Major Environmental Groups Oppose Every Project, or Do They?
With the opposition that major projects such as Constitution, PennEast, Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley Pipeline have faced, it certainly seems like the major environmental groups are opposing every pipeline project, and with equal vigor. Because the number of comments received, excluding those from individuals, is correlated with a longer time to in-service, we have been analyzing the filings by these organizations in all FERC interstate pipeline and LNG proceedings since 2008. The actual data may surprise.
The common perception that this activity has increased tremendously in recent years is borne out by the data. But the opposition by major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and its local chapters and the affiliates of the Waterkeeper Alliance (Riverkeeper) are not as omnipresent as may be commonly believed. Our data indicates that the involvement of these major environmental groups will slow down the approval of a project, but shows that these environmental groups are still fairly selective when it comes to opposing projects. And the data indicates that they don’t oppose every major project with the same vigor.
Today, we provide an overview of the participation by these groups and then look specifically at Sierra Club and Riverkeeper, with an eye to whether, and to what degree, these groups may get involved in future developments, including LNG.
Major Versus Minor Environmental Groups
In our platform, we separately track the participation of “major” environmental groups and “minor” ones. This distinction is not based on the level of activity by these groups but rather is directed more at the scope of the organization itself. Our list of major public interest groups includes Riverkeeper, an international alliance of groups focused on water quality issues, Sierra Club and its affiliates, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Two of these groups, Riverkeeper and Sierra Club, are very active in FERC proceedings, each having filed almost 300 comments in various cases. The other major groups are not nearly as active, submitting a total of fewer than 20 filings each.
Just as the major grouping isn’t based on activity, the fact that a group is minor doesn’t necessarily mean it is not very active or impactful. But none of the minor groups approach the level of activity of Riverkeeper or Sierra Club, with the Allegheny Defense Project being the most active of the minor groups with 65 filings over the last ten years.
Activity Increased In 2013
Our data clearly confirms opposition by environmental groups has grown in recent years. As seen in the chart below, filings made by public interest groups began to take off in 2013 and hit their peak in 2016, but have fallen off substantially since then.
Major Environmental Groups Don’t Fight Every Project
Based on the number of comments filed, one might assume that the major environmental groups are opposing all of the projects proposed at FERC. However, a breakdown of the opposition comments filed by the two biggest groups, Sierra Club and Riverkeeper, shows this is not true. Combined, Riverkeeper and Sierra Club entities have filed comments in only 81 of the 372 projects in our dataset, or less than 25% of all such projects. Twenty-four of those 81 projects were LNG projects or pipeline projects associated with LNG projects. This leaves only 57 pipeline projects for which these groups have filed comments. Like general opposition by other environmental groups, the bulk of these filings were made in 2013 and later. The comments are very heavily concentrated on projects in the Northeast, as 39 of the 57 projects are at least partially located there. Outside of the Northeast, these projects were significant, adding on average approximately 750 million dth/day of additional capacity.
Focusing more specifically on recent major greenfield gas pipeline projects, the below chart demonstrates that not all projects receive the same level of opposition. Take, for example, Energy Transfer’s Rover Pipeline project, which received approximately one-half of the number of comments in all seven LawIQ protestor categories, including by major public interest groups.
FERC Cumulative Public Comments by Project
LNG Projects Will Likely Remain a Focus
Since 2008, there have been only 57 LNG-related projects and yet these two groups commented on 24 of those projects, over 40%. This compares to commenting on only 57 of the 315 pipeline projects, less than 20%, that have undergone FERC review since 2008. It would not be surprising to find that this greater interest in the LNG facilities will continue and may even grow, given that, although the new terminals are primarily for export, the impacts will be on the areas through which the connecting pipelines run and where the liquefaction terminals are located.
Bottom Line
The good news for project developers is that the opposition to projects by major environmental groups may not be as widespread as is commonly perceived. However, this type of opposition has grown since 2013 and appears to be much more likely if the project is large and is located in the Northeast. That may be good news for smaller projects and those located in other parts of the country.
Insights Coming Soon
- Discussion on pipeline cost data
- Update on on CO bill SB19-181 - Protect Public Welfare Oil And Gas Operations