Alaska’s natural gas pipeline would largely follow the route of the existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline, pictured here, from the North Slope. Near Fairbanks, the gas line would split off toward Anchorage, while the oil pipeline continues to the Prince William Sound community of Valdez. (Photo by David Houseknecht/United States Geological Survey)
An Anchorage Superior Court judge heard preliminary arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit seeking to block construction of a proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline on environmental grounds.
Eight plaintiffs, represented by an out-of-state law firm, are seeking to overturn a state law that created the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state-owned corporation that is developing the pipeline.
The state of Alaska has asked Judge Dani Crosby to dismiss the case, resulting in Tuesday’s arguments. After roughly 40 minutes of debate, Crosby said she would take the issue under consideration and issue a ruling at a future date.
If Crosby refuses the state’s motion, the case will likely proceed to an evidentiary trial. If she accepts the state’s motion to dismiss, it would be the latest setback for Our Children’s Trust, the out-of-state firm that is representing the plaintiffs and has previously sought rulings that would require Alaska to seriously address climate change.
Attorneys for both the state and the plaintiffs said Tuesday that the lawsuit is critical: If it succeeds, the state of Alaska is unlikely to ever develop the vast natural gas deposits beneath the North Slope.
Plaintiffs argue that regardless of how the pipeline is designed and used, it will result in so much greenhouse gas emissions that it would create climate change incompatible with the Alaska Constitution’s guarantee of access to natural resources and a healthy life.
Attorney Andrew Welle, representing the plaintiffs, told Crosby, “To boil down this to its essence, the allegations in this complaint tell us that Alaska can have the Alaska LNG project, or it can have salmon and other replenishable resources for youth and future generations, but it cannot have both.”
Margaret Paton-Walsh, representing the Alaska Department of Law, said that failing to dismiss the cause could result in similar constitutional challenges against many other major development projects in Alaska.
“To find that this (law) is facially unconstitutional would be to find that there is no way to develop Alaska’s natural gas consistent with … constitutional claims of the plaintiffs,” she said.
The lawsuit’s high stakes resulted in a crowded courtroom and high online attendance.
“My courtroom is not normally this packed, so this is very exciting for me,” Crosby said Tuesday.
In court, and in written arguments, Paton-Walsh contended that rulings by the Alaska Supreme Court on two prior climate-change-related lawsuits mean that the issue should be considered a “political question” to be decided by the Alaska Legislature, not the courts.
“Plaintiffs’ concerns must be addressed through the political process, not the legal process,” she said.
Welle participated in a prior climate-change lawsuit filed by Our Children’s Trust and said that the state is misinterpreting the Alaska Supreme Court’s split decision in that case.
The court didn’t preclude all climate change cases, Welle said, instead suggesting plaintiffs had to challenge a particular law. He said that’s what they did in this case.
Paton-Walsh countered by arguing that the questioned law in this case is merely a statement of policy. The Supreme Court’s prior ruling requires someone to challenge the state’s implementation of a law, not its policy, she said.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.