GREEN WITH LIABILITY

This Week's Trend In Brief:

• In March, a North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million after Energy Transfer accused the group of orchestrating an “unlawful and violent scheme” to damage the company during construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

   

• Greenpeace denounced the ruling as an attack on the First Amendment and vowed to appeal, while others praised the decision as a long-overdue response to activist tactics that crossed legal lines and delayed critical infrastructure.

   

• Media outlets and advocacy groups framed the verdict as a “chilling” assault on free speech, warning that it could deter not only environmental protests but broader political demonstrations while describing the DAPL protests as peaceful and local resistance.

   

• In reality, the DAPL protests were highly organized, well-funded, and at times violent, and part of a broader activist infrastructure that mobilized thousands to disrupt a federally approved project, which has only grown more sophisticated, better funded, and more politically savvy in the years since.
   

• For those in the energy industry, the case is a reminder that while the political climate may be shifting, activist networks and the narratives they drive remain potent threats. Activists use a playbook, and companies must respond with a battle-tested playbook of their own to anticipate risk and stay two steps ahead of disruption.
   

Digging Deeper:

In March, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in a lawsuit after Energy Transfer accused the environmental group of engaging in an “unlawful and violent scheme” to harm the company’s finances while building the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Greenpeace has characterized the lawsuit as an attack on First Amendment rights, but the jury ruled that the activist group “defamed the company by saying it had ‘damaged at least 380 sacred and cultural sites’ during pipeline work, the first of nine statements found defamatory.” The alleged damage to sacred and cultural sites was a central rallying cry in the coordinated campaign to disrupt DAPL, which Energy Transfer argued was organized by Greenpeace to mobilize thousands of protestors. While Greenpeace now frames the lawsuit as a case of the weaponization of the legal system, the case highlights a broader reality that companies pursuing major infrastructure projects must still navigate an increasingly hostile political landscape.

Greenpeace condemned the ruling and vowed to appeal, calling the lawsuit “an attempt to muzzle the company’s critics” that “should alarm everyone,” while others praised the verdict as a long-overdue response to activist tactics that crossed legal lines. Greenpeace claimed the lawsuit against it was “part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent” and stressed that everyone, not just environmental activists, should “be concerned about the future of the First Amendment.” However, Trey Cox, the lead lawyer for Energy Transfer, called the verdict “a powerful affirmation” of the First Amendment. He argued, “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,” but “violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.” Energy Transfer’s Vicki Granado similarly described the verdict as “a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.” Others praised the decision as a long-overdue response to activist tactics that crossed legal lines, and as a rebuke to a system that, through millions in public funding, may have indirectly supported groups engaged in disruptive protests, even if only through fungible dollars and unintended consequences.

At the same time, major media outlets and advocacy groups framed the lawsuit and subsequent verdict as a “chilling” attack on free speech and the right to protest energy infrastructure, highlighting the entrenched support these activist groups enjoy in the public sphere. Many in the media have portrayed the protestors and their actions as “peaceful” while condemning the verdict as “a threat to free speech.” Indeed, outlets such as The Guardian and E&E News have published articles warning about how the verdict “could stifle public protest,” echoing Greenpeace’s claim that the lawsuit represents a broader “weaponization” of the legal system against environmental activism. Politico reported that the “verdict adds to free speech fears,” noting that it “is alarming legal scholars and free speech advocates — and could even force the shutdown of the storied environmental group’s U.S. chapter.” Others suggested that “the verdict could deter not just environmental activism but also religious or political demonstrations,” calling it “far bigger than the environmental movement.” While many in the media have continued to portray the protests at the center of the lawsuit as local opposition and the suit’s result as a threat to constitutional rights, the reality was a far more coordinated and confrontational campaign that went well beyond a typical climate demonstration. 

Indeed, the DAPL protests were deeply disruptive and at times violent, with Greenpeace helping to mobilize a national advocacy apparatus that funneled thousands of activists into North Dakota to delay a project that had already received federal approval. The demonstrations at issue began in 2016, “when as many as 10,000 activists traveled to North Dakota and joined Native American groups trying to stop construction of” DAPL. During that period, activists “vandalized equipment, threatened workers, and blocked access roads,” prompting Energy Transfer to file a civil suit accusing Greenpeace of secretly directing and funding the most militant elements. As James Meigs observed in Commentary, well-funded activists began arriving in large numbers, and “violence followed as activists battled police, burned heavy equipment, and barricaded roads,” with one protester even arrested after firing multiple gunshots. The scale of Greenpeace’s mobilization in 2016 illustrates the reach of a broader activist movement, anchored by groups like Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, that has increasingly relied on project disruption and litigation when the regulatory process fails to produce their desired outcome. Since the 2016 pipeline protests, climate activism has become more professionalized, better resourced, and more politically embedded, making it essential for energy companies to recognize the risks posed when that infrastructure is turned against them at every level of government.

Activists have a playbook, and so must energy infrastructure firms who want to avoid seeing their projects delayed and disrupted. The anti-pipeline campaign that targeted DAPL in 2016 followed a strategy developed by national advocacy groups, and that playbook has only grown more sophisticated over time. To stop activists from delaying or disrupting projects that advance America’s energy future, public affairs professionals must understand who these groups are, how they operate, and what action they will take next. While the verdict may signal a shift in political winds, the activist infrastructure – and the media narratives that bolster it – remain powerful forces. Public affairs professionals in the energy industry need a proactive playbook of their own to anticipate challenges, respond strategically, and stay ahead of an evolving risk environment.

Trends in Energy is your weekly look at key trends affecting the energy industry, brought to you by the competitive intelligence experts at Delve. As the political and regulatory landscape continues to shift, reach out to learn how our insights can help you navigate these challenges.

MTrans?