Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asserted that it has authority under the Atomic Energy Act to license temporary, away from reactor storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel. Based on that claim of authority, the Commission issued a license for Interim Storage Partners, LLC, to operate a temporary storage facility on the Permian Basin.Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd., and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners (“PBLRO”) petitioned for review of the license. As did the State of Texas, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act doesn’t confer authority on the Commission to license such a facility.The Fifth Circuit granted Texas’ petition for review and vacated the license, finding that the Atomic Energy Act does not confer on the Commission the broad authority it claims to issue licenses for private parties to store spent nuclear fuel away from the reactor. And the Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme for dealing with nuclear waste generated from commercial nuclear power generation, thereby foreclosing the Commission’s claim of authority. View "State of Texas v. NRC" on Justia Law

After the Department of the Interior amended regulations in 2016, the American Petroleum Institute (API) challenged several of the regulations that governed the calculation of royalties for oil and natural gas produced on federal lands. The district court rejected these challenges at summary judgment, and API appealed. Because API did not show that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting the challenged provisions of the 2016 regulations, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. View "American Petroleum, et al. v. U.S. Department of Interior, et al." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Vitol, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations, a complaint filed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that sought an order affirming the assessment of a civil penalty against Vitol and one of its traders for making unlawful manipulative trades in the California energy market.   The court explained that in measuring the limitations period, the critical question is when FERC’s claim “accrues.” Vitol contended that FERC’s federal district court action was untimely because FERC’s claim accrued as soon as the allegedly unlawful trading occurred. The panel rejected Vitol’s contention and held that FERC’s claim accrued on the date that FERC assessed a civil penalty. The panel reasoned that FERC’s claim arises under 16 U.S.C. Section 823b(d)(3)(B), which gives the agency a cause of action in federal court for “affirming the assessment of the civil penalty,” and that claim does not accrue until FERC has assessed a penalty. The panel also agreed with the district court’s conclusion that FERC’s administrative process for assessing a civil penalty is itself a “proceeding” that is subject to the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. Section 2462, and therefore FERC must initiate the proceeding by issuing a notice of proposed penalty within five years of any alleged wrongdoing. View "FERC V. VITOL INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

Vistra Corporation, joined by several other electricity suppliers, petitioned the DC Circuit to review three underlying orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These orders involve the sale of electricity in capacity markets. In response to periodic concerns, the Commission has adjusted the market’s features to ensure that it remains competitive.   Vistra and accompanying suppliers (collectively, Petitioners) brought three arguments challenging the discontinuance of the default offer cap. The court explained that the Commission adequately explained its choice to rely on unit-specific review rather than a default offer cap, including that Petitioners’ recalibrated alternative would not have sufficiently mitigated anti-competition concerns. The court explained that the Commission also addressed its accounting of the risks associated with acquiring a capacity commitment, risks that it explained are limited to participation in a capacity market. Finally, Petitioners’ Section 205 rights remain intact. The Commission reasonably interpreted supplier offers in capacity markets to be merely input into obtaining the market-clearing price. These inputs are not the ultimate rates that come out of the market, which are, in turn, subject to Section 205. View "Vistra Corp. v. FERC" on Justia Law

These consolidated cases present weighty and important questions involving the separation of powers as it relates to a project of national interest. Petitioners are environmental groups challenging federal agency actions that will enable the final construction and initial operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 300-plus-mile underground pipeline that will transport natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia. But during the pendency of this matter before the Fourth Circuit, Congress proactively intervened by legislation and enacted the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Section 324 of that Act purports to ratify the agencies’ actions regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline and remove our jurisdiction over the underlying petitions. Respondents—the federal agencies and the Mountain Valley Pipeline—moved in for the dismissal of the petitions.   The Fourth Circuit granted Respondents’ motions to dismiss. In sum, with Section 324, Congress removed our jurisdiction in a way that mandates the dismissal of the underlying petitions, which challenge agency actions that grant necessary approvals for the completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The court explained that “no court” has jurisdiction to review these approvals, including the DC Circuit, whose jurisdiction is limited to “claims alleging the invalidity of [Section 324] or that an action is beyond the scope of authority conferred by [Section 324].” But Congress left in place the general grant of jurisdiction to this Court under the Natural Gas Act over challenges to future pipelines or other natural gas facilities in this circuit, as well as future challenges to operations of the Mountain Valley Pipeline not covered by the express terms of Section 324. View "Appalachian Voices v. United States Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

Petitioner Fairless Energy, LLC (Fairless Energy) contends that it pays too much for the transportation of natural gas to fuel its electric power generating plant located in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania (the Fairless plant). In these consolidated petitions for review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission), Fairless Energy maintains that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and contrary to reasoned decision-making, when it exercised primary jurisdiction over Fairless Energy’s natural gas transportation rate dispute with intervenor Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), and determined that the appropriate rate was the incremental rate for pipeline expansion under Transco’s Tariff.   The DC Circuit denied the petitions for review. The court held that Fairless Energy fails to demonstrate that either the Commission’s exercise of primary jurisdiction over the Transco-Fairless Energy natural gas transportation rate dispute or its decision regarding the appropriate rate was arbitrary and capricious. The court explained that the Commission reasonably started its evaluation with the 2018 Agreement’s Exhibit C and determined that it unambiguously “did not establish a negotiated rate” because it stated “None” in the location for the specification of a negotiated rate. After reaching this decision, the Commission was appropriately able to decline to consider extrinsic evidence. View "Fairless Energy, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Alliance Pipeline L.P. (“Alliance”) entered into contracts with four states (“State Agreements”) as well as contracts with individual landowners in order to build a natural gas pipeline. The contracts with landowners provide easements for the pipeline right-of-way. In 2018, some landowners on the pipeline right-of-way filed a class-action lawsuit against Alliance. After the class was certified, Alliance moved to compel arbitration for the approximately 73 percent of plaintiffs whose easements contain arbitration provisions. Alliance appealed, arguing the district court erred by not sending all issues to arbitration for the plaintiffs whose easements contain arbitration provisions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that the district court that the damages issues are subject to arbitration for the plaintiffs whose easements contain an arbitration provision. Plaintiffs make two arguments against sending any issues to arbitration: (1) Plaintiffs’ claims cannot be within the scope of the arbitration provisions because the claims allege lack of compensation for “ongoing yield losses,” not “damages to crops” and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the State Agreements, which do not have arbitration provisions. The court found the arbitration agreements to be enforceable and to cover all issues. The court held that as to the arbitration class members, the claims should be dismissed without prejudice. As to the members of the class without arbitration provisions, the court saw no reason why these class members cannot proceed with the lawsuit in the normal course at the district court. View "H&T Fair Hills, Ltd. v. Alliance Pipeline L.P." on Justia Law

Entergy Arkansas, LLC, sells electricity to Arkansans. The Arkansas Public Service Commission sets the retail rates that Entergy can charge. Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc. (“AEEC”) is a trade association comprised of large industrial and agricultural Entergy customers. Entergy asked the Commission for permission to raise its retail rates.  AEEC intervened, urging the Commission to deny Entergy’s request. The Commission ultimately did so. Entergy then sued the Commission in September 2020, alleging that the denial violated federal and state law. The Commission promptly moved to dismiss, but the district court denied its motion. Entergy moved for summary judgment. A week later—about twenty-two months after the suit commenced—AEEC moved to intervene as of right or, alternatively, to intervene permissively. AEEC appealed only the denial of its motion for the intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial. The court explained that the Commission’s trial presentation does not evince the sort of “misfeasance or nonfeasance in protecting the public” necessary to overcome the presumption of adequacy. The court explained that the Commission has maintained throughout this litigation that the lawfulness of its denial must be evaluated solely on the basis of the evidence presented in the administrative proceeding (in which AEEC participated) and that additional evidence before the district court is, therefore, unnecessary. AEEC, therefore, has not shown that the Commission inadequately represents its interest in this litigation, as required by Rule 24(a)(2). View "Entergy Arkansas, LLC v. Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that an action taken by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in issuing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System permit was arbitrary and capricious and that the permit did not comply with a Minnesota rule addressing wastewater discharges to groundwater, Minn. R. 7060.0600, subp. 2.At issue was the MPCA's issuance of the permit for a Poly Met Mining, Inc. project. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that the MPCA failed properly to consider whether the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) applied to future discharges from Poly Met's facility to groundwater. The Supreme Court remanded the cause, holding (1) remand was required because there were suggestions that the MPCA did not properly consider whether the permit complies with the CWA and that the MPCA did not genuinely engage in reasoned decision-making; (2) remand was required for consideration of whether a variance was available to allow the planned discharge to the unsaturated zone within the containment system; and (3) the prohibition on injecting polluted water directly to the groundwater saturated zone for long-term storage did not apply in this case. View "In the Matter of the Denial of Contested Case Hearing Requests & Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" on Justia Law

Three conservation groups challenged the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of Jonah Energy’s development project on state and federal land in Wyoming. The project was designed to drill exploratory wells on land for which Jonah possessed development rights. The conservation groups argued the district court erred in upholding the BLM’s approval under the National Environmental Protection Act and the Federal Land Polocy and Management Act. Specifically, they contended the BLM inadequately considered the impact of the project on the sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope migration and grazing patterns. The Tenth Circuit concluded the BLM adequately collected and considered information on the sage-grouse and pronghorn, and selected a development plan that met statutory requirements. View "Western Watersheds Project, et al. v. United States Bureau of Land Management, et al." on Justia Law