exceptions.
