Doubling down on DAPL: the contentious politics of pipeline governance in Illinois

ABSTRACT

This article analyzes the permitting proceeding for the capacity expansion of the Dakota Access and Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipelines in Illinois. Drawing on field research undertaken between 2018–2021, we examine how a grassroots-led coalition of climate activists – Save Our Illinois Land (SOIL) – navigated the Illinois Commerce Commission’s institutional context to oppose regulatory approval. We argue that SOIL mobilized procedural aspects of the regulatory process to politicize a highly path-dependent and techno-managerial administrative proceeding. SOIL did so to open political space for greater consideration of and deliberation around socio-ecological challenges like climate change in pipeline governance. While U.S. focused, our findings highlight the difficulties inherent to employing institutionalized participation as a mechanism to politicize energy governance and engage in contentious energy politics. Climate advocates face complex challenges that inhibit their ability to unsettle the power structures that reinforce carbon-intensive systems and promote inclusive and climate-driven energy infrastructure governance.

KEYWORDS:

• Environmental politics
• politicization
• climate change
• energy infrastructure governance
• Dakota Access Pipeline
• Illinois

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and thank our research participants, who shared their valuable time and insights with us. The experiences and knowledge of these activists, landowners, and policymakers directly shaped our research approach and findings in Illinois. Thank you to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for providing comments that substantially improved the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Human subjects research

This research project was reviewed and approved by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (Protocol Number 19,846). The researchers obtained verbal informed consent from research participants by asking them to participate in the study, reading a recruitment statement, and providing a written consent form containing all contact information for the PI, McKenzie Johnson, and the research team.

Notes

1. e-Docket manages information about ICC cases (also known as dockets). We cite ICC proceedings using the docket number, i.e., Docket 19–0673, and include a document title to specify case documents.

2. Docket 19–0673 (2019a).

3. Dockets 14–0754 (2014),14-0755 (2014).

4. Docket 14–0754 (2014).

5. Docket 19–0673 (2019b). ALJ’s Ruling.

6. Docket 19–0673 (2019c). Special Open Meeting Minutes.

7. Docket 19–0673 (2020b). Dissenting Opinion.

8. Docket 19–0673 (2020i). SOIL Initial Brief.

9. Docket 19–0673 (2020a). Commissioner Opinion: 2.

10. Docket 19–0673. Commissioner Opinion.

11. Docket 19–0673. Dissenting Opinion

12. Docket 19–0673 (2020g). Petition for Interlocutory Review: 158.

13. Docket 19–0673. Dissenting Opinion.

14. Docket 19–0673 (2020c). Final Order: 61.

15. Docket 19–0673. Dissenting Opinion.

16. Docket 19–0673. Regular Open Meeting Minutes: 32.

17. Docket 19–0673 (2020h). Regular Open Meeting Minutes: 32–33.

18. AFL-CIO is the largest federation of Unions in the U.S.

19. Docket 19–0674 (2020). IBEW Response: 3.

20. Docket 19–0673 (2020e). Motion to Disqualify.

21. Docket 19–0673. Motion to Disqualify: 9.

22. Docket 19–0673 (2020d). Carrigan Memorandum.

23. Docket 19–0673. Special Open Meeting Minutes: 13.

24. Docket 19–0673. Motion to Disqualify.

25. Docket 19–0673. Motion to Disqualify.

26. Docket 19–0673 (2020f). Motion to Stay the Proceeding.

27. Docket 19–0673 (2020j). Special Open Meeting Minutes.

28. Docket 19–0673. Final Order: 19

29. Docket 19–0673. Final Order: 19.

30. Docket 19–0673. Commissioner Opinion: 2.

31. Docket 19–0673. Commissioner Opinion: 2.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a Hatch Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Grant Number ILLU-875-978/Project Accession Number 1018549 and a University of Illinois Campus Research Board Grant under Grant Number RB19131. Funders were not involved in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in writing the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.