Democrats may be planning to make blocking pipeline development a major focus when they return to Congress this month by using Monday’s massive explosion in Alabama to underscore the potential harm of the projects.
The Colonial Pipeline in Alabama provides a quarter of the gasoline supply for the East Coast, and the explosion is expected to drive up fuel costs. At the same time, a war is being waged against pipeline projects from New Jersey to North Dakota by environmental groups who see them as a threat to the environment and the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming.
In the last 24 hours, their Democratic supporters in Congress have begun chiming in more loudly by using this week’s explosion and its potential effects for consumers’ safety and wallets to illustrate a broader threat.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., on Wednesday sent a letter to the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the nation’s energy watchdog, arguing that the explosion in Shelby County, Ala., which killed a worker, should give the commission pause in continuing its pipeline siting work to move natural gas from the fracking wells in Pennsylvania to his neck of the woods in Boston.
The commission has been facing a massive wave of pushback from activist groups seeking to block the commissions’ activities, even to the point where protesters have visited commissioners’ homes and have blocked employees from entering the agency’s Washington headquarters.
Now, it appears the protests are coming to Capitol Hill in the form of Democratic lawmakers. Some have joined the most visible oil pipeline protest against the Dakota Access oil pipeline in North Dakota, where an Indian tribe is blocking its construction to stave off the possibility of the pipeline sullying its drinking water supply. President Obama said his administration is looking to reroute it as it holds up granting a key easement.
Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said he would much rather see the pipeline blocked. “Congress may need to step in to make sure the incredible missteps that led to the approval and siting of this pipeline are never repeated,” Grijalva said Wednesday, suggesting a new legislative effort.
But many more are using the Alabama explosion as a reason to act.
“In the wake of these accidents, it is unimaginable that FERC would proceed with approval for pipelines in more densely populated areas,” Lynch wrote in his letter to FERC Chairman Norman Bay.
“I am deeply concerned about this week’s tragic pipeline explosion in Alabama, and I believe that FERC needs to take action to ensure that proper safety measures are in place to protect local communities from the dangers of these pipelines,” he added. “We are witnessing significant damage from pipeline incidents in more remote areas across the country.”
Lynch has supported actions to stop the development of new natural gas infrastructure in his district, even though New England faces major challenges in getting adequate natural gas and heating oil supplies during the winter. It also has the highest energy bills in the country because of the supply constraints.
The commission said it supports taking action to remedy the situation, which has been years in the making, as the energy industry requests more projects to move natural gas into the Northeast. A number of pipelines have faced pushback by activists and citizen groups looking to stop new lines traversing hundreds of miles to link natural gas supplies in shale states to the Northeast.
Lynch points out that the Colonial Pipeline blast was the second accident involving that line in two months.
His letter joins a chorus of senior House Democrats who sent a separate request to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx Wednesday asking him to investigate the explosion.
That letter, led by the top Democrats on the energy and transportation committees, suspects the spate of problems with the pipeline reflects a more systemic problem with how the Colonial Pipeline Co. operates its facilities, according to the letter.
The letter is not as obvious as Lynch’s in asking a federal agency to stop pipeline development, but it gets at a broader theme that the administration and agencies that oversee energy infrastructure need to step up with increased oversight.
The Environmental Protection Agency has joined those opposing pipeline development by leaning on the commission to add climate change impact to its environmental reviews for pipelines and liquefied natural gas facilities. Bay, who is a Democrat, apparently has been ignoring the EPA and its regional offices.
The issue has been pressed similarly with the commission by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club.
The EPA is asking for a sit-down meeting with the commission to go over why the independent energy agency needs to include greenhouse gas assessments in its reviews for pipelines. But that’s something that the commission has resisted for years and likely would require new authorization from Congress to add carbon pollution to its siting reviews.
The commission did not respond to a request for comment.
