Supreme Court Overrules Previous Court Decision, Approves Permit For Atlantic Coast Pipeline

From The Daily Caller

Varun Hukeri Reporter June 15, 2020 2:51 PM ET

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a proposed natural gas pipeline which would be built under the Appalachian Trail, would be reinstated.

In a 7 to 2 decision, the justices tossed out a decision from a lower court and ruled that the U.S. Forest Service can grant rights-of-way for developers in land within national forests, the Associated Press reported. Energy companies and the Trump administration supported reinstating the permit, while environmental groups opposed it.

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which would run underground for 600 miles and pass through federal land, is a joint venture financed by Dominion Energy, Duke Energy and Piedmont Natural Gas. Supporters of the pipeline argue that the project would revitalize economic development in Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina by creating new jobs and cutting energy costs.

The pipeline’s construction has already created 17,000 new jobs and $2.7 billion in economic activity, and is projected to generate $28 million in property tax revenue annually, according to the project’s website. The United States is one the world’s largest producers and consumers of natural gas, and advocates say it is a cleaner energy source and an important economic asset.

The pipeline has been challenged in the courts since its inception in 2014. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club have argued that building energy projects through national parks would “scar pristine landscapes, put numerous rivers and streams at risk of increased sedimentation and harm sensitive species.”

Others have argued that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline permit requests do not meet environmental review standards, citing inadequacies in the project’s environmental impact statement to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revoked the permit earlier this year, ruling that only Congress could authorize rights-of-way for pipelines on federal land. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had strongly urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, the Associated Press reported.

“The appeal court’s decision has devastating effects for West Virginia,” Morrisey said. (RELATED: Rev. Jesse Jackson Bucks Environmentalists, Pushes Natural Gas Pipeline As Black Neighborhoods Struggle With Sky High Energy Prices)

The lower court’s decision, however, cited a law from 1920, which the Supreme Court did not uphold in its decision Monday. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the “Forest Service had the authority to issue the permit here.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were the two dissenting voices.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented various environmental groups during legal proceedings at both the appeals court and the Supreme Court, said they were disappointed with the outcome. However, the group said it was confident that the pipeline “is not a viable project” in a statement released Monday.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
46 Comments
Jamie Moodie
June 15, 2020 6:14 pm

Finally common sense and a reprieve for the poorer who will benefit from cheaper energy as will industry, jobs and communities.

Wight Mann
June 15, 2020 6:19 pm

I’ve hiked/backpacked over 800 miles of the AT. There are already lots of power and gas crossings. Stop making a big deal out of this.

June 15, 2020 6:34 pm

No problem with pipelines but…… “ The pipeline’s construction has already created 17,000 new jobs and $2.7 billion in economic activity“…..is total Bu11sh1t….that would make it one of the most ineffective and costly pipeline engineering a procurement projects of all time…and it isn’t in construction yet.

June 15, 2020 8:03 pm

” However, the group said it was confident that the pipeline “is not a viable project” in a statement released Monday.

They are channeling their Baghdad Bob. If they say it enough it’ll be true somehow (maybe on MSNBC and CNN and LaLa land).

June 15, 2020 8:15 pm

How long has this project been in the “pipeline”? I would say it’s about time to get it started.

– JPP

J Mac
June 15, 2020 10:04 pm

Git ‘er Done!

Pameladragon
June 16, 2020 2:07 am

I lived in the area of Virginia affected by the pipeline for over 30 years. Given a choice between a buried pipeline and huge overhead power line rights-of-way, I’ll take the buried pipeline every time! Those charming No Pipeline signs stuck up all over Nelson and Albemarle Counties won’t be missed either, yet another blight on the landscape by environmentalists.

Charlottesville, VA, is a hotbed of environmental nutters. The area is a major eyesore of untrammeled development along the Route 29 corridor north to I-66. I remember when the Virginia Piedmont and Blue Ridge foothills were still rural land, farms and woodland. Now Charlottesville is surrounded by an ever-expanding blight of MacMansion housing developments and shopping malls. Soon there will be hundreds of wind turbines and “solar farms” thanks to Newsome’s Climate Change mitigation.

How dare these clowns rail against a pipeline that will be essentially invisible when finished and provide economic benefits to the area but welcome giant wind turbines and acres of PVC panels. Their priorities are seriously skewed!

mark from the midwest
June 16, 2020 4:14 am

Surprised that Kagan dissented. When I saw 7-2 thought it would be Ginsburg and Sotomayer. Like to see what she has to say in writing, but if anyone can give me the Cliffs Notes version here I would appreciate it.

June 16, 2020 7:22 am

Justice Thomas had an easy time of it. I read the slip opinion. The narrow question was whether the national park service (who manages the AT) or the national forest service (who manages the national forest thru which the AT runs) had the right to issue the pipeline permit (or both). Where the pipeline crosses the AT, it will enter a mountainside 1/2 mile before the AT, and exit 1/2 mile after the AT on the other side of the mountain. They will bore a ~1 mile tunnel thru the mountain to contain the pipeline there. The AT was never to be even visually affected, it will,sit several hundred feet over the pipeline.
Just more anti fossil fuel ‘Environmental’ nonsense.

ferdberple
June 16, 2020 8:18 am

The irony is that without gas pipelines you cannot have windmills or solar panels.

Without the NG load following generating stations, wind and solar are unworkable.

Unfortunately, because wind, solar, and NG are idle for large portions of time, the ratepayers are saddled with high capital costs as compared to useable power generated.

June 16, 2020 1:18 pm

Comparing the Atlantic Coast Pipeline map to the Appalachian Trail map, this is classic environmental alarmist hype. The two intersect each other only in Virginia ONCE.

The hype appears to be “ZOMG!!! The pipeline will be directly under 600-miles of the scenic Appalachian Trail that will have to be torn up for many years!!!”

See for yourselves how ridiculous this is:
(a) Atlantic Coast Pipeline map … https://atlanticcoastpipeline.com/construction/construction-map.aspx
(b) Appalachian Trail map … https://nps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6298c848ba2a490588b7f6d25453e4e0