Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by Solarize Indiana, Inc. seeking judicial review of the administration decision of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approving two filings submitted by Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. under an expedited process known as the "Thirty-Day Rule," holding that Solarize lacked standing to bring this appeal.In objecting to Vectren's filings, Solarize, an organization that promotes the use of solar power in Indiana, asserted that the filings were not compliant with federal law. The IURC approved the filings, after which Solarize requested judicial review. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Solarize lacked standing because it failed to show that it was "adversely affected" by the IURC's order. View "Solarize Indiana, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approving a power purchase agreement (PPA) between Maui Electric Company, Limited (MECO) and Paeahu Solar LLC (Paeahu), holding that the PUC satisfied its public trust duties in this case.Under the PPA, MECO would purchase renewable energy from Paeahu's solar-plus-battery plant located within the Ulupalakua Ranch on Maui. Pono Power Coalition, a Maui community group, challenging the winning bidders' post-selection use of the same counsel to negotiate non-price PPA terms and asserting that the PUC failed to fulfill its public trust duties. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to inject antitrust standards into PPA approval proceedings; (2) the PUC appropriately evaluated the allegations of anticompetitive conduct; (3) the statutes governing the PUC's PPA review reflect the core public trust principles; and (4) the PUC properly approved the PPA. View "In re Maui Electric Company, Ltd." on Justia Law

Citizens for Fair Rates and the Environment and New Energy Economy, Inc., two organizations that represented energy consumers (collectively, "New Energy"), intervened in the administrative proceedings before the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. New Energy raised several issues for the New Mexico Supreme Court's review, most of which attacked the Energy Transition Act ("ETA") on constitutional grounds. In addition to these constitutional challenges, New Energy also raised a single claim of error in the findings of the Commission relating to the requirement that Public Service Company of New Mexico’s ("PNM") submit a “memorandum . . . from a securities firm” in support of its application for a financing order. The Supreme Court declined to reach two of New Energy’s issues because they were not properly before the Court and were not essential to the disposition of this appeal. The Court further declined to address New Energy’s arguments regarding an invasion of judicial powers under Section 62-18-8(B) and Section 62-18- 22. With respect to the issues it deemed properly presented, the Court rejected New Energy’s constitutional challenges to the ETA, and concluded the Commission’s final order was based on a reasonable construction of Section 62-18- 4(B)(5) and was supported by substantial evidence. View "Citizens for Fair Rates et al. v. NMPRC" on Justia Law

Congress established the Osage reservation in Oklahoma Territory in 1872. Years later, “mammoth reserves of oil and gas” were found. Congress severed the subsurface mineral estate, reserved it to the tribe, and placed it into trust with the federal government as trustee. Royalties are distributed to tribal members listed on an approved membership roll (a headright).In previous litigation, the Claims Court found the tribe had standing and found the government liable for breaching its fiduciary duties by failing to collect the full amount of royalties and failing to invest the royalty revenue. Individual headright owners (not the present plaintiffs) attempted to intervene. The Claims Court found that the individuals had no legal interest in the dispute because they were not a party to the trust relationship. The $380 million settlement agreement stated that the tribe, “on behalf of itself and the [h]eadright [h]olders,” waived any claims relating to the tribe’s trust assets or resources that were based on violations occurring before September 30, 2011. In a federal suit, filed by individual headright owners, the Tenth Circuit held that headright owners had a trust relationship with the federal government, which was ordered to provide an accounting.In 2019, based on allegations that the accounting revealed mismanagement of the trust fund, headright owners filed the present suit under the Tucker Act and the Indian Tucker Act, citing breach of statutorily imposed trust obligations. The Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit. A trust relationship exists between the headright owners and the government and the 1906 Act imposes an obligation on the federal government to distribute funds to headright owners in a timely and proper manner. View "Fletcher v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2007, CalBio acquired two facilities and began upgrading them to biomass facilities. CalBio secured Authority to Construct permits that allowed construction and allowed the facilities to generate and sell electricity. The permits could be converted into Permits to Operate after the facilities met conditions, including emissions tests. CalBio labeled the facilities “in operation” in 2008. The facilities passed pre-parallel testing under PG&E interconnection agreements and began selling electricity on the spot market and later to PG&E. The facilities operated fairly continuously throughout 2009, occasionally noncompliant with emissions regulations.The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 123 Stat. 115, allowed entities to receive federal grants if they “placed in service” a renewable energy facility during 2009-2010 or began constructing property in 2009-2010. CalBio was experiencing financial difficulties but did not seek grants because its facilities had been placed in service in 2008. CalBio suspended operations in 2010 and sold the facilities. Akeida spent $15 million improving the facilities, which passed emissions tests in 2011. Akeida applied for grants, claiming that the facilities were placed in service when Akeida’s emissions improvements were certified.The Treasury Department largely rejected Akeida’s claims, reasoning that most of the property had been placed in service in 2008. The Claims Court and Federal Circuit agreed, applying Treasury’s regulatory definition of “placed in service,” which required it to determine the “taxable year in which the property is . . . availabil[e] for a specifically assigned function.” View "Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

For seven years, NTE worked to build a natural gas-fueled power plant in Killingly, Connecticut to sell electricity on the New England grid. NTE worked with ISO, the independent system operator authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to manage the regional grid, to have the project “qualified” to bid for the right to sell electricity. NTE secured a “capacity supply obligation” (CSO) for the 2022 commitment period. NTE secured a guaranteed income stream for the first seven years of the plant’s operation.NTE subsequently encountered setbacks that prevented it from meeting its financing and construction goals. On November 4, 2021, NTE told ISO that it remained confident it could complete construction on time but ISO-NE asked FERC to terminate the Killingly plant’s CSO. In January 2022, FERC did so. In February, the Second Circuit issued an emergency stay of FERC’s order. FERC likely fell short of its obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to explain its decision. Absent emergency relief, FERC’s order would have irreparably harmed NTE, preventing it from participating in an auction to sell future electricity capacity to New England consumers. Nothing in FERC’s reasoning suggests the risk that incumbents may have to reallocate electricity capacity amongst themselves outweighs the harm of delaying NTE’s project, which could benefit consumers through more efficient, less expensive electricity. View "In re: NTE Connecticut, LLC" on Justia Law

Canyon Mine is located within the Kaibab National Forest, which has been withdrawn from new mining claims; the withdrawal did not extinguish “valid existing rights.” The Trust challenged the Forest Service’s determination that Energy Fuels holds a valid existing right to operate the uranium mine, alleging that in determining that there were “valuable mineral deposits,” 30 U.S.C. 22, the Service ignored sunk costs. The Ninth Circuit previously held that the Trust had Article III standing.The Ninth Circuit subsequently affirmed the summary judgment rejection of the claim. It was not arbitrary for the Service to ignore costs that have already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Applying Chevron analysis, the court held that the critical term in the Mining Act, “valuable mineral deposits,” was ambiguous. The Department of the Interior’s interpretation of the Act, in which sunk costs are not considered when determining whether a mine is profitable, was permissible and not manifestly contrary to the Act; it was consistent with the prudent person and marketability tests. It is a basic principle of economics that sunk costs should be ignored when making a rational decision about whether to make further expenditures. It was not arbitrary for the Forest Service to rely on the Department's interpretation. View "Grand Canyon Trust v. Provencio" on Justia Law

CP and Cimarex entered into the Master Service Agreement (MSA). Cimarex hired CP to work at Cimarex’s Oklahoma oil well. CP assigned Trent, an employee of one of its subcontractors, to work at the well. A flash fire occurred at the well. Trent was severely burned Trent sued Cimarex and CP. Cimarex and its insurers settled with Trent for $4.5 million. The Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) voids indemnity agreements that pertain to wells for oil, gas, or water or to mineral mines unless the indemnity agreement is supported by liability insurance. The MSA's mutual indemnity provision required Cimarex and CP to indemnify each other; CP was obligated to obtain a minimum of $1 million in commercial general liability insurance and $2 million in excess liability insurance, Cimarex was required to obtain $1 million in general liability insurance and $25 million in excess liability insurance. CP obtained more coverage than the minimum required by the MSA, but its policy limited indemnity coverage. Cimarex sought indemnity from CP, which paid Cimarex $3 million, but refused to indemnify Cimarex for the remaining $1.5 million.The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CP. TOAIA contemplates that mutual indemnity obligations will be enforceable only up to the limits of insurance each party has agreed to provide in equal amounts to the other party as indemnitee. CP did not breach the MSA because CP was only required to indemnify Cimarex up to $3 million. View "Cimarex Energy Co. v. CP Well Testing L.L.C." on Justia Law

Kelly owns 160 acres within compulsory oil and gas drilling and production units established by the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation. Aethon is the designated operator of the units which include 16 producing wells. Kelly’s land is not subject to a valid oil, gas or mineral lease to Aethon or to anyone else. Louisiana’s oil and gas conservation law provides that the Commissioner may establish a drilling unit even if all owners of oil and gas interests have not agreed to pool their interests. When the operator proposes to drill a well in a unit, owners may participate in the risk by contributing to the drilling costs. If an owner does not participate and the well produces, the operator may recover out of production the nonparticipating owner’s share of expenditures and, in certain cases, a “risk charge” of 200 percent of that expenditure share. Louisiana law requires operators to report information to unleased owners if requested.Kelly sought a declaration that Aethon failed to comply with disclosure and reporting obligations and had forfeited its right to demand contribution from Kelly. In two certified mail letters to Aethon, Kelly had informed Aethon that it was an unleased owner within the Units and requested information regarding the wells, and subsequently, cited Aethon’s failure to provide that information. The district court granted Aethon summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit vacated in part. The district court impermissibly imposed requirements on Kelly that are not present in the statutes. Kelly’s letters complied with the statute. View "B A Kelly Land Co., L.L.C. v. Aethon Energy Operating, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals rendering judgment that delivery of the grantor's fractional share in the pipeline occurred in the gathering pipeline rather than the transportation pipeline, holding that the court of appeals did not err.A deed conveying the mineral estate in this case reserved a nonparticipating royalty interest in kind, meaning that the grantor retained ownership of a fractional share of all minerals in place. The deed required delivery of the grantor's fractional share "free of cost in the pipe line, if any, otherwise free of cost at the mouth of the well or mine[.]" The parties agreed that the royalty did not include production and postproduction costs incurred before delivery into the existing gas pipeline but disagreed about the pipeline's location under the terms of the deed. The trial court concluded that delivery occurred in the transportation pipeline. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that delivery occurs in the gathering pipeline. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly interpreted the deed in this case. View "Nettye Engler Energy, LP v. Bluestone Natural Resources II, LLC" on Justia Law