March, 15 2023, 09:28am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jackson Chiappinelli, Earthjustice, jchiappinelli@earthjustice.org
Conservation groups sue to stop the Willow Oil Project in Alaska’s Western Arctic
Administration’s environmental review failed to account for project’s full climate impact
ANCHORAGE, Alaska
Earthjustice filed a lawsuit today on behalf of conservation groups, together with NRDC (the Natural Resources Defense Council), to stop the massive Willow oil-drilling project in Alaska’s Western Arctic, which the Biden administration approved March 13. This approval of an enormous new carbon source undermines President Biden’s promises to slash greenhouse-gas emissions in half by 2030 and transition the United States to clean energy.
Trustees for Alaska has filed a separate legal challenge on behalf of Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic and conservation groups.
The BLM’s record of decision approving Willow essentially greenlights ConocoPhillips’ desired blueprint while ignoring pleas from around 5.6 million people, including leadership from the nearby village of Nuiqsut, asking the federal government to halt Willow.
Even though the Biden administration describes its approval as a scaled-down version of the plan, the project will still add about 260 million metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere over the next 30 years, the equivalent of an extra two million cars on the road each year for thirty years. The project would cause irreparable harm to the environment, Arctic wildlife and nearby people who depend on the land for subsistence.
The legal challenge targets the Biden administration for failing to consider alternatives that could have meaningfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions and on-the-ground effects. Interior has relied on a mistaken conclusion that it could not deny nor meaningfully limit the project, and it considered project alternatives that ranged only from allowing ConocoPhillips to develop 100 percent of the available oil to allowing it to develop 92 percent of the oil. The Biden administration had the authority to stop Willow – yet chose not to.
The lawsuit also takes the administration to task for failing to assess Willow’s full climate impact, by neglecting to consider the additional climate pollution of future development that can only happen once Willow project infrastructure is in place. ConocoPhillips has described Willow to its investors as the “next great Alaska hub,” saying it had identified a staggering amount of oil, possibly as much as 3 billion barrels, of nearby prospects that could be accessed if the Willow infrastructure were in place.
Earthjustice and its clients, together with co-plaintiff NRDC, released the following statements as the lawsuit was filed:
“It’s shocking that Biden greenlit the Willow project despite knowing how much harm it’ll cause Arctic communities and wildlife,” said Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Now we have to step up and fight for these priceless wild places and the people and animals that depend on them. It’s clear that we can’t count on Biden to keep his word on confronting climate change and halting drilling on public lands.”
“We are enraged that the Administration has again approved Willow despite the clear threats posed to the Western Arctic’s vulnerable environment and communities,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth. “Our prior victory forcing BLM to re-do its environmental analysis should have proven that more must be done to protect our last remaining wild places from Big Oil’s exploitation. We can only hope that the court sees this for what it is: another unlawful, faulty, and disastrous decision that must be stopped.”
“The Biden administration’s approval of ConocoPhillips’ Willow project in the western Arctic of Alaska is a disappointing leap backwards,” said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Defenders of Wildlife’s Alaska Program Director. “This would further imperil climate-sensitive wildlife including threatened polar bears, lock in oil and gas drilling and massive greenhouse gas emissions for decades, and offset the administration’s priority to rein in climate change.”
“The science is clear. We cannot afford any new oil or gas projects if we are going to avoid climate catastrophe. Approving what would be the largest oil extraction project on federal lands is incredibly hypocritical from President Biden who in his State of the Union called the climate crisis an existential threat,” said Natalie Mebane, climate director for Greenpeace USA. “Millions of people – from Indigenous groups to former vice-president Al Gore – have come out in opposition to the project. The Department of the Interior has substantial concerns about the Willow project and the harm it could cause to the climate, wildlife, and people. This is a make-or-break moment for the president’s climate legacy. He needs to listen to the people, his own departments, and himself when he says we have an obligation to confront the climate crisis. The first step is for him to follow the science and stop approving oil and gas projects.”
“We’re asking the court to halt this illegal project and ensure the public knows its true climate impacts,” said Christy Goldfuss, chief policy impact officer for NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). “Permitting Willow to go forward is green-lighting a carbon bomb. It would set back the climate fight and embolden an industry hell-bent on destroying the planet.”
“There is no question that the administration possessed the legal authority to stop Willow – yet it chose not to,” said Erik Grafe, Deputy Managing Attorney in Earthjustice’s Alaska regional office. “It greenlit this carbon bomb without adequately assessing its climate impacts or weighing its options to limit the damage and say no. The climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges we face, and President Biden has promised to do all he can to meet the moment. We’re bringing today’s lawsuit to ensure that the administration follows the law and ultimately makes good on this promise for future generations.”
Background
This is the second time the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has approved the Willow project. The Trump administration first approved the project in 2020. Conservation and Alaska Native groups challenged the approval, and the court threw it out as unlawful in 2021. It instructed BLM to reassess the project’s full climate impacts and consider alternatives that would lessen its overall impacts. In approving Willow for the second time, the Biden administration has failed to heed these instructions, producing an environmental analysis that falls short in these same respects.
As approved, the project includes three drill sites, gravel roads, a central processing facility, an operations center, an air strip, hundreds of miles of ice roads, and it allows drilling and roads in the Teshekpuk Lake special area, one of the most important and sensitive areas in the Arctic. ConocoPhillips’ operations would use chillers to re-freeze thawing permafrost, to make the ground stable enough for drilling to continue.
Further, approval of Willow sets into motion a westward expansion of oil development into additional ecologically sensitive areas critical for both subsistence and the protection of wildlife species that are already threatened by climate change.
The reserve is home to polar bears, which are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, plus musk oxen, caribou, and hundreds of thousands of migratory birds. Two caribou herds – the Western Arctic and the Teshekpuk Lake herds – calve and migrate through the region and are a vital subsistence resource for Alaska Native communities in northern and western Alaska.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Restarting Michigan Nuclear Power Plant Risks 'Chernobyl-Scale Catastrophe,' Coalition Warns
"This more than $10 billion in ratepayer and taxpayer robbery would merely fund an insanely high-risk game of radioactive Russian roulette on the Lake Michigan shoreline," said one critic.
Mar 22, 2023
A coalition of 191 individuals and 185 groups representing thousands of people on Wednesday implored the federal government for the third time not to fund the revival of a roughly 51-year-old nuclear power plant that was shut down last May in Covert, Michigan.
In a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the coalition warned that providing financial aid to Holtec International, which purchased the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) last June, could lead to a massive public health and environmental disaster that reverberates far beyond the shoreline of Lake Michigan—a source of drinking water for millions of people in multiple states.
A little over a week after taking ownership of PNP "under the false pretense of decommissioning it," Holtec secretly applied for funding from the DOE's Civil Nuclear Credit (CNC) program in early July to reopen the plant, the coalition explained in a statement. The company's application—supported by Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who had been advocating for a "dangerous 'zombie reactor' bailout and restart scheme at Palisades" since April 2022—was made public in early September.
Thanks in part to opposition from the coalition, which sent its first letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in September, the DOE rejected Holtec's first funding request in mid-November. The following month, however, Holtec announced it would apply for federal funding during a second round of allocations, prompting a second letter of opposition from the coalition.
As The Holland Sentinelreported earlier this month: "Holtec is taking a different route with its second attempt at funding. Rather than applying through the CNC program, the company applied for funds from the U.S. Department of Energy loan office."
Terry Lodge, legal counsel for the coalition's lead groups, Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan, wrote in Wednesday's letter that "DOE's recently issued amended 'guidance,' which was specifically rewritten to enable Holtec to apply for $1.2 billion of federal taxpayer funds, is not legal under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)."
"We understand that Holtec... may be applying to DOE for a subsidized loan under a different law, with the intention of using funds from the IIJA to pay off the loan," wrote Lodge. "We question whether such a combined transaction would be lawful under the IIJA. Even if it is, IIJA credits may not be used to support Palisades. Congress intended the IIJA to support only currently operating commercial nuclear reactors that face termination of operations for economic reasons. Palisades does not meet any criteria for eligibility."
The coalition once again asked Granholm—a former Democratic governor and attorney general of Michigan—and other high-ranking officials at the DOE to deny Holtec's request that the non-operational PNP be certified to receive such federal funding.
Most importantly, PNP is unable "to operate safely due to a litany of chronic and acute problems associated with age-related degradation and neglected maintenance on safety-significant systems, structures, and components," the coalition argued in its statement. "This includes the worst neutron-embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the country and perhaps the world, at risk of pressurized thermal shock through-wall fracture, which would lead to reactor core meltdown."
"But additional pathways to catastrophic meltdown include a reactor lid, as well as steam generators, that have needed replacement for 17 years or longer," the coalition continued. "Palisades' control rod drive mechanism seal leaks have been uniquely bad in all of industry, for more than a half-century. Now added to this long list is Holtec's neglect of vital maintenance, such as of the turbo-generator, bending under its own immense weight, as well as the steam generators, to name but two examples."
Holtec has "applied to DOE for a billion dollar federal taxpayer-backed nuclear loan guarantee under the Inflation Reduction Act, which it would use to promote the reactor restart scheme, hoping to pay it back over time with the CNC program bailout," said the coalition. In addition, Holtec is "seeking a more than billion dollar subsidy from the state of Michigan, as well as yet another lucrative, above-market rate power purchase agreement with an unnamed utility company in the area. Also, Holtec has applied to DOE for $7.4 billion in federal nuclear loan guarantees, authorized under the 2005 Energy Policy Act and congressionally appropriated on December 23, 2007, for the design certification, construction, and operation of four small modular (nuclear) reactors, more than one of which would also be located at the Palisades site."
In the words of Kevin Kamps, a radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear and board member of Don't Waste Michigan, "This more than $10 billion in ratepayer and taxpayer robbery would merely fund an insanely high-risk game of radioactive Russian roulette on the Lake Michigan shoreline."
"Both extremes of the risk spectrum would be co-located at the Palisades site, if Holtec gets its way," said Kamps. "The ever-worsening breakdown phase risks at the old reactor would exist alongside the break-in phase risks of the new reactors, risking a Chernobyl-scale catastrophe, with the potential for Fukushima-style, domino-effect, multiple meltdowns."
According to The Holland Sentinel: "Holtec has acknowledged there will be 'a number of hurdles' to reopening the plant even if funding is secured. Those include financial commitment from the state, procuring a power purchasing agreement, upgrading the switchyard, partnering with a licensed operator for the restart, rehiring qualified and trained staff, and maintenance and delayed capital improvements of the facility—the plant closed earlier than planned due to failure of a control rod drive seal."
Citing comments a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission official made during a public meeting on Monday, MLivereported this week that PNP "would be the first plant to enter the decommissioning phase and then try to restart."
During the meeting, Kamps declared, "Over my dead body are you all going to get away with this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shocking and Immoral': Report Details Private Equity's Stranglehold on US Healthcare
"The damage that private equity has wrought on Americans' healthcare from cradle to grave, simply for profit, has become a life-or-death situation."
Mar 22, 2023
Private equity's ownership of U.S. healthcare providers is incompatible with the needs and best interests of patients and should be checked with federal legislation, according to a report published Wednesday by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
Critics of for-profit care have long decried private equity's focus on maximizing returns through practices including slashing staff, surprising patients with astronomical bills, and eschewing low-margin care upon which vulnerable populations rely. The new report—authored primarily by Public Citizen healthcare policy advocate Eagan Kemp—examines investment firms' impact on more than a dozen healthcare sectors, from reproductive health through end-of-life care.
"Private equity acquisitions in the healthcare sector have steadily climbed since the financial crisis in 2009, particularly in the past five years," a summary of the report notes. "Unlike acquisitions of hospitals, which typically occur under a public spotlight, the private equity industry's acquisitions of physician practices and other healthcare business lines often occur with little or no disclosure or public scrutiny, hindering the ability of regulators and watchdogs to monitor the effects of private equity ownership."
According to the report:
In general, the private equity industry's business model poses risks to the long-term sustainability of entities that the industry acquires. That is, in large part, because private equity purchases are typically financed with debt that is immediately transferred onto the books of the businesses acquired, thus leaving the acquired entities with debt burdens to manage.
Meanwhile, private equity investors seek outsize returns on an accelerated timeline, generally aiming to exit investments in three to five years with returns of 20%-30% per year. This objective induces them to take short-sighted steps to supercharge profits or otherwise wring capital out of the assets they acquire.
The risks posed by private equity investments in healthcare are particularly acute. After all, the services healthcare providers offer can spell the difference between life and death. Private equity has targeted segments of the healthcare industry since at least the 1990s, with many predictable outcomes. Among them, shocking lapses in safety have occurred, prices have risen faster than at non-private equity acquired entities, and patients have been subjected to price gouging schemes.
The conflict between providers' obligations to provide the best care and private equity investors' insatiable appetites for maximized [returns] provides is clear. "You can't serve two masters," a doctor who previously worked for private equity-owned U.S. Dermatology Partners toldBloomberg. "You can't serve patients and investors."
"Thanks to a lack of transparency, we don't know everything about private equity's incursion into healthcare. But what we do know is shocking and immoral" said Kemp. "The damage that private equity has wrought on Americans' healthcare from cradle to grave, simply for profit, has become a life-or-death situation. Transparency and oversight are needed, stat."
The report suggests legislative solutions including Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) Stop Wall Street Looting Act and Rep. Pramila Jayapal's Healthcare Ownership Transparency Act. The latter, according to Jayapal's office, "would require private equity firms and other financial interests to disclose ownership stakes in healthcare facilities including nursing homes."
A September 2022 Public Citizen report detailed how federal regulators had failed to implement a 2010 law requiring nursing homes to disclose their owners. Other investigations during the Covid-19 pandemic found that home healthcare, hospice, and nursing facilities and services owned by investment firms often provided a lower standard of care.
"We applaud Rep. Jayapal's ongoing effort to shine a light on the dangerous toll private equity vultures are taking on our health," Public Citizen president Robert Weissman said in a statement. "Adequate regulation of this predatory industry is acutely critical when it comes to the healthcare sector."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Propose $300 Billion Investment to Treat Housing as Human Right
"In the richest country in the world, it is a moral imperative that we take this issue head-on," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Mar 22, 2023
Declaring that homelessness and housing insecurity is the result of "a structural failure of a country that has refused to make safe and affordable housing a priority," U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Grace Meng on Wednesday reintroduced the Housing is a Human Right Act and called on the federal government to provide $300 billion to end the crisis facing unhoused people.
The legislation would invest more than $200 billion in affordable housing and support services, $27 billion annually for services for unhoused people, and $100 million per year for community-driven alternatives to people experiencing homelessness.
Other funds would go to support communities at heightened risk for homelessness.
"Housing is a human right, and nobody in the world should be without a place to call home, especially not in America," said Meng (D-N.Y.). "This is an issue that impacts individuals for a number of reasons and sometimes isn't fixed with just a physical roof above a person's head."
The bill was reintroduced as real estate website Realtor.com released an analysis showing that even for people who have a place to live, housing is becoming more precarious across the United States.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recommends that people spend less than 30% of their income on housing, but eight of the country's top 50 metropolitan areas now have "a rent share higher than 30% relative to the median household income," including Miami, Los Angeles, New York, and San Diego.
Even in more affordable cities renters are spending more, with the average monthly rent in Cincinnati, Ohio costing 19.4% of the average monthly income—up from 18.4% last year. In Birmingham, Alabama, renters spend an average of 22.2% of their income on housing.
"As costs have risen and the minimum wage has stagnated, it would take the average minimum wage worker more than 96 hours of work per week to afford a two-bedroom rental," noted Jayapal (D-Wash.).
The shrinking stock of affordable housing is linked to the crisis of homelessness, which more than half a million people in the U.S. experienced in 2022—up by 3% from 2020.
"The crisis of housing instability is one that can be fixed by investing in housing infrastructure and supportive services for vulnerable communities," said Jayapal.
The legislation has been co-sponsored by Democratic lawmakers including Reps. Jamaal Bowman of New York, Cori Bush of Missouri, James McGovern of Massachusetts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
The $200 billion proposed investment included in the bill would go toward McKinney-Vento Emergency Solutions Grants, which fund engagement with people experiencing homelessness and improve emergency shelters; and Continuum of Care grants, which help rehouse people who have faced homelessness.
The legislation would also:
- Create a new grant program to invest in humane infrastructure, providing municipalities with $6 billion a year through a flexible program that will allow them to address their most urgent housing needs to keep people in stable housing and support those experiencing homelessness;
- Incentivize local investments in humane, evidence-based models to support people experiencing homelessness, including alternatives to criminalization and penalization;
- Provide $10 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency food and shelter grants while improving grants to better represent high rates of homelessness and income inequality; and
- Authorize $100 million in grants to public libraries to provide assistance and tailored supports to persons experiencing homelessness.
"In the richest country in the world, it is a moral imperative that we take this issue head-on," said Jayapal. "Housing is a human right—and every person deserves to have a safe place to call home."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.