One of America’s largest pipeline companies is preparing to sue its archrival, highlighting a series of legal disputes that are hampering the development of America’s energy infrastructure.
Williams CEO Alan Armstrong told the Financial Times his company would seek “huge damages” from Energy Transfer, which is headed by Donald Trump backer Kelcy Warren, as a legal battle escalates over allegations of anti-competitive behavior.
The two pipeline giants have been locked in a months-long legal battle in court over Energy Transfer’s opposition to its rival’s development of a $1 billion pipeline to carry natural gas from a Louisiana oil field to the Gulf Coast.
Armstrong said Williams is escalating the issue. “Our next step will be to file for damages for their attempts to stop us,” he said in an interview. “These damages are enormous. Certainly not insignificant.” Energy Transfer has argued in court that Williams did not take adequate measures to ensure the safety of the crossing points between the pipeline development and its pipelines. Energy Transfer said in a statement to the Financial Times that it “will never regret defending the safety of its assets and those whose properties we pass through, despite the misleading claims of Williams’ CEO.”
The dispute highlights the obstacles to pipeline construction in the United States, one of the problems facing a natural gas sector that is experiencing surging demand, driven by rising exports and domestic consumption needed to meet the massive growth in electricity use for artificial intelligence and data storage.
Tensions over pipelines have escalated in recent years amid a proliferation of permitting lawsuits, with climate activists aiming to slow the construction of projects they believe will increase reliance on fossil fuels for decades. It is not uncommon for companies to lodge such objections to competing projects.
“The majority of operators we deal with are responsible,” said Alan Armstrong. “I think Energy Transfer is an exception to that rule, and I expect that they will eventually regret their actions.”
Williams’ Louisiana Energy Gateway project aims to transport 1.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Haynesville shale field across Louisiana and Texas to LNG terminals on the Gulf Coast. It was originally scheduled to start up this year, but the company said a dispute with Energy Transfer pushed the start-up date back to the second half of 2025. “There are consequences to putting things on hold like that,” Armstrong said.
Energy Transfer has also opposed pipeline projects by other developers, including Momentum Midstream and DT Midstream, over crossings that intersect its network. The dispute with Momentum was settled earlier this month, allowing the company to move forward with its project. DT, however, moved its planned pipeline to avoid intersecting with Energy Transfer’s operations.
“The fact is that, unlike other parties with whom we have settled, Williams has not provided the information we need to adequately review the impact of the many crossings they are seeking,” Energy Transfer said in its statement. “We must question Williams’ motives in withholding this information, as it is standard practice when requesting pipeline crossings.”
Project-related lawsuits have led to a sharp decline in pipeline development in the United States, with less than 1 billion cubic feet per day of interstate gas capacity added in 2023, an all-time low, compared to the 28 billion cubic feet per day added in 2017, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
It has also caused costs to rise. The 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline in Virginia began operating this month following facing a barrage of legal challenges, six years of delays and a cost of $7.85 billion, more than double initial estimates.
However, most of the lawsuits have been led by environmental activists rather than corporations, and Energy Transfer’s actions in Louisiana have angered the industry and politicians.
Jeff Landry, the current governor of Louisiana, said when he was attorney general that if Energy Transfer’s lawsuit succeeds, it risks setting a precedent that “might make it nearly impossible (or at least very expensive) to bring a lot of energy products to market.” Energy Transfer and Williams have been bitter enemies since a $33 billion takeover bid fell through in 2016, leading to years of litigation.
In October, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that Energy Transfer must pay Williams $495 million for withdrawing from the proposed deal.
Pipeline Wars: Williams to Sue Energy Transfer Over Anti-Competitive Behavior
One of America’s largest pipeline companies, Williams, is preparing to sue its archrival, Energy Transfer, escalating a series of legal disputes that are hindering the development of America’s energy infrastructure.
Clash of Titans: Williams vs. Energy Transfer
The legal battle stems from Energy Transfer’s opposition to Williams’ development of a $1 billion pipeline project, the Louisiana Energy Gateway. This pipeline aims to transport natural gas from the Haynesville shale field to LNG terminals on the Gulf Coast. Energy Transfer has argued that Williams has not taken adequate safety measures for crossing points between the pipeline development and existing Energy Transfer pipelines.
Williams CEO Alan Armstrong asserts that Energy Transfer’s actions are anti-competitive, stating, “Our next step will be to file for damages for their attempts to stop us. These damages are enormous. Certainly not insignificant.”
Energy Transfer, however, maintains its position, stating in a statement, “We will never regret defending the safety of its assets and those whose properties we pass through, despite the misleading claims of Williams’ CEO.” This dispute highlights the growing tension in the energy sector as companies grapple with regulatory hurdles, environmental concerns, and competition.
The Broader Picture: Obstacles to Pipeline Construction
The Williams-Energy Transfer dispute is not an isolated incident. Pipeline construction in the United States has faced significant challenges in recent years due to a surge in permitting lawsuits, driven by both environmental activists and competing companies. Climate activists seek to curb fossil fuel reliance, while companies sometimes leverage legal action to hinder rivals.
The Louisiana Energy Gateway project originally planned for startup this year has been delayed to the second half of 2025 due to the dispute with Energy Transfer. This underlines the significant impact of such legal battles on project timelines and costs.
Impact on Energy Sector: Delays and Increased Costs
The decline in pipeline development has tangible consequences for the energy sector. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reported that less than 1 billion cubic feet per day of interstate gas capacity was added in 2023, a record low compared to the 28 billion cubic feet per day added in 2017. These delays and reduced capacity impact natural gas supply, contributing to price volatility and potentially hindering the industry’s ability to meet increasing demand.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline project in Virginia, which began operating this month following facing numerous legal challenges, serves as a stark example. The six-year delay and increased costs, more than double the initial estimate, illustrate the significant impact of legal hurdles on project development.
Industry Response and Concerns
While environmental activists have been at the forefront of legal challenges, Energy Transfer’s actions in Louisiana have drawn criticism from the industry and policymakers. Louisiana’s Governor Jeff Landry, during his time as Attorney General, expressed concerns that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit might create a precedent that “might make it nearly impossible (or at least very expensive) to bring a lot of energy products to market.”
A Legacy of Conflict: Williams and Energy Transfer
Energy Transfer and Williams’ animosity dates back to 2016 when a $33 billion takeover bid by Energy Transfer fell through. This led to years of litigation, which culminated in the Delaware Supreme Court ruling that Energy Transfer must pay Williams $495 million for withdrawing from the proposed deal.
Table: Key Pipeline Projects Affected by Disputes
| Project Name | Company | Dispute | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Louisiana Energy Gateway | Williams | Energy Transfer opposition | Project delay to 2025 |
| Momentum Midstream Project | Momentum Midstream | Energy Transfer opposition | Settled, project moving forward |
| DT Midstream Pipeline | DT Midstream | Energy Transfer opposition | Pipeline rerouted to avoid intersection |
Looking Ahead: Implications for the Energy Infrastructure
The legal battles between Williams and Energy Transfer underscore the challenges facing pipeline development. While environmental concerns remain a significant factor, the emergence of corporate conflicts adds further complexity and uncertainty. The outcome of the Williams lawsuit might redefine the legal landscape for pipeline projects and have lasting implications for the energy sector.
