Secure Our Fuels

CA Federal Judge Reassigns Frivolous Case to Minn. Where Alberta Clipper Stands to Create Jobs, Spur Economic Growth

The San Francisco-based Sierra Club – along with its anti-energy allies, including EarthJustice – has placed the Alberta Clipper pipeline project squarely in its legal crosshairs. These groups, which oppose the safe and responsible development and use of traditional energy forms, such as coal, natural gas and oil sands-derived oil, are suing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her deputy, James Steinberg, and, for good measure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with an eye on stopping abundant supplies of secure Canadian oil from reaching American consumers.

The issue started to gain traction this past August, as the State Department, acting on behalf of the president, issued an executive order, permitting the construction of the Alberta Clipper pipeline, which will help deliver affordable, reliable, stable and much-needed Canadian energy supplies to American consumers.

Here is a key excerpt from the State Department’s Presidential Permit:

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Naturally, this commonsense action on the part of the Obama administration to bolster America’s economic and strategic security did not sit well with the Sierra Club, et al. So they did what any reasonable American would do in a situation: they unleashed an army of high-priced attorneys on the federal court system, filing a flurry of lawsuits aimed at preventing the permit from being executed.

Of course, those suits weren’t exactly filed indiscriminately – far better to drop off that paperwork in a state like California (which receives virtually no energy from Canada) than Minnesota, which receives 83 percent of its total take from there. So that’s exactly what they did. And darn it if they weren’t THIS close to getting away with it.

Thankfully, though, the Sierra Club was delivered a major judicial blow recently. The Honorable Susan Illston, U.S. District Judge in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of California, ruled for a change of venue, from California to Minnesota.

Here’s more from a Law360 article on Judge Illstaon’s ruling:

A federal judge has sent a Sierra Club suit against the U.S. Department of State from California to Minnesota, saying that the environmental group’s attempt to block the construction of an oil pipeline from Alberta to Wisconsin would be better heard in the jurisdiction with the greatest local interest.

Judge Susan Ilston granted the State Department’s motion to transfer the case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Wednesday, finding that the majority of the activities underlying the suit took place within or very near that district’s jurisdiction.

The Sierra Club and several other preservation groups sued the State Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and related officials on Sept. 3 over the planned construction and operation of a system of pipelines to carry crude oil from sources in Alberta to refineries in the United States.

Specifically, Judge Illston writes this in her September 23 order to transfer the case’s venue:

After two years of study and a public comment period, the State Department issued an ROD on August 3, 2009, indicating the Department’s intention to issue a Presidential permit to Enbridge.

The majority of the activities underlying this suit took place within or very near the jurisdiction of the District of Minnesota. First, although the State Department’s issuance of the Presidential permit took place in Washington, D.C., the permit was issued after studying the affected locations in Minnesota and Wisconsin, consulting with tribal leaders in these two states, and holding public meetings in Minnesota.

Moreover, the rights and interests of persons living in and near Minnesota will be substantially affected by the outcome of the suit. Construction of the pipeline will have not only environmental and aesthetic implications for local people in Minnesota and surrounding border regions of North Dakota and Wisconsin, but significant economic implications as well.

In sum, the Court is persuaded that transferring this case is in the interests of justice and will maximize the convenience of all interested persons.

While this case has will now be moved to Minnesota – which receives an overwhelming 83 percent of its oil from Canada and relies on this key North American trading partnership to fuel much of its economy – the threat of further disruptions to the Alberta Clipper development, as well as a national, one-size-fits-all low-carbon fuel standard – which would effectively ban Canadian oil from reaching U.S. consumers – remains very grave.

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) is working hard to draw attention to this serious threat. Through major national news outlets, newspaper op-ed pages, and directly to the White House’s National Security Council, CEA continues its fact-based LCFS offensive.

And as the U.S. Senate readies its climate change bill, American consumers who favor North American energy supplies over those from unstable, hostile regimes in far away regions of the world should send a loud message to Congress that an LCFS is wrong for our security and for our pocketbooks.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 28th, 2009 at 5:59 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.