Breaking News
Get 40% Off 0
Is NVDA a 🟢 buy or 🔴 sell? Unlock Now

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Appalachian Trail pipeline fight

Published Oct 04, 2019 10:16AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. Scenes from the exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court
 
D
+4.96%
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio
 
NG
+4.77%
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio
 

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal by Dominion Energy Inc (N:D) and President Donald Trump's administration of a lower court ruling that halted construction on a natural gas pipeline due to run underneath a section of the popular Appalachian Trail in rural Virginia.

The administration and companies involved in the project have asked the justices to overturn a ruling that found that the U.S. Forest Service lacked the authority to grant a right of way for the pipeline. Environmental groups had sued to stop the pipeline after the Forest Service gave the green light for the project through protected National Park Service land.

The December 2018 ruling by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put a stop to construction of the 600-mile (965-km) Atlantic Coast Pipeline, intended to run from West Virginia to North Carolina.

At issue is the Forest Service's decision to allow the pipeline to cross underneath the 2,200-mile (3,500 km) long Appalachian Trail - a popular hiking route in the eastern United States stretching from Georgia to Maine - in the George Washington National Forest.

A ruling is due by the end of the court's new term, which starts on Monday and ends in June. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling may also affect the proposed 300-mile (480-km) Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is intended to run from West Virginia to southern Virginia and crosses the trail in the Jefferson National Forest.

After a lengthy application process involving multiple federal agencies, the Forest Service granted the consortium a right of way under the trail in January 2018, prompting environmental groups including the Sierra Club and the Cowpasture River Preservation Association to file a lawsuit.

The 4th Circuit ruled that the Forest Service did not have the power to grant a right of way under a federal law called the Mineral Leasing Act. The court cited a section of the law that says federal agencies can grant rights of way for pipelines on "federal lands" but specifically excludes land that is part of the federal National Park system like the Appalachian Trail.

The Trump administration disputed that interpretation, with Solicitor General Noel Francisco saying in court filings that the National Park Service has only limited authority to maintain the trail and that the Forest Service has the authority to approve rights of way across it.

Lawyers for the pipeline consortium noted that more than 50 pipelines already cross under the trail. The 4th Circuit's ruling has the effect of "rendering the footpath a 2,200-mile barrier separating resource-rich areas to its west from consumers to its east," the consortium said in court filings.

The environmental groups have said the project could go ahead under a different route that does not cross the trail on federal land. State and private landowners have the authority to grant rights of way under the trail, the groups added.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Appalachian Trail pipeline fight
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.
  • Any comment you publish, together with your investing.com profile, will be public on investing.com and may be indexed and available through third party search engines, such as Google.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (2)
Bob Crone
Bob Crone Oct 04, 2019 4:41PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
This is silly earth worshippers getting their panies in a wad over nothing. Cheap clean nat gas is the real solution. The elites dont carw about the littkw guys that oay through the nose so the eco-whackos can feel good about themselves.
Deborah Holloway
Deborah Holloway Oct 04, 2019 2:53PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
With the price of NG plummeting due to overproduction, why waste money on this anyway? Green energy a cheaper alternative.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email