TOM PYLE: Litigation Abroad, Higher Bills At Home
After an American court held Greenpeace accountable for its role in the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests, to the tune of $345 million, the organization is now seeking relief in a Dutch court in an attempt to unwind…


After an American court held Greenpeace accountable for its role in the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests, to the tune of $345 million, the organization is now seeking relief in a Dutch court in an attempt to unwind that judgment. This is not just another legal dispute. It raises a fundamental question about whether companies can rely on American court decisions when committing capital to long-term infrastructure projects that require billions of dollars and years of planning.
If Greenpeace is successful, activist groups gain a pathway to extend infrastructure disputes beyond U.S. courts. This sends a message to energy producers that their projects are not fully protected by American law. If they pursue legal remedies for damages incurred during violent protests, a European court could counteract any damages awarded in an American courtroom. In Greenpeace’s case, the protests included attacks on workers and law enforcement, acts of arson, and online defamation.
Foreign efforts to reopen U.S. court decisions create hesitation at a crucial moment, when the country needs continued investment in supply. Just Energy Transfer alone, the company that operates the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline, is transporting approximately 30% of the nation’s natural gas. That is foundational to the American economy and our national security, and supplies fuel to millions of homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses. As energy demand is projected to rise significantly through 2050, we need companies to invest in large-scale projects to ensure every American has access to an affordable, reliable, and safe source of electricity. Greenpeace taking this case to Europe directly counters this objective.
Greenpeace understands the stakes of its ambitious attempt yet appears willing to risk American energy security rather than accept responsibility for its role in dangerous protests. This approach strains transatlantic energy relations and creates a more dangerous and costly environment for producers working to bolster domestic production.



