The importance of natural gas to Louisiana, and that of the United States more broadly, is difficult to overstate.
The Pelican State relies on natural gas to generate nearly 70 percent of its electricity, and the gas and oil sector helps to support roughly 345,000 jobs across all 64 parishes. The ability to develop and transport more of this energy resource domestically, meanwhile, has also added to the energy security of the United States by reducing our reliance on imports from potentially hostile nations and by providing a stable and affordable source of energy for American consumers and industries.
Unfortunately, future investments in this critical industry – in particular the natural gas pipeline network that underpins it – could soon be at risk due to an ongoing dispute over a pair of projects in Louisiana. It is important that as this dispute works its way through the courts and legislators formulate policy responses, that officials keep this in mind and act accordingly.
The dispute stems from a large-scale pipeline Williams Companies is seeking to build in the footprint of an existing pipeline owned by Energy Transfer, another company. For the past ten years, Energy Transfer’s pipeline has connected the gas fields of Haynesville to Southern Louisiana and in constructing this project, Energy Transfer was granted exclusive rights to maintain and operate its pipeline over this stretch of land.
Last year, Williams notified Energy Transfer of their intent to construct new pipelines adjacent to the company’s existing pipeline. As part of their projects, both companies planned for their pipelines to cross Energy Transfer’s pipeline more than 140 times – an unprecedented request due to the sheer volume of crossings.
With close to 50,000 miles of pipelines located in Louisiana, pipeline crossings are sometimes inevitable, but in general the industry typically tries to keep them to a minimum as crossings can be dangerous to construct and potentially expose existing pipelines to higher risks.
For example, many sections of Energy Transfer’s pipeline run parallel to electric transmission lines, which led the company to construct and adopt additional safety and mitigation measures. New pipeline developments in these areas would require close coordination with Energy Transfer to ensure safety standards continue to be met, but so far there has been no indication that the necessary cooperation could occur. Indeed, there are already concerns that Williams is misclassifying its pipeline as a small gathering line instead of a large transmission line to avoid federal approval and oversight that are necessary for larger transmission lines and to skirt regulations designed to protect the public interest and industry.
Lacking time and adequate information to assess these potential hazards and analyze the proposed effects of this first-of-its-kind request, Energy Transfer understandably opted not to immediately approve these pipeline crossings and asked for more time to gauge their potential impacts. Yet instead of working to help mitigate these understandable concerns, Williams is now suing Energy Transfer for what they call anticompetitive behavior.
As this dispute works its way through the courts, some Louisiana lawmakers have introduced bills, such as House Bill 612, that would weaken the rights of energy companies that have already made expensive investments in the state. The proposal could have negative repercussions for property rights in Louisiana that extend far beyond just this current situation. By undermining established property tights, landowners could become susceptible to illegitimate claims to their rightfully owned property. Circumventing the proper FERC process also dismisses the voices of landowners whose property could be affected.
Given Louisiana’s role as a key producer of and transportation hub for energy products, taking any steps that weaken property rights in the state could deal a major blow. Not only would it send a warning signal to other companies that their investments in Louisiana could be at risk, but the long-term ramifications of this decision could be felt far beyond the state’s borders, impacting all of America and jeopardizing its energy security. The desires of individual companies cannot be allowed to override important safeguards, and the courts and policymakers must see through these cynical ploys and protect our interests.
Col. Rob Maness (U.S. Air Force, Ret.) is the former commander of Kirtland Air Force Base. He was a U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana and previously worked as an executive at an energy company.