Last November, the Obama Administration denied federal approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, finding that approval of the pipeline was not in the US' interests. It largely did so because Keystone XL had become THE symbol of environmental resistance. Previously, energy infrastructure projects had not been particularly controversial. Even Keystone XL's impacts (both environmental and economic) were overblown by vehement opponents and supporters of the project. I wrote then that the federal government's rejection signaled a pivot toward environmental protection, especially as the timing of the rejection came just before world leaders met in Paris to negotiate a major climate agreement. It also represented a major victory for environmentalists, and the power of environmental protests.
The history of Keystone XL has become more salient in recent weeks, as protests over the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) intensified. DAPL would carry oil from western North Dakota oil fields to an existing pipeline network in Illinois. Along the way, however, the proposed route crosses federally controlled waterways, as well as sacred tribal lands and burial sites. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in particular, is also concerned that an oil spill might contaminate their water supplies. But protests over the pipeline have evolved into a larger battle regarding tribal and environmental interests, on the one hand, and energy security on the other hand. Other tribes are standing in support of the Standing Rock Sioux, as are scores of celebrities, politicians, environmentalists, and other activists. Protests have taken place all over the country. It is possible that these protests and shows of support for blocking the pipeline would have taken place regardless, but it seems more likely that the anti-Keystone XL movement has provided a model for citizens to use political pressure to block pipeline construction.
The legal process took an interesting turn this week, as the D.C. District Court rejected the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's request for an injunction. The tribe claimed that, because it was not consulted about the DAPL (as is required by the National Historic Preservation Act), construction of the pipeline would lead the tribe to suffer irreparable harm worthy of a preliminary injunction. The court appeared sympathetic to the tribe's concerns, opening its decision thusly: "Since the founding of this nation, the United States’ relationship with the Indian tribes has been contentious and tragic." But ultimately the standard one must meet to be granted a preliminary injunction is a very high one. As the court noted, "'[I]njunctive relief' is 'an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief'" [citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Advisory Council]. The tribe didn't meet that standard, according to the court, and the injunction was denied.
The legal defeat notwithstanding, pipeline protesters received a significant victory immediately after the court's decision was released. The US Department of the Interior, Department of Justice, and Army Corps of Engineers issued a joint statement that federal approval of the DAPL would be suspended pending further review. In addition, the federal government invited tribes and the general public to participate in consultations regarding tribal lands and resources, and the potential need for new legislation. The joint statement calls into question the viability of the DAPL moving forward - without federal approval, the pipeline will not be able to cross major waterways blocking its path. The statement represents a remarkable victory for tribes, environmentalists, and pipeline protestors.
This is, therefore, the second major pipeline protest breakthrough in less than one year. One of three developments is likely true: either the federal administration is pivoting toward tribal and environmental interests, or the political pressure mounted by pipeline protestors is increasingly influential, or both. The administration's support for tribal and environmental interests can be measured in other ways over the past few years, and that support is likely a factor in this case as well. But the influence of protest movements in shaping energy politics is undoubtedly a major factor as well. As mentioned, these types of infrastructure projects rarely took center stage in the past. Now, they are doing so with regularity. It will be interesting to see how the DAPL legal and political processes play out. It will also be interesting to see if more pipeline protests emerge in the near future. If the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines are any indication, high-profile pipeline protests may become the new normal.