Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter
By Kelly Martin
In the past few weeks, the Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign and our partners have helped secure game-changing victories in our work to stop fracked gas pipelines. There are more than 10,000 miles and nearly 100 large, multi-state fracked gas pipelines proposed in the U.S. right now. If these pipelines are constructed, fracking will increase, and our communities and waterways will be irreparably harmed, and climate-disrupting methane pollution will increase at a time when we urgently need to act to stop the worst impacts of climate change. And if the utilities and pipeline companies have their way, consumers will end up footing the bill despite more fracked gas pipelines being unnecessary and unjustified. The good news is that these pipelines are being fought by communities, lawyers, climate activists and many others—and we're winning. State agencies are responding to overwhelming public pressure and starting to get involved to protect waterways from the impacts of pipelines. The attempt to lock us into another generation of relying on fossil fuels is being met with resistance at every turn.
<p>In the past few weeks, we've had great news on multiple fights against fracked gas pipelines, including:</p><p style=""><strong>Sabal Trail Pipeline</strong></p><p style="">On Aug. 22, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) attempts to downplay the massive climate impacts of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, including the 515-mile Sabal Trail pipeline that runs through Alabama and Georgia to feed gas plants in Florida. FERC is charged with evaluating whether or not a gas pipeline is needed and is required to ensure a thorough environmental review is done before they decide whether the pipeline should be built at all. In this case, argued by Sierra Club attorney Elly Benson, the court ruled that FERC could not ignore "downstream impacts" of the fracked gas pipeline, meaning greenhouse gas emissions from burning the fracked gas in plants at the end of the pipeline must be accounted for in FERC's environmental review. Because FERC's environmental review ignored these climate impacts, the court struck down FERC's approval of the pipeline. We are already seeing the ripple effects of this victory and expect this decision to have long-ranging impacts as other proposed pipelines must be reviewed for their climate impacts.</p><p style="">You can read more about the Sabal Trail court decision in this<a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/2017/08/sabal-trail-pipeline-FERC-fracked-gas-pipeline" target="_blank"> blog</a>.</p><p style=""><strong>Constitution Pipeline</strong></p><p style="">Even though FERC is the lead federal regulator of pipelines, states also have robust regulatory powers. For example, they can protect their waterways during the construction of a pipeline. Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, pipeline companies need each state to certify that state water quality standards will not be violated before construction can start. In the case of the Constitution pipeline in New York, the company failed to provide the information requested by the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) as it evaluated the water impacts. Consequently, NY DEC denied the certification—which effectively stopped the pipeline from being constructed. Constitution then took New York to court.</p><p style="">In mid-August, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/Constitution%20v%20NYSDEC%2C%20No.%2016-1568%20%282d%20Cir.%20Aug%2018%2C%202017%29.pdf" target="_blank">the Constitution Pipeline Company</a>'s case against NY DEC, upholding the state's authority to exercise oversight over water quality permits for major projects. The decision describes in detail DEC's repeated requests for site-specific information about stream crossings, and the pipeline company's failure to provide it.</p><p>The ruling on Constitution reinforced that regardless of how much money corporate polluters may spend on influence and attorneys, they can never speak louder than the people who want to protect their homes, their communities, and their clean water from dirty and dangerous projects. Affirming the State's right to reject pipeline projects will have long-lasting impacts and could bolster efforts by other states to defend their water quality standards against pipeline companies.</p><p style=""><strong>Valley Lateral</strong></p><p>In another big decision out of New York, NY DEC recently denied a necessary permit to the Valley Lateral project, a fracked gas pipeline slated to go to a new power plant owned by Competitive Power Ventures in Orange County, NY. DEC cited our recent win in the Sabal Trail case, where the court decided thatFERC did not sufficiently consider the climate impacts of these pipelines before approving them. DEC concluded FERC's environmental review of the Valley Lateral project had similar flaws and was therefore incomplete, prohibiting construction of the project. It's exciting to see our victory on Sabal Trail already being used to block another fracked gas pipeline!</p><p>This denial is particularly important because the Lateral would feed into the Competitive Power Ventures (CPV) power plant that would be fueled by fracked gas from Pennsylvania and emit 7 million tons of carbon-dioxide-equivalent pollution annually. The utility was banking on the approval of the Lateral, and started to construct the plant at its own risk before securing the necessary permits. New York's denial of one of those permits signals to utilities and pipeline companies the problems and risks with following CPV's rushed approach. </p><p style=""><strong>Mountain Valley</strong></p><p>Late last week, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) announced its intention to reconsider its previously issued water quality certificate for the Mountain Valley Pipeline. DEP's decision was the result of a legal challenge by the Appalachian Mountain Advocates, representing the Sierra Club and our partners in asserting that WV DEP did not adequately review the potential for the pipeline to harm streams, and came before the state had to defend its issuance of the 401 water quality certification in federal court. The Mountain Valley Pipeline would run about 300 miles from Northwestern West Virginia to Southern Virginia and has faced legal battles that include a coalition of landowners challenging the use of eminent domain. This could mean a significant delay for the MVP while the state goes back to the drawing board to evaluate the water quality impacts, and is another exciting development for advocates defending our water and climate from the impacts of fracked gas pipelines.</p><p style="">All of these significant, precedent-setting steps toward victory in the past few weeks spell trouble for the pipelines. No longer will these projects be seen as foregone conclusions as soon as they're proposed. Now, the people are being given back the platform they deserve to stand on as we work to protect our communities from the pipeline companies rush to make profits at the expense of our air, water, health and climate.</p><p style="">FERC will have its first meeting in months on Sept. 20. Thus far, the agency has served as nothing more than a rubber stamp for gas projects, and we expect that it will try to rush forward approvals for fracked gas pipelines. But we aren't going away. Burning more fracked gas spells game over for our planet, which is why the Sierra Club and communities across the country continue to band together to push back and build a powerful movement to challenge dirty fuel infrastructure. Will you join us?</p><p style=""><em>Kelly Martin is the deputy director of the Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
In Major Climate Decision, DC Circuit Rejects Federal Approval of Sabal Trail Pipeline
30 August 2017
Energy
Sabal Trail pipeline under construction in Florida. John Moran
By Elly Benson
Last week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) attempts to downplay the massive climate impacts of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, a $3.5 billion project that includes the 515-mile Sabal Trail pipeline. FERC and the pipeline companies argued that even though the project's purpose is to transport fracked gas through Alabama and Georgia to Florida power plants, FERC nonetheless could ignore the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the gas at those plants.
<p style=""><strong>It's Not Just the Journey, It's Also the Destination</strong></p><p style="">In a 2-1 <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/blog/FINAL%20ORDER%208-22-17.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a>, the court agreed with the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> and its partners that FERC's refusal to analyze these "downstream" emissions—an entirely foreseeable result of constructing the pipeline—violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court vacated FERC's approval of the project and remanded to the agency with instructions to prepare an environmental impact statement consistent with the court's opinion.</p><p style="">Once the court officially returns the matter to FERC, the pipeline should cease operations while FERC undertakes the new analysis. (Despite the shoddy environmental review, the pipeline was allowed to start operating in June).</p><p style="">Noting that "[i]t's not just the journey, ... it's also the destination," the court rejected each of FERC's many excuses for ignoring the emissions from burning the gas. The court found:</p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>FERC is the "legally relevant cause" of the climate-altering emissions because it has the power to deny a pipeline based on harm to the environment.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>FERC has estimated that the pipeline will transport 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of gas, and can use this number to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li>FERC's vague assertions that "some" emissions may "potentially" be offset by coal plant retirements were so devoid of meaningful information that the environmental impact statement "fail[ed] to fulfill its primary purpose."</li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li>Even if the power plants are subject to state or federal greenhouse-gas regulations in the future, such requirements cannot substitute for a proper NEPA analysis (citing a <a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/449/1109/240994/" target="_blank">landmark NEPA case</a> from 1971).</li></ul><p style="">The court concluded that FERC "should have either given a quantitative estimate of the downstream greenhouse emissions that will result from burning the natural gas that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines">pipelines</a> will transport or explained more specifically why it could not have done so." The court further noted that the environmental impact statement needed to include a discussion of the significance of the downstream greenhouse gas emissions, as well as their cumulative impact. Finally, the court directed FERC to explain, in its new environmental impact statement, whether it still maintains that the "social cost of carbon"—a valuable tool that places a dollar value on the harm caused by each ton of carbon emitted—is not useful for NEPA purposes, and why.</p><p style="">The decision is a significant victory for pipeline opponents, with far-reaching consequences for gas pipelines and other fossil fuel projects that require federal approval. And while Trump tweets that climate change is a hoax and cynically <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28032017/trump-executive-order-climate-change-paris-climate-agreement-clean-power-plan-pruitt" target="_blank">attempts to eliminate climate considerations from federal decision making</a>, the court's opinion—authored by a George W. Bush appointee—signals that the courts will hold agencies to their NEPA obligations.</p><p><strong>Environmental Justice</strong></p><p style="">Communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and routinely bear the brunt of harmful impacts from polluting industrial facilities. For pipeline projects, those impacts include pipeline ruptures, construction impacts, groundwater contamination and noise and air pollution from massive compressor stations.</p><p style="">A staggering 83.7 percent of this pipeline—or approximately 574 miles—runs through or within a mile of environmental justice communities. And the compressor station in Albany, Georgia—a huge industrial facility that would release hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollutants each year—is slated to be constructed in a neighborhood that is more than 80 percent African American (<a href="https://vimeo.com/185857025" target="_blank">watch community leader Gloria Gaines discuss the Albany compressor station</a>). As members of Georgia's congressional delegation pointed out to FERC before the pipeline was approved, these communities are <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/congressmen-proposed-pipeline-would-be-an-environmental-justice-disaster-739664bcbd19/" target="_blank">already overburdened</a> with polluting facilities.</p><p style="">FERC nonetheless concluded that the project's impacts would not disproportionately fall on environmental justice populations. While recognizing the "grim statistics" regarding the overburdened nature of these communities, and noting that it is "sensitive to Sierra Club's broader contention that it is unjust to locate a polluting facility in a community that already has a high concentration of polluting facilities," the court declined to overturn FERC's analysis.</p><p style=""><em>Elly Benson is a staff attorney with the Sierra Club's <a href="https://content.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/staff" target="_blank">Environmental Law Program</a>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Court Rules FERC Failed to Adequately Review Environmental Impacts of Sabal Trail Pipeline
22 August 2017
Energy
Tallahassee Democrat / Twitter
The U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Tuesday saying that the Federal Environmental Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to adequately review the environmental impacts of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the fracked gas Sabal Trail pipeline, which runs more than 500 miles through Alabama, Georgia and Florida.
<p style="">"Today, the D.C. Circuit rejected FERC's excuses for refusing to fully consider the effects of this dirty and dangerous pipeline," said <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> staff attorney Elly Benson.</p><p style="">"Even though this pipeline is intended to deliver fracked gas to Florida power plants, FERC maintained that it could ignore the greenhouse gas pollution from burning the gas. For too long, FERC has abandoned its responsibility to consider the public health and environmental impacts of its actions, including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a>. Today's decision requires FERC to fulfill its duties to the public, rather than merely serve as a rubber stamp for corporate polluters' attempts to construct dangerous and unnecessary fracked gas <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines">pipelines</a>."</p><p style="">The judges declared that the environmental impact statement for the Southeast Market Pipelines Project was required to either quantify the impact of GHG resulting from burning the fracked gas transported by the pipeline or explain why it failed to do so.</p><p style="">"Floridians, unlike FERC, have been far too aware of the dangers of this fracked gas project since its inception, and that's why so many of us have spoken out against it," said Sierra Club Florida director Frank Jackalone.</p><p style="">"That fear was manifested when this project began leaking into our communities the other week, and it's why a thorough review of this pipeline will show that it must be—and should have been—rejected."</p><p style="">Since FERC did neither, the commission must go back and conduct a new review of the project.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
Thousands of Miles of Pipelines Enrage Landowners, Threaten the Future of Our Planet
17 July 2017
Popular
Energy company filings (shapefile), Energy Information Administration. Leanne Abraham, Alyson Hurt and Katie Park/NPR
By Kristen Lombardi and Jamie Smith Hopkins
They landed, one after another, in 2015: plans for nearly a dozen interstate pipelines to move natural gas beneath rivers, mountains and people's yards. Like spokes on a wheel, they'd spread from Appalachia to markets in every direction.
Together these new and expanded pipelines—comprising 2,500 miles of steel in all—would double the amount of gas that could flow out of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. The cheap fuel will benefit consumers and manufacturers, the developers promise.
<p>But some scientists warn that the rush to more fully tap the rich <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/">Marcellus and Utica shales</a> is bad for a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">dangerously warming planet</a>, extending the country's fossil-fuel habit by half a century. Industry consultants say there isn't even enough demand in the U.S. for all the gas that would come from this boost in production.</p><p>And yet, five of the 11 pipelines already have been approved. The rest await a decision from a federal regulator that almost never says no.</p><p>The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is charged with making sure new gas pipelines are in the public interest and have minimal impact. This is no small matter. Companies given certificates to build by FERC gain a powerful tool: eminent domain, enabling them to proceed whether affected landowners cooperate or not.</p><p>Only twice in the past 30 years has FERC rejected a pipeline out of hundreds proposed, according to an investigation by the <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity</a> and <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/" target="_blank">StateImpact Pennsylvania</a>, a public media partnership between WITF in Harrisburg and WHYY in Philadelphia. At best, FERC officials superficially probe projects' ramifications for the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">changing climate</a>, despite persistent calls by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>) for deeper analyses. FERC's assessments of need are based largely on company filings. That's not likely to change with a pro-infrastructure president who can now fill four open seats on the five-member commission.</p><p>"They don't seem to pay any attention to opponents," said Tom Hadwin, a retired utility manager from Staunton, Virginia. He doubts FERC will be swayed by the flood of written comments, including his own, and studies critiquing the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/atlantic-coast-pipeline" target="_blank">Atlantic Coast pipeline</a>. It's the largest of the pending projects and would wind nearly 600 miles from West Virginia into his home state and North Carolina.</p><p>"FERC will issue the certificate," Hadwin said. "They always have."</p><p>FERC declined Center for Public Integrity and StateImpact Pennsylvania requests to interview Cheryl A. LaFleur, its acting chairman, as well as senior officials. In response to written questions, the agency said it hasn't kept track of the number of projects it denies. It provided a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3894322-FERC-Q-amp-A.html" target="_blank">brief statement</a> offering little insight into its pipeline-approval process. FERC spokeswoman Mary O'Driscoll wrote that, as a quasi-judicial body, "we must be very careful about what we say."</p><p>In the statement, the agency said the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngmajorleg/ngact1938.html" target="_blank">Natural Gas Act of 1938</a> requires it to approve infrastructure projects that it <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/717f" target="_blank">finds</a> would serve "the present or future public convenience and necessity." FERC wouldn't explain how it weighs competing interests; instead, it pointed to a <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/PL99-3-000.pdf" target="_blank">1999 </a><a href="https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/PL99-3-000.pdf" target="_blank">policy</a> outlining how it defers to market forces. That policy, still in effect, was influenced by, among others, <a href="http://www.npr.org/news/specials/enron/" target="_blank">Enron</a>, the energy firm whose spectacular collapse in 2001 led to prosecutions and bankruptcy.</p><p>Former insiders defend the commission, describing its mandate as limited. Renewable-energy consultant Jon Wellinghoff, a FERC commissioner from 2006 to 2013, including nearly five years as its chairman, said the agency has little leeway for denying a pipeline. "It has to stay within the tracks," he said.</p><p>Donald F. Santa Jr., a former FERC commissioner who heads the pipeline industry's trade group, the <a href="http://www.ingaa.org/cms/115.aspx" target="_blank">Interstate Natural Gas Association of America</a>, said the agency's low denial rate merely reflects the quality of the projects. They're so expensive to build that few make it off the drawing board into FERC applications.</p><p>"It's the envy of the world," Santa said, referring to the nation's pipeline network. "It is something that has enabled us to have remarkably competitive natural gas markets that have benefited consumers and the economy."</p><p>Two former directors of the FERC office overseeing pipelines say no project survives the vetting process without route alterations or other changes. On occasion, FERC has delayed or rescinded approval of projects that don't meet specific conditions. But at every turn, the agency's process favors pipeline companies, according to Center for Public Integrity and StateImpact Pennsylvania interviews with more than 100 people, reviews of FERC records and analyses of nearly 500 pipeline cases.</p><p>Among the findings:</p><p>● It's hard to see where FERC ends and industry begins. Dozens of agency staff members have had to recuse themselves in recent years while negotiating jobs at energy firms. Most commissioners leave FERC to work for industry as well, in some cases lobbying their successors.</p><p>● Four of six major pending pipelines in the Appalachian basin were proposed by companies planning to sell pipeline capacity to utilities they own. Analysts who have scrutinized some of these cases say this new wave of self-dealing raises the risk of companies pursuing unneeded infrastructure that utility customers would end up paying for. FERC dismissed such concerns about two pipelines approved last year.</p><p>● The Obama-era EPA repeatedly asked FERC to scrutinize projects' climate impacts, saying in a <a href="https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details?downloadAttachment=&attachmentId=219128" target="_blank">rebuke in October</a> that its failure to properly do so did not comply with a key environmental law.</p><p>● FERC delays appeals of its pipeline approvals for months while allowing companies to begin construction. In seven cases since 2015, gas already was flowing in the pipeline by the time opponents could challenge it in court.</p><p>In February, on his last day as a commissioner, former FERC Chairman Norman Bay <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3517166-FERC-Bay-Statement.html" target="_blank">recommended</a> that the agency evaluate the cumulative effects of increased gas production in the Marcellus and Utica shales, mostly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio—an analysis environmentalists have advocated. Bay urged the agency to be more rigorous in its reviews.</p><p>"It is inefficient to build pipelines that may not be needed over the long term and that become stranded assets," wrote Bay, an Obama appointee.</p><p>But FERC has resisted making such reforms. Now, with FERC down to a single commissioner and temporarily without a quorum, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">President Donald Trump</a> gets to reshape the agency. Among <a href="http://www.utilitydive.com/news/senate-committee-advances-trumps-ferc-nominees/444353/" target="_blank">those he has tapped</a> for the commission is a pro-gas utility regulator from Pennsylvania, Robert Powelson, who in March <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/03/21/utility-regulator-slams-pipeline-opponents/" target="_blank">likened</a> protests against pipelines to "jihad," later calling that "an <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/03/23/amid-criticism-utility-regulator-walks-back-jihad-remark/" target="_blank">inappropriate</a> choice of words."</p><p>"We've got abundant supply," Powelson said at a gas-industry conference. "What we don't have is adequate pipeline infrastructure."</p><p><strong>Close ties with industry</strong></p><p>In the past few years, FERC has overseen what it says is <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/reports-analyses/st-mkt-ovr/2016-som.pdf" target="_blank">one of the largest boosts</a> in natural-gas pipeline capacity in American history. It issued certificates in 2015 for projects that collectively <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/headlines/2017/2017-1/01-26-17.pdf" target="_blank">can carry</a> 14.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day. The next year, it approved an additional 17.6 billion cubic feet.</p><p>Newly built pipe has helped move Appalachian gas to markets along the East Coast and in the Midwest, the agency says.</p><p>That, in essence, explains how FERC sees its role—dating to its birth in a decade marred by energy crises. In 1977, amid a <a href="http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7167" target="_blank">natural-gas shortage</a> and after <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo" target="_blank">an oil embargo</a> by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Congress created the agency and placed it within, yet <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/students/whatisferc.asp" target="_blank">independent of</a>, the new U.S. Department of Energy. FERC's <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/about/about.asp" target="_blank">mission</a>: "Reliable, Efficient and Sustainable Energy."</p><p>Proponents of the pipeline buildout argue that more American gas brings jobs to places sorely in need of them by fueling energy-hungry factories. And gas has bypassed higher-carbon <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> as the dominant energy source in the U.S. But grassroots pushback is coming from both ends of the political spectrum, driven by concerns over the climate and individual property rights.</p><p>To such critics, FERC has come to epitomize a captured regulator.</p><p>Records obtained by the Center for Public Integrity and StateImpact Pennsylvania through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal an exceptionally cozy relationship between regulator and regulated. Emails and official calendars from mid-2010 through 2016 show a steady march of industry representatives before commissioners. Large energy companies—Kinder Morgan, Dominion Energy, Energy Transfer Partners, Duke Energy—scheduled at least 93 meetings with FERC officials during those 6 ½ years. Trade groups like <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3892360-ENCLOSURE-PART-3-EDISON-ELECTRIC-INSTITUTE-EEI.html" target="_blank">Edison Electric Institute</a> and <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3892362-ENCLOSURE-PART-1-AMERICAN-GAS-ASSOCIATION-FOIA.html" target="_blank">American Gas Association</a> wooed commissioners and staff with invitations to executive dinners and after-hours parties. Former commissioners-turned-lobbyists, such as INGAA's Santa, called on their successors.</p><p>By contrast, records show, FERC commissioners met with environmental and public-interest groups 17 times over this period.</p><p>In many ways, FERC operates like a one-way street: Commissioners may come to it from legislative or regulatory bodies, but almost always leave for industry. Eighty percent of the 35 former commissioners have spent at least part of their post-FERC careers at energy companies or law firms, trade groups and consultancies representing them. Many have ties to natural gas through work or positions on corporate boards.</p><p>There's a similar pattern among FERC's rank and file. Since 2012, staff members have submitted more than 50 requests to recuse themselves from regulatory work while seeking jobs at energy firms or consulting groups hired by the industry, agency documents show.</p><p>Some who have left FERC return to do the bidding of their new employers. In email exchanges in 2016, one woman who now works for Edison Electric Institute called on her former co-workers multiple times—seeking materials for an email blast, for instance, or inviting FERC commissioners to EEI events.</p><p>"Are you ready for the protestors??" she <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3892361-ENCLOSURE-PART-3A-EDISON-ELECTRIC-INSTITUTE-EEI.html" target="_blank">wrote</a> in one email to her former colleagues. "Too bad you guys can't move the open mtg like last year. They just keep sucking!"</p><p>Many critics see an inherent industry bias at FERC: Its budget is <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/2016/FY17-Budget-Request.pdf" target="_blank">fully covered</a> by fees collected from regulated companies. Last year, a Pennsylvania environmental group <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3380708-FERC-Complaint-FINAL.html" target="_blank">sued</a> FERC over this funding mechanism, alleging it creates "a perverse incentive" for the agency to build pipelines. The lawsuit is on appeal after a federal court <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/legal/court-cases/opinions/2017/16-cv-416.pdf" target="_blank">dismissed it</a> in March, noting that Congress ultimately sets FERC's budget.</p><p>This is the agency's approval process: Take proposals as they come, see if the pipeline has long-term customer contracts, gather public feedback, try to keep local impacts to a minimum and assure basic safety standards.</p><p>J. Mark Robinson, an industry consultant, worked at FERC from 1978 to 2009, heading the office overseeing gas pipelines in his final years there. Interstate transmission lines often never go forward, he said, but FERC's results speak for themselves. Pipelines get built; people get energy.</p><p>Pipeline companies, for their part, say the review process is exacting. Bruce McKay, senior energy policy director at Dominion, majority owner and operator of the Atlantic Coast pipeline, said the companies behind the proposal have submitted 100,000 pages of documentation to FERC and made 300 route adjustments to avoid ecologically sensitive areas at the agency's request.</p><p>"They're not there to do our bidding," McKay said of FERC.</p><p>It doesn't seem that way to Chad Oba, a mental-health counselor from Buckingham County, Virginia. There the Atlantic Coast developers plan to build a massive compressor station where engines would throb to keep gas moving. Oba attended a FERC meeting on the project in 2015, driving nearly an hour with as many neighbors as she could to testify. They didn't want an industrial complex in their rural area, already crisscrossed by four gas pipelines. They questioned its siting amid a largely poor, African-American community founded by freed slaves.</p><p>"I thought, 'Surely, these things will be considered,'" said Oba, of the anti-pipeline group Friends of Buckingham. But FERC has backed the location. The agency has never held a hearing in her county, despite requests from her group and a county commissioner.</p><p>"They've treated Buckingham very badly," she said.</p><p>Such sentiments may not be what Charles B. Curtis, FERC's first chairman, envisioned in 1979, when he wrote in congressional testimony that "we must create public confidence … and demonstrate that regulation can work effectively to promote the public interest." At the time, he was looking to fund a congressionally mandated Office of Public Participation at FERC.</p><p>That never happened. Members of Congress couldn't agree on funding for the office that year. The Center for Public Integrity and StateImpact Pennsylvania found no evidence that FERC tried to launch the office again, despite congressional requests and a formal <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3893829-Petition-to-FERC-to-Establish-an-OPP.html" target="_blank">petition</a> to do so.</p><p>Those seeking to challenge a pipeline frequently run into roadblocks. Before mounting a case in court, opponents must first appeal to FERC, which, by law, has 30 days to act. Yet records show commissioners routinely fulfill this obligation by granting themselves more time to issue a final ruling, leaving the challengers in limbo. Meanwhile, FERC allows pipeline companies to move ahead. By the time opponents get to court, construction can be well underway—or finished.</p><p>Ryan Talbott, an environmental lawyer at Appalachian Mountain Advocates, said he's seen this pattern play out in every pipeline case he's fought—more than a dozen so far. Last year, he set out to analyze FERC's record on pipeline appeals. He found that commissioners take, on average, eight months to deliberate—then deny the appeals. A lawsuit filed against FERC seeks to have this practice declared unconstitutional.</p><p>The agency declined to comment.</p><p>FERC's methods have fueled a grassroots campaign against it. Pipeline opponents have protested outside its Washington, D.C., headquarters since 2014. Some have gone on hunger strikes, interrupted commission meetings or picketed commissioners' houses. Last year, 182 groups in 35 states <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3455976-Cong-Hrgs-Request-Sign-On.html" target="_blank">called</a> for congressional hearings into "the many ways communities are being harmed by FERC."</p><p>Current and former officials consider the protests misplaced. Comprehensive energy regulation isn't within FERC's purview, they say; those who want changes should talk to Congress.</p><p>FERC opponents have done that, to no avail. But William Penniman, a retired lawyer who represented pipeline firms before FERC and is now active with the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/virginia" target="_blank">Sierra Club's Virginia chapter</a>, said the agency already has the authority to do more, yet chooses not to.</p><p>"Climate change, stranded assets, the construction bubble—they are not coming to grips with that," he said.</p><p><strong>Pressing FERC on climate</strong></p><p>Gas-company executives often pitch their fuel to FERC as a long-term necessity for the country, filling in for renewable energy sources when the sun fades or the wind lags, powering industrial furnaces, heating homes. Companies propose new pipelines meant to last 50 years or more, presenting them as climate-friendly.</p><p>Environmentalists disagree, however, and are pushing FERC to dig deeper. Each additional gas pipeline, they warn, will make it easier to delay no-carbon alternatives and could lock in even worse effects of global warming.</p><p>Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, giving off about half the planet-heating carbon dioxide and a fraction of the toxic air emissions. Yet to avoid the worst of the heat waves, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought">droughts</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding">floods</a> and other consequences of climate change, the Obama White House <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3889630-U-S-Cover-Note-INDC-and-Accompanying-Information.html" target="_blank">said</a> the U.S. needed to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels no later than 2050. That's all emissions from all sources, not just electricity and heating. And it's 33 years from now, less than the lifetime of a pipeline.</p><p>Indeed, some advocates have <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3517043-Bridge-Too-Far-Report-v6-3.html" target="_blank">calculated</a> that new pipelines in the Appalachian basin would yield enough greenhouse-gas emissions from natural gas alone to surpass that goal.</p><p>That's because the primary component of natural gas—<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/methane">methane</a>—is a short-lived yet powerful greenhouse gas also contributing to climate change. Methane wafts into the atmosphere during every stage in the gas supply chain: Wells, processing facilities, pipelines and compressor stations all leak. Some vent methane by design.</p><p>The EPA has pegged the national rate at which methane escapes from oil and gas drilling sites at between one and two percent, based on industry estimates. Some independent research suggests that may be accurate.</p><p>But Robert Howarth, an environmental biology professor at Cornell University, <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3759966-Howarth-2015-Methane-and-Climactic-Warming.html" target="_blank">estimates</a> that methane emissions produced by shale gas from wellhead to delivery could add up to a 12-percent leak rate—causing substantially more warming in the short term than coal. Howarth sees the rapid rise in gas development as a contributor to the recent spike in global temperatures, including record-breaking heat waves in 2015 and 2016.</p><p>"The buildout of pipelines," he said, "is a true climate disaster."</p><p>Despite prodding from the EPA since 2013, FERC hasn't taken a comprehensive look at the climate effects of gas projects before approving them. The agency only began estimating greenhouse-gas emissions from the burning of gas last year, and not in all cases. The total emissions for five pipelines, all pending: 170 million metric tons per year combined, the warming <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator" target="_blank">equivalent</a> of 50 coal plants.</p><p>FERC refused to comment on its climate reviews, citing unspecified litigation. The Obama EPA contended that FERC has a duty to evaluate a pipeline proposal's climate impacts under the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/nepa" target="_blank">National Environmental Policy Act</a>. EPA officials said so in a <a href="https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/details;jsessionid=E359DFA73D7CA3795B9116D9914AEF1C?downloadAttachment=&attachmentId=219128" target="_blank">pointed letter</a> to FERC in October, after yet another pipeline review failed to estimate production or end-use emissions, calling the absence of these calculations "very concerning."</p><p>The EPA says productive discussions have taken place since. But FERC has yet to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions for pipelines as thoroughly as its counterpart urged.</p><p>It also doesn't delve into whether electric utilities seeking gas for future plants could handle demand another way, such as energy efficiency and renewables. Such alternatives, FERC said in its reviews, would not fulfil the purpose of the project—"to transport natural gas."</p><p>It boils down to a dispute about how far FERC can or should go.</p><p>"FERC has no legislative authority whatsoever to look at climate impacts," said Wellinghoff, one of the only former commissioners with a renewable-energy background. "I would have loved to have had that authority at FERC, but I didn't."</p><p>Still, people keep pressing FERC to act. Last year, the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> and other groups sued the agency over its failure to calculate greenhouse-gas emissions from the since-built Sabal Trail pipeline, which runs from Alabama into Georgia and Florida. At a D.C. appellate court hearing in April, judges asked a FERC lawyer why the agency hadn't done so.</p><p>The lawyer said FERC had determined the project wouldn't meaningfully contribute to climate change. Judge Judith W. Rogers said it wasn't possible to know that without doing the calculations.</p><p>"FERC said, 'We're just not going to do anything,'" she said.</p><p><strong>Enron's advice</strong></p><p>In the 1990s, FERC posed this question: Was its pipeline-approval process working well? One company argued that the agency needed "to shift its focus away from command-and-control regulation towards policies that increasingly rely on market forces."</p><p>That company was <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/us/enron-fast-facts/index.html" target="_blank">Enron</a>. In 1999, its free-market views influenced <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/PL99-3-000.pdf" target="_blank">FERC's policy</a> on how it would weigh projects. Years later, a New Jersey man fighting a pipeline that would run 167 feet from his daughter's bedroom read the historical document with outrage and disbelief.</p><p>"You might have heard of Enron," said Mike Spille, a software engineer trying to fend off the <a href="http://penneastpipeline.com/" target="_blank">PennEast</a> project, planned in Pennsylvania and his state. "It was a big giant bubble company that exploded and lots of people went to jail. Companies like Enron are the ones that set this FERC policy, and it's part of the reason why it's so bad."</p><p>For the agency, customer contracts for pipelines are "strong evidence" of what the market wants. Since 1999, it has never denied a project that had them. The two it rejected did not.</p><p>Pipeline company executives believe this makes sense. No developer would sink potentially billions of dollars into an unnecessary project, they say. No utility or other gas shipper would pay millions of dollars for unneeded capacity.</p><p>But relying on contracts to judge need can be problematic. The Appalachian pipelines illustrate that.</p><p>First off, some of them are getting eminent-domain authority to take gas out of the country—there simply isn't enough domestic demand, analysts say, which is something FERC does not consider.</p><p>Three new or pending Appalachian pipelines have space set aside for gas going to Canada. Another <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3891653-WB-Xpress-Reference-to-Cove-Point-2015.html" target="_blank">played up</a> its proximity to Dominion's nearly complete <a href="https://www.dominionenergy.com/covepoint" target="_blank">export terminal</a> in Maryland. Even projects pitched as purely domestic might not end up that way—pipelines interconnect.</p><p>Beyond that, <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kvuT-cNW0zhnZGnqPLkFn9vJMunaFSZqUVyY3UYxq8k/edit#gid=0" target="_blank">many of these pipeline contracts</a> have an incestuous quality. Companies are building them for their own subsidiaries—mostly electric or gas utilities and gas producers. It's as if one hand wrote the contract and the other signed it.</p><p>Industry experts say this trend increases the risk of overbuilding. One reason is that interstate pipelines are more profitable than power plants and other infrastructure that utilities erect for themselves.</p><p>"It's a nice way to make money," said Greg Lander of <a href="http://english.skippingstone.com/index.php/greg-lander-president/" target="_blank">Skipping Stone</a>, a gas- and electric-industry consulting firm. "The market need isn't there."</p><p>Lander's firm, hired by an environmental group to examine PennEast, <a href="http://rethinkenergynj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/PennEastNotNeeded.pdf" target="_blank">found</a> no economic justification for the pipeline, which will mostly serve utilities and other firms owned by the developers. The New Jersey <a href="http://www.nj.gov/rpa/" target="_blank">agency</a> representing utility customers is also skeptical.</p><p>"NJ Rate Counsel is concerned that … the 'need' for the Project appears to be driven more by the search for higher returns on investment than any actual deficiency in gas supply," the agency <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3889497-New-Jersey-Rate-Counsel-Comments-on-PennEast.html" target="_blank">wrote</a> to FERC last year.</p><p>It urged FERC to examine whether the contracts reflected true demand. FERC didn't. Instead, it gave the pipeline a preliminary thumbs-up, the last step before approval.</p><p>PennEast spokeswoman Patricia Kornick said the project would improve reliability and ease price fluctuations. Companies signed up "because they recognize the need for an abundant, reliable, clean energy source," she wrote in an email.</p><p>Het Shah, who leads natural gas market research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a consulting firm, said the Appalachian boom isn't just about new pipelines, but also older ones turning flow around to push gas out of the region. It's "definitely an overbuild," he said, but he sees a strategy driving it—exports.</p><p>U.S. gas moved by pipeline to Canada and Mexico <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9132us2a.htm" target="_blank">tripled</a> in the past decade, with more coming. There's also a <a href="https://energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-authorizes-golden-pass-export-liquefied-natural-gas-golden-pass" target="_blank">rush to build</a> liquefied natural gas terminals to ship product overseas.</p><p>International markets could help Appalachian producers <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/02/17/drilling-downturn-hits-marcellus-shale-industry-hard/" target="_blank">battered</a> by <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/01/oil_and_gas_drillers_facing_ba.html" target="_blank">low prices</a>. But it makes landowners along pipeline routes livid. They don't see how it's in the public "convenience and necessity" to seize private property in America so firms can make money selling gas outside the country.</p><p>That's what people told FERC about Northern Access 2016, a Pennsylvania-to-New York pipeline that would feed much of its gas to Canadian markets. The commissioners <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20170203194955-CP15-115-000.pdf" target="_blank">said</a> in February that this was a matter for the Energy Department—not noting that the other agency <a href="https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/11/f34/ord3912.pdf" target="_blank">automatically approves</a> exports to Canada.</p><p>The point, FERC said, was that all the capacity had been contracted. It approved the pipeline.</p><p><strong>The fight on the ground</strong></p><p>The policy debates around pipelines can seem far away to those living in isolated communities in west-central Virginia, the epicenter of opposition to the Atlantic Coast project. Residents who don't consider themselves environmentalists don "NO PIPELINE" T-shirts and hats and routinely show up at opposition rallies.</p><p>In Virginia, as in many places on proposed construction routes, the threat of eminent domain fuels this fight. Landowners say they object to the idea that companies can take private property—seizing permanent pathways, 75 feet wide or more—for corporate gain. They say the one-time payments they're offered don't make up for what they're losing.</p><p>These landowners include Becci Harmon, a drug-and-alcohol program officer from Swoope, whose house sits within 50 feet of the Atlantic Coast route; she fears the one-acre plot on which she's lived for 26 years will turn into a gutter after the pipeline wipes out her trees, garden and septic system. Richard Averitt, an entrepreneur from Nellysford, believes it will jeopardize his plan to develop an "eco-friendly" resort after it cuts the wooded, 100-acre site in half.</p><p>"This pipeline in particular is so egregious. It's 95 percent virgin land," Averitt said. "It's land privately owned or in the public trust."</p><p>Atlantic Coast became an issue in Virginia's recent gubernatorial primary, but Dominion and Duke say supporters outnumber opponents. The companies point to recent polling by an <a href="https://consumerenergyalliance.org/about/our-members/" target="_blank">energy industry group</a> that includes Dominion among its members. Its survey shows that 55 percent of residents back the project while 30 percent oppose it. They also cite a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3766801-April-4-2017-WVVANC-FERC.html" target="_blank">letter</a>, signed by 16 state lawmakers from Virginia, North Carolina and West Virginia, urging FERC officials to approve the pipeline. Last month, a New York watchdog group released a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3760585-AtlanticCoastPipelineReport-Copy-Embargoed-Until.html" target="_blank">report </a>revealing that five of the signatories are top recipients of either Dominion's or Duke's political contributions.</p><p>Supporters writing <a href="http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/ward-burton-how-environmental-stewardship-and-pipeline-development-can-co/article_fef2adf9-5356-5389-b3eb-786ba81490cb.html" target="_blank">op-eds</a> distributed by the companies include landowner Ward Burton. He was impressed that Dominion altered the project's route to avoid crossing a creek twice and a forest once on the 565 acres in Blackstone, Virginia, owned by his <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> foundation.</p><p>Unions are eager to see the pipeline move ahead. "We're going to put people to work," said Matthew Yonka, president of the Virginia State Building & Construction Trades Council.</p><p>Still, there can be localized problems. The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rover-pipeline">Rover pipeline</a>, which runs from Pennsylvania to Michigan, racked up more than $900,000 in proposed penalties from Ohio regulators after FERC approved it in February. <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3891736-Ohio-EPA-Final-Orders.html" target="_blank">Officials say</a> its owner, Energy Transfer Partners, kept spilling drilling fluid into wetlands, ponds and streams—including, in one case, several million gallons of a clay mixture tinged with petroleum.</p><p>Energy Transfer's Alexis Daniel said the company considers land restoration "a top priority" and is working to resolve the matter. Craig W. Butler, who heads the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, said the company claimed the state has no authority to penalize it. He's grateful FERC intervened: It's halted certain drilling work on the pipeline while <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/statements-speeches/lafleur/2017/06-01-17-lafleur.asp#.WVo-2YTyuUl" target="_blank">investigating</a> the damage.</p><p>Some states, less impressed with FERC's process, have pushed back. New York regulators denied necessary water permits for two pipelines, the Constitution <a href="http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/105941.html" target="_blank">last year</a> and Northern Access <a href="http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/109767.html" target="_blank">in April</a>. Both projects <a href="http://constitutionpipeline.com/constitution-pipeline-challenges-decision-by-new-york-state-to-block-federally-approved-pipeline/" target="_blank">are on hold</a> as the <a href="http://www.natfuel.com/supply/NorthernAccess2016/docs/4-10-17%20NYS%20Exec%20Branch%20denies%20permits%20for%20NA.pdf" target="_blank">developers wait</a> for a federal appeals court to decide whether the denials can stand. In its most recent <a href="http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/northaccesspipe42017.pdf" target="_blank">permit rejection</a>, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation said "FERC disregarded the Department's concerns." Based on its experiences with gas pipeline construction, the state agency predicted "significant degradation of water quality in stream after stream."</p><p>U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a Democrat from New Jersey, wants to see reforms earlier in the process—when FERC is still deliberating. Pressed by residents upset about PennEast, she sponsored <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2649/text" target="_blank">legislation</a> in May that would require evidentiary hearings in contested cases and regular, big-picture reviews of need.</p><p>Absent a state veto or major changes at FERC, there's little a landowner can do to stop the construction juggernaut, as Jeb Bell learned. He and his brother didn't want the Sabal Trail pipeline burrowing beneath their tree farm in Mitchell County, Georgia, so the company took them to court twice—first to get permission to survey the land and then to build on it. Sabal Trail, largely owned by Enbridge, won each time. It also fought off the Bells' counterclaim contending the company had trespassed on their land.</p><p>Then the company <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3883789-Order-Regarding-Bells-First-Appeal.html" target="_blank">won the right</a> to collect legal fees from the Bells—$47,258 in all. </p><p>Enbridge spokeswoman Andrea Grover said by email that Sabal Trail is entitled to the money because it had offered to settle the "baseless" trespass claim; the brothers turned it down.</p><p>Bell, a state-park manager, has no idea how he'll pay if his appeal fails. He can't imagine a multibillion-dollar company needing his money. What it wanted, he's sure, was to send a warning to other landowners: Don't even try to stop pipelines. They always win.</p><p><em>Marie Cusick of <a href="https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/" target="_blank">StateImpact Pennsylvania</a> contributed to this story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Alleen Brown
Under orders from President Trump, the Army Corps of Engineers on Feb. 7 approved a final easement allowing Energy Transfer Partners to drill under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. Construction has re-started, and lawyers for the company said it could take as little as 30 days for oil to flow through the Dakota Access Pipeline.
<p>While the Standing Rock Sioux and neighboring tribes attempt to halt the project in court, other opponents of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_blank">pipeline</a> have launched what they're calling a "last stand," holding protests and disruptive actions across the U.S. In North Dakota, where it all began, a few hundred people continue to live at camps on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, using them as bases for prayer and for direct actions to block construction. Last week, camps were served eviction notices from <a href="https://ndresponse.gov/dakota-access-pipeline/press-releases/burgum-issues-emergency-evacuation-order" target="_blank">Governor Doug Burgum</a> and from the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CampOfTheSacredStone/" target="_blank">Bureau of Indian Affairs</a>, demanding that they clear the biggest camp, Oceti Sakowin, by Wednesday and a smaller camp, Sacred Stone, within 10 days.</p><div id="00057" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="G21FYS1491399533"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="831593891564490753" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Dakota Access Pipeline 'Could Be Operational Within 30 Days' https://t.co/LVGuunbOcu (@ecowatch @priceofoil) #NoDAPL</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/831593891564490753">1487102408.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline didn't come from nowhere. It's a direct descendant of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/keystone-xl">Keystone XL</a> fight—both pass through the territory of the Oceti Sakowin, or Seven Council Fires, which includes bands of the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota people. And when Standing Rock tribal members saw that it was time to mobilize, they turned to relatives that had fought the Keystone XL.</p><p>In 2014, Joye Braun was living at an anti-Keystone XL camp called Pte Ospaye, on the Cheyenne River reservation, when she first heard about a new pipeline that would pass just outside the border of the Standing Rock reservation, on land leaders said would be tribally controlled if the U.S. government obeyed its treaties. "I went holy crap, here comes another one," she said. Two years later, she would find herself helping set up Sacred Stone camp, the first anti-Dakota Access pipeline camp.</p><p>Now, most of the thousands of people that visited Standing Rock last fall have returned home, and some have taken up long-shot local fights against the oil and gas industry. In Oklahoma, Arkansas and Tennessee it's the <a href="http://boldoklahoma.org/press-release-fight-against-diamond-pipeline-spans-three-states/" target="_blank">Diamond pipeline</a>; in Louisiana, the <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org/louisiana/blog/2017/02/bayou-bridge-pipeline-update" target="_blank">Bayou Bridge</a>. In Wisconsin, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa actually voted to decommission and remove the <a href="https://wcmcoop.com/2017/01/05/bad-river-band-denies-renewal-of-enbridge-line-5-grant-of-easement/" target="_blank">Enbridge Line 5 pipeline</a> from their reservation.</p><p>Many communities have turned to direct action as a last resort. The city of Lafayette, Colorado, which has long attempted to block fracking in the area, <a href="http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_30783691/lafayette-leaders-standing-rock-members-voice-support-anti" target="_blank">has</a> even <a href="http://landing.pmpfb.com/files/2017/01/LafBORv2.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> a climate bill of rights, enforceable via nonviolent direct action if the legal system fails.</p><p>In at least four states, encampments built as bases for pipeline resistance have emerged. They face corporations emboldened by Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, which have used their first month in power to grant fossil fuel industry wishes, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16022017/coal-mining-environment-stream-rule-donald-trump-mussels-species" target="_blank">overturning</a> environmental protections, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/rex-tillerson-doesnt-sound-like-a-climate-denier-but-he-acts-like-one/" target="_blank">appointing</a> former <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">ExxonMobil</a> CEO <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rex-tillerson">Rex Tillerson</a> as secretary of state, and <a href="https://theintercept.com/2017/02/08/activists-plan-emergency-actions-in-18-states-to-protest-approval-of-dakota-access-pipeline/" target="_blank">reviving</a> the halted Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="806d41ea5978dd366a90284383c2cab2"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://facebook.com/EcoWatch/videos/1448710808475185/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div><p>"Forces arrayed against us are quite wide in my opinion," said Owl, a member of the Ramapough-Lunaape tribe who helped set up a camp in New Jersey to oppose the Pilgrim pipeline. "They are hell-bent on this infrastructure."</p><p>Here's what you need to know about the Trans-Pecos, Atlantic Sunrise, Sabal Trail and Pilgrim pipelines:</p>
Read More
Show Less