Williams to Sue Energy Transfer Over Anti-Competitive Pipeline Tactics

One of the largest U.S. pipeline operators is gearing up to sue its main competitor, highlighting the legal battles impeding America’s energy infrastructure growth.

Alan Armstrong, CEO of Williams, revealed to the Financial Times that his company plans to seek significant damages from Energy Transfer — helmed by prominent Donald Trump supporter Kelcy Warren — escalating a legal conflict over claims of anti-competitive behavior.

The two pipeline giants have been locked in a court battle for months over Energy Transfer’s opposition to its rival’s development of a $1 billion pipeline to transport natural gas from a Louisiana oilfield to the Gulf Coast. Armstrong indicated that Williams is now intensifying the dispute.

“Our next step will be to sue for damages caused by their attempts to hinder us,” he stated in an interview. “These are substantial damages…not an insignificant sum of money, that’s for sure.”

Energy Transfer argued in court that Williams had not taken sufficient measures to ensure the safety of intersections between the proposed pipeline and its own pipelines.

In a statement to the Financial Times, Energy Transfer asserted that it would “never regret advocating for the safety of its assets and the property we traverse, despite the misguided claims of Williams’ CEO.”

The conflict underscores the hurdles delaying pipeline construction in the U.S. This is particularly problematic for natural gas as demand surges, fueled by growing exports and rising domestic consumption to meet the massive increase in electricity usage for AI and data storage.

Pipeline tensions have intensified in recent years amid a surge in lawsuits over permits, with climate activists seeking to impede projects they claim will lock in reliance on fossil fuels for decades. It’s uncommon for companies to lodge objections of this nature against rival projects.

“Most operators we work with are responsible operators,” said Armstrong. “I believe Energy Transfer is very much an outlier in this regard, and I think they will ultimately regret their actions.”

Delays to Louisiana Energy Gateway

Williams’ Louisiana Energy Gateway project is designed to transport 1.8 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the Haynesville Shale across Louisiana and Texas to liquefied natural gas terminals on the Gulf Coast.

Originally slated for completion this year, the company states that the clash with Energy Transfer has pushed the start date to the second half of 2025.

“Delaying projects like this — there are consequences,” Armstrong remarked.

Energy Transfer has also objected to pipeline projects by other developers, including Momentum Midstream and DT Midstream, over crossings with its own network.

The dispute with Momentum was resolved earlier this month, allowing the company to proceed with its project. DT altered its planned pipeline route to avoid crossing Energy Transfer’s infrastructure.

“The reality is that unlike the other parties we have settled with, Williams has not furnished the critical information we need to adequately assess the impact of the numerous crossings they are seeking,” Energy Transfer said in its statement.

“We must question Williams’ motives in their reluctance to share this information, as this is standard procedure when requesting pipeline crossings.”

Litigation surrounding projects has led to a sharp decline in U.S. pipeline development, with less than 1 billion cubic feet per day of interstate gas capacity added in 2023, the lowest on record according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, compared to the 28 billion cubic feet per day added in 2017.

It has also caused costs to skyrocket: the 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline in Virginia came online this month after a barrage of legal challenges, six years late and at a cost of $7.85 billion, more than double initial projections.

However, the vast majority of litigation has been initiated by environmental activists rather than companies, and Energy Transfer’s actions in Louisiana have angered industry players and politicians alike.

Jeff Landry, Louisiana’s governor, stated in his previous role as attorney general that Energy Transfer’s litigation, if successful, risked setting a precedent that “could make it nearly impossible (or at least cost-prohibitive) to bring many energy products to market.”

Energy Transfer and Williams have been fierce rivals since a $33 billion takeover bid led by Warren collapsed in 2016, sparking years of legal battles. In October, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that Energy Transfer must pay Williams $495 million for abandoning the proposed deal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *