The Willow Project: A Modern Mistake by an Antiquated System

From the spread of solar panels to the proliferation of compostable wrappers, climate change is changing our lifestyles in unprecedented ways. The public sphere is no exception: every executive department from Homeland Security to Treasury has begun to rethink its operations as the Earth heats up. [1] Yet, one initiative overseen by the Department of the Interior (DOI) is of singular importance in the battle against climate change—the federal fossil fuel leasing program. [2] Under the program, private companies purchase leases from the federal government that permit them to extract oil, gas, and coal from public lands and waters. [3] In 2018, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency tasked with approving land-based fossil fuel leases, authorized ConocoPhillips’s Willow Project, one of the single largest oil and gas drilling projects to be proposed on federal lands. [4] Three years later, in Sovereign Iñupiat for Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., indigenous tribes and environmental nonprofits successfully sued BLM and secured a preliminary injunction against the project. [5] The decision relied upon the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which stipulates that prior to authorizing a federal action with a “significant effect” on the environment—projects the size of power plants and canals—BLM must consider the action’s consequences and alternatives and document them in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). [6] However, in its EIS affirming ConocoPhillips’s plan, BLM relied on incomplete climate models and unverified assumptions, making its authorization of Willow a gross violation of NEPA. [7]

As part of the Willow Project, ConocoPhillips plans to construct 37 miles of new gravel roads, seven bridges, an airstrip, and 495 miles of ice roads in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). [8] This 23 million-acre reserve is recognized as a globally important ecological resource, accommodating diverse species, pristine water bodies, and indigenous peoples. [9] Over its thirty year lifespan, the Willow Project will extract 586 million barrels of oil and emit greenhouse gasses with a warming impact equivalent to 259 million metric tons of CO2. [10] Since the drilling venture involves significant environmental changes to the NPR-A, NEPA requires BLM to prepare an EIS analyzing the project’s environmental impact. [11] A key aspect of the EIS is an analysis of the project’s impacts, addressing both a “no action alternative” (a discussion of any benefits to not drilling at all) and “any potential unavoidable adverse environmental effects” caused by the project. [12] In Sovereign Iñupiat for Living Arctic, Judge Sharon Gleason of the District of Alaska declared in her opinion that BLM’s EIS failed to meet these guidelines, instead labeling its analysis of the Willow Project’s greenhouse gas emissions “arbitrary and capricious.” [13] 

The principal factor rendering BLM’s emissions calculations invalid is the agency’s flawed application of a market simulation model. [14] The model, developed by the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM), attempts to predict the extent to which energy from a new oil project substitutes for energy from current sources. To do this, the model simulates supply and demand of energy sources until 2084, using imports and exports to to capture global energy supply. [15] The emissions that a project substitutes for are then subtracted from the project’s total emissions to yield its net output. Relying on BOEM’s market simulation, BLM concluded that Willow will result in a net output of merely 35 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, less than 14 percent of the total emissions produced by the project. [16] In City of Davis v. Coleman, a case in which the Department of Transportation was sued for failing to consider the environmental effects of building a highway exchange, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that although an EIS “requires some degree of forecasting,” the agency “must use its best efforts to find out all that it reasonably can.” [17] The market simulation model used by BLM fails to meet this standard because it arbitrarily excludes the project’s effects on foreign oil and gas consumption, claiming that they are uncertain and therefore unnecessary. [18] In reality, the oil output from Willow would increase the global oil supply, reducing prices and increasing consumption. [19] Thus the simulation severely underestimates Willow’s emissions. 

A similar standard was applied in a previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit: six months prior to its Willow decision, the court rejected BOEM’s market simulation in Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt. [20] In this case, an EIS approving Hilcorp’s Liberty Offshore Drilling Project was rejected because it used BOEM’s market simulation to estimate the project’s net emissions. [21] Given the many similarities between Willow and Liberty Projects, ConocoPhillips has attempted to preempt objections to the emissions modeling for Willow by creating several distinctions between the two Alaskan ventures. Firstly, ConocoPhillips posits that the court only rejected the Liberty emissions projections because they estimated that the project would somehow produce negative emissions, an error not found in the Willow projections. [22] However, this ignores the core of the court’s objection to Liberty: although the court did mention BLMs negative emissions estimate, the fundamental issue was that Liberty’s estimate ignored foreign emissions—an error that is found in Willow’s projections. Secondly, ConocoPhillips asserts that their omission of foreign emissions was justified because the lack of country-specific data precluded them from quantifying the project’s global emissions. [23] Research by the Center for Biological Diversity directly disproves this assertion, however. Several of their studies measure the foreign effect of increasing domestic oil supply, confirming the feasibility of such estimation. [24] Thirdly, ConocoPhillips claims that BLM lacked the authority to reverse the Willow lease, rendering the modeling of foreign emissions irrelevant. To justify this, ConocoPhillips cites Department of Transportation vs. Public Citizen, a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) lacked the jurisdiction to regulate motor carriers based on indirect effects of emissions. ConocoPhillips argues that BLM similarly does not have jurisdiction over terminating Willow since the foreign emissions in question are not directly affected by the project. [25] However, this is incorrect as multiple studies have demonstrated that new oil development projects directly cause changes in foreign consumption patterns. [26] 

Beyond running an inaccurate simulation, many of BLM’s modeling assumptions are either misleading or unjustified. For example, the Willow EIS compares the project’s peak emissions to the United States’ emissions in 2017, neglecting the fact that U.S. emissions will substantially decline over the project’s lifetime. [27] Consequently, Willow’s future emissions will be a much larger portion of total U.S. emissions than BLM contends, making BLM’s figure an underestimate. [28] Even still, this might not be BLM’s most egregious violation of NEPA: despite the massive amount of emissions Willow will produce, the EIS includes no discussion of its material effects. [29] Rather, the EIS merely estimates the total volume of Willow’s emissions, claiming that this serves “as a proxy for understanding the potential effects of the Project on climate change.” [30] This volumetric estimate fails to address established methods of quantifying the impact of emissions such as the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gasses Metric, a federal tool developed to determine the monetary cost of emitting greenhouse gasses. [31] Metrics that go beyond the mere volume of emissions are key for assessing the incremental increase in harm that emitting greenhouse gasses causes, including species extinctions, resource depletion, and infrastructure deterioration. [32] 

The impact of Willow cannot be understated: standing alone, the Project would wipe out the emissions reduction goals set by the Biden administration for 2030. [33] Accordingly, the DOI must permanently halt the Project through the authority vested in it by the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA). [34] This act enables the DOI to “provide for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources of the [NPR-A].” [35] In addition to eliminating millions of tons in emissions, halting Willow provides a unique opportunity to reshape the entire federal fossil fuel leasing program, the initiative responsible for nearly a quarter of America’s emissions. [36]

By rejecting Willow on the grounds that it is imprecise, incomplete, and misleading in its reporting of emissions, the DOI could firmly institute the standards for emissions modeling established in Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt. Stopping Willow would demonstrate that companies taking part in the fossil fuel leasing program cannot attribute the omissions in their data to uncertainty. Instead, it would set a precedent that oil and natural gas companies must estimate the entirety of their emissions output, including foreign emissions. Additionally, it would ensure that an EIS must actually assess the effect of emissions on global warming in terms of concrete, cumulative impacts as opposed to simple volumetric estimates. Furthermore, Congress should expand upon this action by passing the Transparency in Energy Production Act. This act would mandate that companies report data on fossil fuels extracted under federal leases, using detailed standards crafted by the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB). [37] Requiring disclosures of hydrocarbon spills and strict emissions reduction targets would improve the accuracy of future EISs. [38] Finally, more standardized reporting would improve the accuracy of predictive tools like BOEM’s market simulation by streamlining data on different types of emissions. [39]

By updating the requirements for emissions disclosures, the DOI could finally shift the antiquated fossil fuel program to match modern needs. In its efforts to align the program with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5℃, the DOI must decrease fossil fuel production by approximately 6 percent every year until 2030. [40] Halting Willow is key for doing this: from incomplete modeling to nebulous impacts, the project represents everything wrong with current emissions reporting. Ending the Willow Project would be a crucial step in ensuring that the federal leasing program continues in a responsible manner, striking an equilibrium that benefits both the economy and environment. 

Edited by Sreyas Adiraju

Sources:

[1] “Executive Order 14008 of January 27m 2021, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Federal Register 86, no. 19 (Februrary 1, 2021): 7619, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/. 

[2] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment: How President Biden Can Align the Federal Fossil Fuel Program to Deliver on Climate and Put People Over Profits. Earthjustice and Evergreen Collaborative, June 2022, 6, https://www.evergreenaction.com/policy-hub/federal-fossil-fuel-leasing.pdf. 

[3] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 6. 

[4] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 20-21. 

[5] Jessica A. Knoblauch, “Court Ices Dangerous Arctic Drilling Plan.” Earthjustice, March 10, 2022. https://earthjustice.org/blog/2021-february/willow-project-arctic-oil-drilling-halt-court-order. 

[6] “‘Significance’ Under NEPA,” National Preservation Institute, https://www.npi.org/node/478. 

[7] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 767 (D. Alaska 2021). 

[8] Kristen Monsell et al., “Lawsuit Challenges Large Fossil-Fuel Project Proposed in Alaska’s Arctic,” Earthjustice, December 21, 2020. https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/lawsuit-challenges-large-fossil-fuel-project-proposed-in-alaskas-arctic. 

[9] Monsell et al., “Lawsuit Challenges Large Fossil-Fuel.”

[10] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 751 (D. Alaska 2021).

[11] Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, A Citizen’s Guide to NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard (January 2021), 12-13, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/A_Citizens_Guide_to_NEPA.pdf. 

[12] Executive Office of the President, A Citizen’s Guide to NEPA, 13-14.

[13] Coral Davenport, “Court Blocks a Vast Alaskan Drilling Project, Citing Climate Dangers,” New York Times, August 18, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/climate/alaska-willow-oil.html. 

[14] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 767 (D. Alaska 2021). 

[15] Peter H. Howard, The Bureau of Land Management’s Modeling Choice for the Federal Coal Programmatic Review (Institute for Policy Integrity: New York, 2016), https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/BLM_Model_Choice.pdf. 

[16] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 767 (D. Alaska 2021). 

[17] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 735 (9th Cir. 2020).

[18] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 767 (D. Alaska 2021).

[19] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 737 (9th Cir. 2020).

[20] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 737 (9th Cir. 2020).

[21] Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bernhardt, 982 F.3d 723, 737 (9th Cir. 2020).

[22] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 763 (D. Alaska 2021).

[23] Sustainable Accountability Standards Board (hereafter SASB), Oil & Gas – Exploration & Production: Sustainability Accounting Standards, October 2018, 51, https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Oil_Gas_Exploration_Production_Standard_2018.pdf. 

[24] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 765 (D. Alaska 2021).

[25] Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 US 752 (2004).

[26] Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739, 765 (D. Alaska 2021).

[27] Compl. at 18, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., et al., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739 (D. Alaska 2021).

[28] Compl. at 18-19, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., et al., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739 (D. Alaska 2021).

[29] Compl. at 19, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., et al., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739 (D. Alaska 2021).

[30] Compl. at 19, Ctr. for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., et al., 555 F. Supp. 3d 739 (D. Alaska 2021).

[31] Catherine Clifford, “Here’s what you need to know about ‘the social cost of greenhouse gases’—a key climate metric,” CNBC, March 9, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/09/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-social-cost-of-greenhouse-gases.html.  

[32] “Climate change impacts,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, August 13, 2021, https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts.  

[33] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 21. 

[34] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 21.

[35] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 21. 

[36] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 11. 

[37] U.S. Congress, House, Transparency in Energy Production Act of 2021, HR 1605, 117th Cong., 1st sess., introduced in House March 2, 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1506/text. 

[38] SASB, Oil & Gas – Exploration & Production, 6. 

[39] SASB, Oil & Gas – Exploration & Production, 4-5. 

[40] Earthjustice and Evergreen Action, Meeting the Moment, 9.