2020: A Year of Pipeline Court Fights, with One Lawsuit Headed to the Supreme Court

Several cases challenge natural gas pipeline routes, including across the Appalachian Trail, and question companies’ right to take land they don’t own.

Phil McKenna reports for Inside Climate News

After years of mounting opposition to the increasing build-out of oil and gas infrastructure, 2020 is shaping up to be the year that pipeline opponents get their day in court.

One case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court takes a closer look at whether parts of the Appalachian Trail are off-limits to fossil fuel infrastructure and may determine the fate of two multi-billion-dollar pipelines. A defeat there, the industry argues, would severely limit its ability to get natural gas from the Marcellus shale to East Coast cities and export terminals. Another case weighs state sovereignty against pipeline interests and could have implications nationwide.

Meanwhile, a question of potentially greater significance looms: Can pipeline companies continue to justify taking private land as the public benefits of fossil fuel pipelines are increasingly questioned and the risks they pose to the environment and climate increase?

Like this? Click to receive free EnviroPolitics Blog updates

The rise of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, launched a natural gas boom that has fueled a rush of pipeline construction in recent years, with pipeline companies spending an average of $10 billion per year on expanding their pipeline network, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. That rush has racked up environmental violations in several states, and it has triggered a pushback by states, environmental groups, and landowners.

Even in oil- and gas-rich Texas, where fossil fuel interests dominate state politics, landowners are pushing back on pipeline companies’ use of eminent domain.

Crossing the Appalachian Trail

In the case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the fossil fuel industry argues that its very ability to ship natural gas from the sprawling Marcellus and Utica shale basins to the East Coast is at risk.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on Feb. 24 related to a key permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC’s proposed $7.5 billion natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to eastern portions of Virginia and North Carolina. It would cross the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and that’s where the pipeline has run into trouble.

Justices will consider whether the U.S. Forest Service has the authority to grant permits for pipelines that cross the iconic backcountry footpath, which runs from Georgia to Maine and is part of the National Park System. Attorneys representing the Trump administration are also a part of the suit, arguing that the Forest Service does have jurisdiction to grant permits across the trail. In a brief filed Dec. 2, federal attorneys added that the pipeline would lie “more than 600 feet below” the surface of the Trail and would be constructed using a “horizontal directional drilling technique” with entry and exit points on private lands not be visible from the Trail.

A federal appeals court invalidated the Forest Service’s permit for the Atlantic Coast pipeline in 2018, saying the agency lacked the authority to approve a right-of-way across the trail. Industry and government lawyers argue the appeals court was wrong.

“Simply put, there is no basis in any federal statute to conclude that Congress intended to convert the Appalachian Trail into a 2,200-mile barrier separating critical natural resources from the eastern seaboard” attorneys for Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, told the Supreme Court in a Dec. 2 brief. 

Read the full story

Don’t miss stories like this Click for free updates

2020: A Year of Pipeline Court Fights, with One Lawsuit Headed to the Supreme Court Read More »

On Thursday, the NJ Senate could vote to mandate large-scale, food-waste recycling

Frank Brill, EnviroPolitics Editor

We reported on Saturday that time was running out on A3726, a bill that would require large-scale generators of food waste (think universities, restaurants, casinos, etc.) to send their material to state-approved recycling facilities.

Late today, the Senate announced that it will consider a motion on Thursday (Jan. 9) to accept the governor’s recommended amendments that would remove exemptions in the bill for landfills and waste incinerators. If the motion succeeds, as is expected, Governor Murphy will sign the bill into law.

That outcome would delight numerous recycling and other environmental organizations that have been fighting for years to get the bill enacted.

But don’t expect quick results. Currently, there are no recycling facilities in the state that fit the role anticipated by the legislation. Proposals to build such facilities can now be expected to surface since the new law would essentially guarantee a flow of food waste to them. Without a predictable and dependable supply, investors have not been willing to commit funding to build and operate full-scale, food-waste recycling plants.

Where will we likely see food waste plants? Those familiar with such projects expect the first proposals will come from areas of the state with the highest populations. More people=more food waste=greatest potential return on recycling facility investments.

Two potential hurdles both involve the NJDEP
The agency’s ever-constricted budget doesn’t have much room to hire new employees to review recycling plant proposals. And, even if a proposal gets a DEP green light, the agency will still need to add staffers to oversee compliance. Why? See Boston Globe link below.

From the Boston Globe, February 26, 2019
Five years ago, Massachusetts launched the nation’s most ambitious effort to curb commercial food waste by banning universities, hospitals, and large businesses from sending discarded food to landfills.

But critics like John Hanselman, who built a business based on the ban, say that state regulators have failed to enforce the restrictions, leading to a widespread lack of compliance.

Hanselman’s company invested $70 million to build five high-tech plants to convert food waste — a significant source of carbon emissions — into electricity, heat, and fertilizer. But now his company is scrounging to find a sufficient amount of waste for the plants. Click for more.

Big waste generators already seeking to be exempted

As the legislation moved through the Senate and Assembly, many insiders believed it would never reach the governor’s desk. Few of the ‘large generators’ who would be covered by the bill publically objected to it. But within days of the legislation’s late-session show of momentum, hospitals won the introduction of S4343 that would grant them a two-year exemption.

If the Senate passes and the Governor signs A3726, how many more exemption bills will be introduced in the next session? Stay tuned.

2019 ends with recyclers rejoicing

Despite the hurdles that the expected new food waste law might face, it still is a major victory for the state’s recycling industry that also is celebrating the expected final passage of:

S1683 Cracks down on phony ‘soil recyclers’ including organized-crime types who pedaled contaminated soils to construction projects

A4382/SS2815 Authorizes participation in a nationwide, used-paint, take-back program that will shift the cost of paint recycling from county budgets to a national program underwritten by paint manufacturers.

Related news stories:
Philadelphia takes step in turning food waste to compost
Will NJ Gov. Phil Murphy agree with lawmakers who think the burying or burning of food waste is ‘recycling’?
Philadelphia prisons say ‘Lock it Up’ to food waste
NJ commits to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2030
NJ Lawmakers Advance Plan to Reduce and Reuse Unwanted Paint

On Thursday, the NJ Senate could vote to mandate large-scale, food-waste recycling Read More »

Trump to remove climate change factors from environmental laws around major infrastructure projects

Revised law allows federal agencies to overlook environmental impact

Juliet Eilperin reports for The Independent

The Trump administration has told federal agencies they should no longer take climate change into account when measuring infrastructure projects, according to two senior administration officials.

The proposed changes to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) are aimed at speeding approvals for pipelines, oil and gas leases, highway construction and other kinds of development.

The Nepa law, last updated in 1978, has proved to be one of the most potent stumbling blocks to Mr Trump’s push to accelerate oil, gas, and coal extraction across the country.

Under the Nepa, agencies are required to analyse the extent to which proposed federal actions affect everything from endangered species to water quality to greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

Under the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency raised objections during a Nepa review of the massive Keystone XL pipeline in Montana which resulted in it being delayed. 

More recently, federal judges halted oil and gas leasing in Wyoming as well as the Trump administration’s push to restart coal leasing on public land on the grounds that the Interior Department did not properly assess the climate impacts of these decisions.

Two administration officials, speaking anonymously because the proposed changes will not be announced until next week, said the plan would shorten the timeframe for the environmental reviews. The reviews will also no longer consider the cumulative impacts of a project, they said.

Read the full story

Don’t miss stories like this Click for free updates

Trump to remove climate change factors from environmental laws around major infrastructure projects Read More »

Green New Deal in 2020. Where is it headed?

Details are emerging for what this ‘moon shot’ federal program merging climate, jobs and economic security might look like. It’s a powerful force already.

BY MARIANNE LAVELLE for Inside Climate News

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announce legislation to transform public housing as part of their Green New Deal plan. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced legislation in November to transform public housing. It’s one part of a Green New Deal proposal that, after a year of promotion by activists, is now starting to take shape. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

To appreciate the power of the Green New Dealthe mobilization effort for clean energy and jobs that burst into the national conversation last yearlook at how forcefully the opponents of climate action moved to quash it.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky arranged a byzantine floor vote aimed at killing the concept soon after the non-binding Green New Deal resolution was introduced.

Fox News anchors aired more than twice as many prime-time segments on the Green New Deal as rivals MSNBC and CNN combined last spring. And in California, the state’s most powerful blue-collar union (which has a policy alliance with the oil industry) staged anti-Green New Deal protests at the state’s Democratic Party convention last summer.

But the Green New Deal survived the battering to become an animating force in climate politics, with its advocates determined to make it the most important touchstone of the 2020 election.

Don’t miss stories like this Click for free updates

For Democrats, support for the Green New Deal has become a central tenet. Nearly every major Democratic presidential candidate has endorsed it in some formeven moderates like Joe BidenPete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar who are reluctant to give a fulsome embrace to the rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. All Democratic presidential contenders now have goals aligned with the science to bring fossil fuel emissions to net-zero by mid-century, far beyond the ambition of the Obama administration.

Our top priority for [2020] is building the multiracial, cross-class youth movement that we need to elect leaders who will champion the Green New Deal,” Stephen O’Hanlon, spokesperson for the Sunrise Movement, said in an email. The youth-led advocacy group helped catapult the Green New Deal into the national discussion on climate with a sit-in outside the office of then-House Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi right after the 2018 midterm election.

Public opinion on the Green New Deal has become politically polarized, with Democrats overwhelmingly in favor and Republicans opposed. But O’Hanlon said it is significant that polling shows it is popular among swing voters in pivotal states.

“Any candidate for office who wants to win the youth vote in 2020 should back it,” O’Hanlon said.

Easier to Get Excited About than Carbon Taxes

The Green New Deal, at its core, is a marriage of two policy goals: getting greenhouse gas emissions to net- zero and creating jobs and economic security for all. In a sense, it is an extension of the idea, dating back to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, that climate action must be bound up in the drive for poverty reduction and economic justice.

But charismatic leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have helped supercharge the concept for American appealcalling for a 10-year mobilization akin to the moon shot, the industrial buildup for World War II, and of course, FDR’s New Deal.

What has it meant to the climate movement? “In one word, ‘hope,'” said RL Miller, founder of Climate Hawks Vote. It has allowed the discussion to move beyond “the only solution that had been on the horizon” taxing carbonwhich Miller said has divided climate activists “into ‘Team Have To’ and ‘Team Don’t Want To.'”

“Frankly, nobody has ever been excited about waking up in the morning and thinking, ‘I’m going to be taxed for carbon!’ What the Green New Deal has done is broken through that, with something you can genuinely get excited about,” Miller said.

Read the full story

If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation. If you liked this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, commentary and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

Green New Deal in 2020. Where is it headed? Read More »

NJ is oh-so-close to enacting food waste recycling but will lawmakers let it slip by?

** Updated at 2:05 p.m. to provide contact link for NJ State Senators**

By Frank Brill, EnviroPolitics Editor

The New Jersey Composting Council is urging Garden State residents to contact the state Senator representing their district and request a yes vote to accept Gov. Phil Murphy’s recommended amendments to A3726/S1206.

The legislation would require major generators of food waste (i.e., casinos, universities, restaurants, sports stadiums, etc.) to recycle unused food for compost, energy capture, and other environmentally beneficial uses.

Please note that the bill number (S-1206) used in the Composting Council’s message below is not accurate. It applies to an earlier version of the bill. The version that the governor conditionally vetoed is A3726/S4039. Use those numbers if you call or email your state senator.

You can find the contact information for your NJ state senator here.

If you like this post you’ll love our daily newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed with the latest news, opinion, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it, try it free for an entire month. No obligation.

NJ is oh-so-close to enacting food waste recycling but will lawmakers let it slip by? Read More »