Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

Public Service Company of Colorado applied for a tax refund from the state Department of Revenue. The company argued that it was entitled to a refund because it paid taxes when it was actually eligible for an exemption. The district court held in favor of the company, concluding that electricity was tangible personal property and that the production of electricity constituted manufacturing, thus entitling the company to the exemption (the "manufacturing exemption" under 39-26-709(1)(a)(II) C.R.S. (2013)). Upon review of the Department's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that section 39-26-104(1)(d.1) applied in this case: electricity did not qualify as tangible personal property, and that the Code "contemplate[d] that 'electricity furnished and sold'" was to be taxed as a service. View "Department of Revenue v. Public Service Co." on Justia Law

These two appeals concerned the efforts of two corporations to explore and develop natural gas resources in two municipalities. In response, both municipalities adopted amendments to their zoning laws that prohibited all oil and gas exploration. The corporations brought actions challenging the zoning laws. Supreme Court declared the zoning laws valid, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the supersession clause in the statewide Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law does not preempt the home rule authority vested in municipalities to regulate oil and gas production activities, including hydrofracking, within municipal boundaries through the adoption of zoning laws. View "Wallach v. Town of Dryden " on Justia Law

Petitioners owned the royalty interests under two oil and gas leases. The leases were later pooled to form the Cogdell Canyon Reef Unit (CCRU). Since the CCRU was formed, a method of enhanced oil recovery began to be used by injecting carbon dixoide into the reservoir to sweep the oil to the production wells. With this method, the carbon dioxide returns to the surface entrained in casinghead gas, which is gas produced with the oil. At issue in this case was whether the royalty due on the gasinghead gas under the parties’ agreements must be determined as if the injected carbon dioxide were not present and whether the royalty owners were required to share with the working interest the expense of removing the carbon dioxide from the gas. The Supreme Court concluded that, under the parties’ agreements the royalty owners must share in the cost of carbon dioxide removal and were not entitled to a royalty based on the carbon dioxide’s value when it is produced with the casinghead gas. View "French v. Occidental Permian Ltd." on Justia Law

A Regional Transmission Organization is a voluntary association primarily of utilities that either own electrical transmission lines that comprise a regional electrical grid or generate electricity that is transmitted to the customers in the region. Members of a Regional Transmission Organization and the Illinois Commerce Commission, on behalf of the largest electrical utility in Illinois, (collectively PJM) obtained a remand of an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2009. That order allocated costs for certain new high‐voltage network transmission lines that are part of a regional grid that includes the western utilities, but are all located in PJM’s eastern region and primarily benefit that region. Unhappy with the order issued on remand, PJM returned to court. The Seventh Circuit again remanded, acknowledging that the benefits of new facilities to the utilities may be unquantifiable because they depend on the likelihood and magnitude of outages and other contingencies. The order should not shift a grossly disproportionate share of costs to western utilities, given that the projects will confer only future, speculative, and limited benefits to those utilities.View "IL Commerce Comm'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

Defendants Citation Oil & Gas Corp., Petro-Hunt LLC, and other working interest owners appealed a district court summary judgment quieting title to an oil and gas lease in Greggory Tank. In 1982, George and Phyllis Tank executed an oil and gas lease in favor of Petro-Lewis Funds, Inc. The parties agreed to extend the primary term of the lease for three more years, ending July 15, 1989. In May 1983, the Tank 3-10 well was spudded in the northwest quarter. The well produced until October 1996. In June 1998, the Tank 3-10R well was spudded and replaced the Tank 3-10 well. The Tank 3-10R well continues to produce oil or gas. In June 1988, the Tank 13-10 well was spudded in the southwest quarter. The well continuously produced oil or gas until October 2008, and intermittently produced oil or gas until January 2012. Tank was the successor in interest to George and Phyllis Tank and was the owner of minerals in the southwest quarter of section 10. In September 2011, Tank sued the defendants, seeking to cancel the oil and gas lease to the extent it covered the southwest quarter. The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Tank's claims. The defendants argued the continued drilling and operation of oil and gas wells on the leased property maintained the lease beyond the primary term and the lease remained in full force and effect. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling the lease had expired and was no longer valid on the southwest quarter. The court determined summary judgment was appropriate because there were only issues of law to resolve, including the interpretation of an unambiguous contract and the application of undisputed facts. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Tank v. Citation Oil & Gas Corp." on Justia Law

A mineral lessee operated two wells on two contiguous tracts of land. When one of the wells stopped producing, the lessee pooled parts of the two mineral leases. Landowners subsequently bought a tract of land that included the road the lessee used to access the producing well. The road was across the surface of the lease without production. After traffic on the road increased, the landowners filed suit against the lessee, claiming that the lessee had no legal right to use the surface of their tract of land to produce minerals from the operating well. The trial court determined that the lessee did not have the right to use the road to access the producing lease and granted declaratory and injunctive relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) once pooling occurred, the pooled parts of the two contiguous tracts no longer maintained separate identities insofar as where production from the pooled interests was located; and (2) therefore, the lessee had the right to use the road to access the pooled part of the tract of land containing the producing well. View "Key Operating & Equip., Inc. v. Hegar" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was an order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission holding that it had jurisdiction to decide whether the force majeure clauses in the Appellants' contracts with Idaho Power Company excused them from their contractual obligations to have their power generation facilities constructed and in operation by specified dates in order to sell electricity to Idaho Power. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission. View "Idaho Power v. New Energy Two & IPUC" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Easthams entered into a five-year lease with Chesapeake, granting the right to extract oil and gas from the Easthams’ 49 acres in Jefferson County, Ohio. The Easthams were granted a royalty of one-eighth of the oil and gas produced from the premises. Until a well was commenced on the premises, the Easthams were entitled to “delay rental” payments of $10 per acre annually. The lease stated “Upon the expiration of this lease and within sixty (60) days thereinafter, Lessor grants to Lessee an option to extend or renew under similar terms a like lease.” In 2012, Chesapeake filed a notice of extension with the County Recorder and sent the Easthams a letter stating that it had extended the lease on the same terms for an additional five years, with a delay rental payment for $490.66. The Easthams later claimed that they did not read and did not understand the lease, but were not pressured into signing it. They filed a class action, seeking a declaration that the lease expired and that title to the oil and gas underneath the property be quieted in their favor. They claimed that the agreement did not give Chesapeake the option to unilaterally extend, but required that the parties renegotiate at the end of the initial term. The district court entered summary judgment for Chesapeake, concluding that the lease’s plain language gave Chesapeake options either to extend the lease under its existing terms or renegotiate under new terms. The Sixth Circuit affirmed View "Eastham v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C." on Justia Law

BP and Andarko appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the the government on the question of their liability for civil penalties under 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(7)(A). Section 1321(b)(7)(A) imposes mandatory penalties upon the owners of facilities "from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged." The court found no genuine dispute as to defendants' liability for civil penalties where the well's cement failed, resulting in the loss of controlled confinement of oil such that the oil ultimately entered navigable waters. Therefore, the well is a facility "from which oil or a hazardous substance was discharged""into or upon the navigable waters of the United States." Andarko and BP "shall be subject to a civil penalty" calculated in accordance with statutory and regulatory guidelines and this liability is unaffected by the path traversed by the discharged oil. Nor is liability precluded by any culpability on the part of the vessel's owner or operator. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging a Maryland program subsidizing the participation of a new power plant in the federal wholesale energy market. Maryland's plan was ultimately formalized in the Generation Order. The district court agreed with plaintiffs' contention that the Maryland scheme was preempted under the Federal Power Act's (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(b)(1), authorizing provisions, which grant exclusive authority over interstate rates to FERC. The court concluded that the Generation Order is field preempted because it seeks to regulate a field that the FPA has occupied. The court also concluded that the Generation Order is conflict preempted because it conflicts with the auction rates approved by FERC and conflicts with PJM's new entry price adjustment (NEPA). Accordingly, the court held that the Generation Order was preempted under federal law and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian" on Justia Law