New Energy Act Expands Federal Crime to Include 'Actively Disrupting' Pipeline Operations

The aptly named "Safe and Secure Transportation of American Energy Act" is a short bill, but its single major provision packs a serious punch—especially if you’ve ever considered protesting energy infrastructure. Essentially, this legislation takes existing federal criminal penalties for damaging energy transportation facilities (think pipelines, storage tanks, and pumping stations) and significantly broadens the list of actions that can land you in serious legal trouble. Before, the law focused on "damaging or destroying" these facilities; now, Section 2 expands that to include "vandalizing, tampering with, or actively disrupting the operation or construction" of these facilities. This means the legal net just got a whole lot wider for anyone who interacts with these sites.

The New Definition of Disruption

For most people, the critical change here is the inclusion of "actively disrupting" the operation or construction of infrastructure. This is where the bill goes from protecting property to potentially criminalizing protest. While protecting critical infrastructure from sabotage is a clear benefit—no one wants a major pipeline explosion or a massive oil spill—the term "actively disrupting" is vague enough to cause real concern. If you’re a farmer whose land is being used for a pipeline and you try to block construction equipment, or if you’re an environmental activist engaging in a non-violent sit-in at a construction site, you could potentially be charged under this federal statute. This isn't just a slap on the wrist; these charges fall under 49 U.S.C. § 60123(b), which carries severe felony penalties, meaning years in federal prison.

Who Benefits, Who Pays the Price?

On the one hand, this bill is a clear win for the companies that own and operate energy infrastructure. They get a powerful new legal deterrent against any action—violent or non-violent—that slows down their projects or operations. This increased security may lead to fewer costly delays and better protection against actual sabotage, which benefits the energy supply chain. On the other hand, the cost is borne by those who rely on protest and civil disobedience as tools for political action. The risk of facing severe federal charges for actions like chaining yourself to a gate or occupying a construction area is dramatically increased. This could have a chilling effect on environmental groups, Indigenous rights advocates, and others who use direct action to oppose specific energy projects.

The Real-World Impact of Vagueness

The medium level of vagueness in terms like "tampering with" and "actively disrupting" is the core issue here. Without clear definitions, prosecutors have significant leeway to interpret these terms, potentially applying them to actions that were previously treated as minor trespass or simple misdemeanor offenses at the state level. For example, does flying a drone too close to a construction site count as "tampering with" or "disrupting"? Does a mass traffic slowdown intentionally caused near a facility entrance count? Because the penalties are now so steep, this legislation effectively raises the stakes for any form of opposition, making it far riskier for regular people to challenge these projects through direct action, even if that action is non-violent.