|
|
|
|
Greetings, Utah Energy United!
One of the more curious stories of recent memory is Greenpeace v. Energy Transfer Partners over the protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. These protests dominated the news and saw sometimes violent clashes between protestors and law enforcement. Protestors were ultimately cleared in February of 2017, and by April of that year, Energy Transfer Partners finished its construction of the pipeline with oil flowing by June.
Energy Transfer Partners took Greenpeace to court and “had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts. Greenpeace USA was found liable for all counts, while the others were found liable for some. The damages owed will be spread out in different amounts over the three entities.” Not only was Greenpeace found liable for these charges, they were found liable to the tune of $660 million. To say this outcome was surprising would be the understatement of the year.
Then last year a judge reduced the amount owed by Greenpeace to $345 million, something both sides vowed to appeal, albeit for vastly different reasons. A recent article stated: “The $64 billion, Dallas-based energy conglomerate [Energy Transfer Partners], which owns and operates thousands of miles (kilometers) of pipelines in 44 states, has objected to the halving of its award. Greenpeace USA has reported cash and assets nowhere near such hefty damages.”
The most notable thing about this case is that it’s the first time a major energy company took on an environmental NGO in court and won so authoritatively. Depending on which side of this case you find yourself on, the takeaway message is significant.
For those of us in the energy space, whether that’s oil, gas, coal, minerals, power production, or even those developing large scale infrastructure projects, the court’s decision has to feel vindicating and empowering. We’ve talked in this publication in the past about how difficult it is to build things in the country, things that we all agree we need like powerlines. A lot of that difficulty stems from the tactics and actions of entities such as Greenpeace - whether it’s literally people changing themselves to equipment and pipelines or chaining development through constant administrative protests and legal challenges, projects don’t get built.
Contrast that with the NGO community, and we imagine this case must be absolutely chilling. The scale of the court decision, even the halved amount of damages, is existential. Most NGOs cannot survive a judgment like that, not anywhere close. It’s yet to be seen if that ripple effect will extend throughout the NGO sphere and results in a change of tactics, a prioritization of which projects or issues really matter and/or a walking back of the sometimes blatantly unfounded accusations hurled against energy and infrastructure projects.
One thing is for sure: It’s hard to see how things return to business as usual for environmental activist groups after this court decision.
Thank you for your continued engagement with Utah Energy United. Happy Friday!
Be sure to follow us on X, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And if you know someone who should be a part of Utah Energy United, get them to sign up here.
Rikki Hrenko-Browning |
|
|
Thank you for your many efforts! |
|
