America’s economic future depends on our ability to achieve energy dominance. This requires not only producing enough energy to meet growing demand but also having the infrastructure to reliably transport it to domestic and international markets.
Building this infrastructure is difficult. It demands massive amounts of capital investment and the patience to withstand years of planning, regulatory hurdles, construction delays, and legal setbacks. During my time on the House Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee, I worked to secure funding for the Chickamauga Lock replacement. The project showed how funding decisions and delays can affect critical infrastructure.
The Chickamauga Lock is an important link between the Chattanooga region I represented and the upper Tennessee River, handling about 1 million tons of commercial cargo annually. Due to its deteriorating condition, Congress authorized construction of a replacement lock in 2003, but funding delays and construction setbacks have pushed the project’s completion date to 2031, 28 years after Congress first authorized it.
This type of uncertainty and delay is an all-too-common feature of large-scale infrastructure projects, making it even more important that we create a legal and regulatory environment that gives investors greater confidence in making long-term investments. A now-10-year-old pipeline project in North Dakota demonstrates the potential obstacles facing American energy companies, with activist groups enlisting foreign courts to create new burdens for needed infrastructure.
The Dakota Access Pipeline transports oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region to a transportation hub in Illinois, removing the equivalent of 815 tanker rail cars a day. The pipeline’s completion was delayed by months due to protests that included violence, vandalism, and property damage. After a jury trial, Greenpeace entities were found liable for their roles in the protests and ultimately ordered to pay $345 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company that built the pipeline.
Greenpeace’s response to the unanimous verdict has been to challenge the outcome and take its fight to a Dutch court, seeking to nullify issues already decided in North Dakota. The North Dakota Supreme Court rightly barred Greenpeace from using its Dutch case to relitigate those issues, though Greenpeace continues to pursue its remaining claims in the foreign court.
Greenpeace has since posted a $25 million bond, the first step toward paying the $345 million judgment entered against it. However, that bond is a fraction of the total judgment, and the balance remains unpaid. Until Greenpeace pays the full amount and ends its remaining European litigation, its effort to undermine an American verdict continues to threaten judicial sovereignty and energy security.
If Greenpeace is successful in its litigation, American energy companies will be open to new disputes that extend across borders and jurisdictions. Before investing in an infrastructure project, they will have to factor in costs of potential international lawsuits, delays, and uncertainty. Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and other producing states could see activists illegally and violently protesting government-approved energy projects, then escape accountability in an activist-friendly European court, inevitably chilling U.S. investment in critical energy infrastructure.
Americans benefit from the economic activity, jobs, and tax revenue generated by the energy sector. A North Dakota State University study last year found that the oil and gas industry has a $48.8 billion economic impact on the state and supports more than 63,000 jobs. Between 2008 and 2024, the industry generated $32 billion in state tax revenue, boosting funding for schools, local communities, and property tax relief.
DEMOCRATIC UNION GIVEAWAY COULD TURN VERMONT INTO ILLINOIS
The economic benefits generated by North Dakota’s energy industry demonstrate what is at stake when investment in critical infrastructure is put at risk. America cannot achieve energy dominance if the companies building energy infrastructure face an endless cycle of permitting delays, legal challenges, and project timeline expansion.
The future of American energy depends on our ability to build, and that requires a legal environment in which companies can have confidence that disputes will be resolved fairly and with a degree of finality. Greenpeace should pay the judgment, end its European litigation, and recognize that unlawful conduct targeting American energy projects serves no one’s interest.
Zach Wamp served as the U.S. Representative for Tennessee’s 3rd District from 1995 to 2011, serving on the House Appropriations Committee and its Energy and Water Subcommittee.
Continue reading...
[ H/T Washington Examiner ]
