Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court ruling in favor of the Montana Environmental Information Center and Sierra Club (collectively, Conservation Groups) and vacating the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) permit for Westmoreland Rosebud Mining, LLC's proposed coal mine expansion, holding that the Board of Environmental Review (Board) made several errors when it upheld DEQ's findings.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred in concluding that reversal of the burden of proof was prejudicial error; (2) the Board committed reversible error in limiting the Conservation Groups' evidence and argument; (3) the district court erred in determining that it was reversible error to admit certain testimony as proper rebuttal; (4) the Board erred when it concluded that no water quality standard violation could occur; (5) the Board properly considered cumulative impact of mining activity in its analysis; (6) the Board properly relied on evidence regarding aquatic life; (7) the attorney fee award was improper; and (8) the district court erred in ruling that the Board was properly included as a party on judicial review. View "Mont. Environmental Information Center v. Westmoreland Rosebud Mining" on Justia Law

This case concerns the interpretation of two oil and gas leases negotiated in Boulder County, Colorado in the 1980s. In 2014, during the secondary terms of the leases, necessary repairs to a third party’s sales pipeline forced the lessee to shut in otherwise commercially viable wells on the leased properties for approximately four months. The question before the Colorado Supreme Court in this case was whether this four-month shut-in caused the leases to terminate under their respective cessation-of-production clauses. Examining the specific leases at issue here, the Supreme Court concluded the four-month shut-in did not trigger termination under their cessation-of-production clauses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, but vacated the division’s opinion to the extent it adopted the commercial discovery rule to universally define the term “production” in Colorado oil and gas leases as “capable of production.” View "Board of County Commissioners v. Crestone Peak Resources" on Justia Law

In 2018, Presidential Proclamation 9693 imposed duties on imports of solar panels, starting at 30% and scheduled to decrease each year to 25%, 20%, and in the final year, 15%. Importers of bifacial solar modules, consisting of cells that convert sunlight into electricity on both the front and back of the cells, petitioned the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), asking that bifacial solar panels not be subjected to the duties. Ultimately, bifacial solar panels were excluded from the duties. In October 2020, Presidential Proclamation 10101, “modified” Proclamation 9693 to withdraw the exclusion of bifacial solar panels from the scheduled duties, and to increase the fourth-year duty rate to 18%. IImporters of bifacial solar panels sued, alleging that the statute authorizing the President to “modify” Proclamation 9693 only allowed him to make previously adopted safeguard measures more trade-liberalizing while eliminating the exclusion of bifacial panels and raising the fourth-year duty were trade-restrictive. They further argued that even if the President had the authority to “modify” safeguards in a trade-restrictive direction, he failed to follow appropriate procedures.The Trade Court agreed that the authority to “modify” a safeguard is limited to trade-liberalizing changes but rejected the procedural challenges under the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. 2251. The Federal Circuit reversed. The President’s interpretation of the statute, which allows him to “modify” an existing safeguard in a trade-restricting direction, is not unreasonable. In adopting Proclamation 10101, the President committed no significant procedural violation. View "Solar Energy Industries Association v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission allocating partial replacement power costs to Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF), holding that the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) waived the arguments it presented on appeal.In its appeal to the Supreme Court for judicial review OPC raised a series of legal challenges to the Commission's authority to assign partial costs and consider mitigating factors when making a determination that DEF's actions were "reasonable and prudent" and argued that the Commission erred in interpreting and applying the burden of proof. DEF argued in response that the issues were not preserved for appellate review. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed, holding that the issues raised by OPC were not properly preserved and were thus waived. View "Citizens of State of Fla. v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Equalization affirming the Wyoming Departments of Audit and Revenue's mineral tax audit assessments of Chesapeake Operating, LLC's oil and gas production, holding that the State Board of Equalization did not misinterpret Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-14-203(b)(iv) when it found that Chesapeake's field facilities did not qualify as processing facilities.On appeal, Chesapeake argued that the Board erred in concluding that Chesapeake's facilities qualified as processing facilities under the mineral tax statutes and that the proper point of valuation for its gas production was at the custody transfer meters. The district court certified the case directly to the Supreme Court, which affirmed, holding that the Board correctly interpreted and applied Wyo. Stat. Ann. 39-14-201(a)(xviii) when it found that the seven facilities at issue were not processing facilities. View "Chesapeake Operating, LLC v. State, Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court reversing the decision of the Town of Eliot's board of appeals vacating the planning board's approval of a large solar array project, holding that the project did not fit the definition of "public utility facility" within the meaning of the Town zoning ordinance.Odiorne Lane Solar, LLC applied to the Planning Board for a approval to build a large solar array project on land located in the Town's rural district. The Planning Board approved the application. The board of appeals, however, vacated the approval. The superior court vacated the board of appeals' decision. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the superior court's judgment, holding that, at the relevant times for this application, the ordinance did not permit the location of the project within the rural district. View "Odiorne Lane Solar, LLC v. Town of Eliot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the circuit court denying Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in this action brought by the City and County of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply (collectively, Plaintiffs) against a number of oil and gas producers (collectively, Defendants), holding that there was no error.Plaintiffs sued Defendants alleging public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants engaged in a deceptive promotion campaign and misled the public about the dangers and environmental impact of using their fossil fuel products. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Supreme Court denied the motions, holding (1) Defendants were subject to specific jurisdiction in Hawai'i; (2) the CAA displaced federal common law governing interstate pollution damages suit, and following displacement, federal common law did and does not preempt state law; and (3) the CAA did not preempt Plaintiffs' claims. View "City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Ohio Power Siting Board approving two large solar farms that were proposed to be built in Preble County, holding that the Board's order was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.The General Assembly authorized commercial solar farms in Ohio but made their construction conditional on the Board's approval. The Board approved the solar farms after its staff agreed to stipulations imposing a number of conditions on the construction and operation of the facilities. Certain citizens appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was nothing unlawful about the Board's adherence to its own regulations and that the Board did not act unreasonably in making the determinations required by Ohio Rev. Code 4906.10(A). View "In re Application of Alamo Solar I, LLC" on Justia Law

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is a federal agency tasked with selling the power generated at various hydroelectric facilities in the Pacific Northwest. In the decision on review, BPA set its rates for the 2022–2023 fiscal period. Environmental groups now petition for a review of that decision, arguing that BPA failed to comply with a pair of statutory duties in the Northwest Power Act relating to fish and wildlife.   The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. The panel held that petitioners had Article III standing. First, petitioners have alleged injury, in fact where they are interested in the fish populations in the Columbia River Basin, and ongoing harm to these fish populations inflicts an injury on petitioners’ members. Second, any harm to the fish populations is traceable to BPA’s BP-22 ratemaking. Third, Petitioners have adequately alleged redressability where it is a reasonable inference from the historical record that Petitioners’ injuries would be at least partially redressed by a favorable decision on the merits. Turning to the merits, the panel held that the text and structure of the NWPA as a whole convincingly provide that NWEPA Section 4(h)(11)(A) does not apply to rate making where that provision does not mention ratemaking, and other features of the statutory scheme buttress this conclusion. View "IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, ET AL V. BPA" on Justia Law

Defendant Compass Minerals Louisiana, Inc. (“Compass”) is part of a mineral company that owns and operates multiple salt mines. Among Compass’s locations is its Cote Blanche salt mine. Compass contracted with Louisiana-based companies Fire & Safety Specialists, Inc. (“FSS”) and MC Electric, LLC (“MCE”). An electrician employed by MCE died in an accident at the Cote Blanche salt mine. Both FSS and MCE held a commercial general liability policy with QBE. QBE filed a declaratory action in federal court, asserting that the indemnification and additional-insured provisions in the FSS and MCE purchase orders are “null, void, and unenforceable” under the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (“LOAIA”). The court rejected QBE’s argument that Compass “drills for” salt by using the drill-and-blast method for breaking a salt wall. It concluded, relatedly, that the term “drilling for minerals” in the LOAIA “should be construed as referring to the drilling of a well.” QBE appealed.   Finding no clear and controlling precedent on this issue of Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Louisiana Supreme Court: 1.     Does the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act, La. Stat. Ann. Section 9:2780, apply to provisions in agreements that pertain to “drilling for minerals,” even where the agreement does not “pertain to a well”? 2.     If the Act applies to agreements that pertain to “drilling for minerals,” irrespective of the agreement’s nexus to a well, does the Act apply to invalidate these indemnification and additional-insured provisions contained in contracts for fire suppression and electrical work in a salt mine, by virtue of the salt mine’s use of a “drill-and-blast” method for mining salt? View "QBE Syndicate 1036 v. Compass Minerals" on Justia Law