The banally named Safe and Secure Transportation of American Energy Act sounds like it may have something to do with the safety and/or security of transportation related to “energy” – aka fossil fuel. It does not. Instead, the bill significantly expands criminal liability when activists oppose oil and gas pipelines.

An existing federal statute – 49 U.S. Code § 60123(b) – already prohibits “damaging or destroying” an interstate gas pipeline. The law is fairly ordinary; property destruction is already illegal; and this statute provides for a heavy 20-year maximum penalty. The new legislation proposed by republican oil lickers Tim, Ted, and Todd (Sheehy, of Montana, Budd,  of North Carolina, and Young, of Indiana) adds “vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of” oil pipelines to the list of prohibited conduct.

If the new legislation passes and goes into effect, spray-painting “Climate Justice” on a pipeline (vandalism) or peacefully sitting in the road to block construction equipment in protest (preventing the operation) would be considered the criminal equivalent of actually blowing the pipeline up or otherwise destroying it entirely. This is an alarming expansion of the law, clearly for the sole purpose of criminalizing climate-related protest.

This bill is simply a gift to an energy industry that seeks to annihilate its public interest opponents trying to save the planet from existential climate catastrophe, despite the false justification presented regarding the need for this legislation.

In 2016, CLDC’s Lauren Regan and Minnesota attorney Tim Phillips defended three “valve turners” in Minnesota state court. They had peacefully engaged in a coordinated protest action at four pipeline locations across the northern US that literally shut down the flow of tar sands oil from Canada into the US (for several hours). On October 11, 2016,  in Clearwater County, MN, the valve turners went out to pipeline valve stations, had someone call the pipeline company and indicate that they were going to deploy the pipeline safety shutoff valve, and then gave the company time to shut down their pipeline per their own safety regulations. The Enbridge pipeline company did in fact shut down the pipeline on its own.

The defendant valve turners asserted a “climate necessity defense” against the charges. The trial court granted the defense, the state appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the defendants could present that defense to a jury at trial. But after the case was then set for trial, the prosecutor dropped all but one of the four original counts, putting all his eggs in one basket. As in any criminal case, the State presented its case first, because it had the burden of proof. The prosecutor failed to prove one of the necessary elements of the crime.[1] After he rested his case, we made a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State had failed to provide any evidence of actual damage (because no damage was done by the nonviolent climate activists), a critical element of the charge, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge agreed. Once we were done arguing the motion, the judge took out a printed piece of paper and read out his decision granting our motion and dismissing the case. If the prosecutor had just kept the trespass case in the trial, we probably would have lost that count—but in what appeared to be his deference to the industry in trying to throw the book at these folks, he blew the case So, it was just an overzealous, incompetent prosecutor that failed to prove his case, and a decent judge that held him to the law.

Referring to the above-mentioned case, the Republican proponents of the legislation say the new law is needed to close a “loophole” used by “eco-terrorists” and “radical environmental activists” to avoid criminal charges (they were charged, tried, and acquitted friends). This is yet another attempt to falsely justify a need for ever-expanding criminalization of the climate movement. These senators have manipulated the truth about the valve turners case — it wasn’t a “loophole” that resulted in the acquittal, it was prosecutorial incompetence. That same overzealous incompetence in the US Senate may result in a patently unconstitutional law that is intended to silence dissent and kiss the butt of the fossil fuel industry that is killing humans and making the planet uninhabitable – the true “ecoterrorism.”

The bill has been read and is presently in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines, and Safety, where it has the support of the nine Republican subcommittee members. The eight democrats in the minority have not yet offered support for the proposed bill. An identical bill died in committee last year, but that was a century ago in political terms. With the present political makeup of the government, this proposed bill has a fighting chance at passing if it is not opposed.

This might be one bill that is worth a call or e-mail to your senator, asking them to push back against corporations trying to purchase legislation to punish those who challenge their profits and call out their societal harms.

[1] Minnesota statutes make it a crime to cause physical damage to a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline, with the intent to significantly disrupt its operation or its provision of services, without consent. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every one of the following elements:

– The defendant acted with the intent to significantly disrupt the operation of the facility/pipeline, or the provision of service.

– The defendant must have had knowledge of the facts that are necessary to make their conduct criminal and that are set forth in the definition of  “intent” — that they either had a purpose to do the thing or cause the result, or believed that their actions, if successful, would cause the result.

– To meet the statutory meaning of “significantly disrupts”  the prosecutor must show the effect would be to drastically alter or destroy the structure of the operation, facility, utility or pipeline.