Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the approval process for a large-scale commercial offshore wind energy facility located on the Outer Continental Shelf, fourteen miles south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. The plaintiffs, consisting of commercial fishing entities and a nonprofit organization, challenged the federal government's approval of the project, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, which included various federal departments and agencies, as well as the business entity responsible for the wind project. The court found that the plaintiffs' ESA claims were non-justiciable due to lack of standing and mootness, as the initial biological opinion had been superseded by a new one. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs were outside the zone of interests protected by the NEPA and the MMPA, and that the Alliance had failed to show that the Corps' issuance of the CWA Section 404 permit was arbitrary or capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court's rulings de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgments, agreeing that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their ESA claims and that the claims were moot. The court also upheld the district court's zone-of-interests rulings regarding the NEPA and MMPA claims. Additionally, the court found that the Corps' decision to issue the CWA permit was not arbitrary or capricious and that the BOEM's approval of the project under the OCSLA was lawful. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs' arguments did not demonstrate that the BOEM had acted arbitrarily or capriciously in approving the project. View "Seafreeze Shoreside, Inc. v. Department of the Interior" on Justia Law

Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board for approval to construct a 3.7-mile natural-gas-distribution pipeline in Maumee, Ohio. The application was submitted under an accelerated review process for pipelines less than five miles long. Yorktown Management, L.L.C., which owns property adjacent to the proposed pipeline route, raised concerns about the safety and environmental impact of the pipeline, particularly its proximity to their commercial office building.The Ohio Power Siting Board approved Columbia's application under the accelerated review process, finding that the project met the necessary criteria. Yorktown filed a motion to intervene and later a motion to suspend the review, arguing that the board had not adequately addressed their safety concerns. The board denied Yorktown's motion to suspend and subsequently denied their application for rehearing, leading Yorktown to appeal the decision.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the board's decision. The court found that Columbia's application did not require a 50-foot-wide permanent easement along the entire pipeline route, as Yorktown claimed. The court also determined that Yorktown had waived its right to challenge the board's rejection of testimony from a different pipeline project. Additionally, the court held that the board did not err in refusing to suspend its review of the accelerated application, as Yorktown failed to demonstrate good cause for suspension. The court concluded that the board did not improperly defer to Columbia and had appropriately conditioned the approval on compliance with relevant safety regulations. View "In re Letter of Notification Application of Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. for the Ford Street Pipeline Project" on Justia Law

Holtec International applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to construct and operate a spent nuclear fuel storage facility in New Mexico. The NRC denied multiple requests for intervention and a hearing from various petitioners, including Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Fasken Land and Minerals. These petitioners argued that the NRC acted unreasonably and contrary to law in denying their requests.The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) found the petitioners' contentions inadmissible and denied their petitions to intervene. The NRC affirmed the Board’s decisions. Beyond Nuclear, Environmental Petitioners (including Sierra Club), and Fasken each petitioned for review of the orders denying intervention. The case was held in abeyance until the NRC issued Holtec a license, after which the case was removed from abeyance for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the petitions and found that the NRC reasonably declined to admit the petitioners' factual contentions and complied with statutory and regulatory requirements. The court held that Beyond Nuclear did not raise a genuine dispute of law or fact regarding the NRC’s authority to consider Holtec’s application. The court also found that Environmental Petitioners failed to demonstrate any genuine disputes of material fact or law in their contentions related to statutory authority, alleged misrepresentations by Holtec, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, the court determined that Fasken’s late-filed contentions were procedurally defective, untimely, and immaterial.The court denied all the petitions for review, affirming the NRC’s decisions to deny the requests for intervention. View "Beyond Nuclear, Inc. v. NRC" on Justia Law

In 2021, petitioners challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authorization of two liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals in Cameron County, Texas, and a related pipeline. The court partially granted the petitions and remanded the case to FERC without vacating the orders. On remand, FERC reauthorized the projects, prompting petitioners to challenge the reauthorization, arguing non-compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA).Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found FERC’s environmental justice analysis inadequate and required FERC to either justify its chosen analysis radius or use a different one. FERC was also directed to reconsider its public interest determinations under the NGA. On remand, FERC expanded its environmental justice analysis but did not issue a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which petitioners argued was necessary. FERC also did not consider a new carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) proposal as part of its environmental review.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found FERC’s failure to issue a supplemental EIS for its updated environmental justice analysis arbitrary and capricious, as the new analysis provided a significantly different environmental picture. The court also held that FERC should have considered the CCS proposal as a connected action or a reasonable alternative. Additionally, the court found FERC’s rejection of air quality data from a nearby monitor arbitrary and capricious. The court vacated FERC’s reauthorization orders and remanded the case for further proceedings, requiring FERC to issue a supplemental EIS and consider the CCS proposal. View "City of Port Isabel v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) to construct and operate a pipeline through several states, including New Jersey. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation and other petitioners argued that FERC overlooked significant environmental consequences and failed to consider evidence of a lack of market need for the pipeline. They also contended that FERC ignored New Jersey state laws mandating reductions in natural gas consumption.The lower court, FERC, approved the pipeline project, finding that the public benefits outweighed the adverse impacts. FERC based its decision on precedent agreements with local gas distribution companies (LDCs) and concluded that the project satisfied the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Petitioners requested a rehearing, arguing that FERC's decision was arbitrary and capricious. FERC denied the rehearing request, maintaining its position on market need and environmental impact assessments.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that FERC acted arbitrarily by not adequately explaining its decision regarding the significance of greenhouse gas emissions and failing to discuss possible mitigation measures. The court also held that FERC did not properly consider evidence showing that current capacity was sufficient to meet New Jersey's natural gas demands and that the precedent agreements with LDCs did not necessarily indicate market need. Additionally, the court found that FERC misinterpreted New Jersey's mandatory energy efficiency laws as unenforceable.The court vacated FERC's orders and remanded the case for further action, requiring FERC to reassess the market need and environmental impacts of the pipeline project. View "New Jersey Conservation Foundation v. FERC" on Justia Law

Healthy Gulf and other environmental groups challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) decision to authorize the construction and operation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities in southwestern Louisiana. They argued that FERC did not properly address certain requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Specifically, they contended that FERC inadequately explained its failure to determine the environmental significance of the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and failed to adequately assess the cumulative effects of the project's nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions. However, they acknowledged that FERC did consider alternatives to the project.The Commission had issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and authorized the project, finding it environmentally acceptable and consistent with the public interest. Petitioners requested a rehearing, which was deemed denied by operation of law when FERC did not respond timely. They then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that FERC inadequately explained its failure to determine the significance of the project's GHG emissions and failed to properly assess the cumulative effects of the project's NO2 emissions. The court noted that FERC's reliance on the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) to assess cumulative effects was insufficient and that FERC did not adequately consider the significance of GHG emissions using available methodologies. However, the court upheld FERC's consideration of alternatives to the project, finding that FERC had provided sufficient reasoning for rejecting the proposed alternatives.The court granted the petitions in part, denied them in part, and remanded the case to FERC for further consideration without vacating the authorization order. The court instructed FERC to provide a more thorough explanation of its GHG emissions analysis and to properly assess the cumulative effects of NO2 emissions. View "Healthy Gulf v. FERC" on Justia Law

Golden Pass LNG Terminal, LLC was authorized to export up to 937 billion cubic feet per year of liquified natural gas (LNG) from a facility in Texas, with 129 billion cubic feet restricted to countries with a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S. In 2022, the Department of Energy (DOE) removed this FTA-based restriction. The Sierra Club challenged this removal, arguing that it would increase actual exports, leading to more shipping traffic and harming the aesthetic and recreational interests of a member living near the facility.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the facility's expansion in January 2021, and DOE approved increased exports to FTA countries in June 2021. DOE later approved exports to non-FTA countries in 2022, which Sierra Club opposed. After DOE denied Sierra Club's rehearing request, Sierra Club sought judicial review of the orders allowing greater exports to non-FTA countries.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and focused on the issue of constitutional standing. The court found that Sierra Club failed to provide evidence or argument in its opening brief to show that removing the FTA-based restriction would likely increase export volumes. The court noted that Sierra Club's arguments in its reply brief were insufficient to establish standing, as they were not patently obvious and irrefutable. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for review due to lack of Article III standing. View "Sierra Club v. DOE" on Justia Law

The case involves Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), a natural gas company that sought to abandon and expand its pipeline facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To do so, Transco needed a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which it obtained. However, the certificate was subject to conditions, including that Transco receive three additional permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). After receiving these permits, Transco began its pipeline project. However, three environmental advocates filed an administrative appeal with the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) challenging PADEP's issuance of the permits. In response, Transco initiated a lawsuit in the District Court seeking to enjoin the administrative appeal, arguing that the Natural Gas Act preempts the state law allowing the appeal.The District Court rejected Transco's preemption arguments and denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Transco appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, finding that none of the theories of preemption advanced by Transco or the state agency applied in this case. The Court held that the Natural Gas Act does not expressly preempt administrative appeals to the EHB, nor does it field preempt such appeals. The Court also found that the possibility of multiple challenges in different fora to PADEP permitting decisions under the Clean Water Act for interstate natural gas pipelines does not impose an obstacle to the purposes of the Natural Gas Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that Transco's motion for a preliminary injunction was correctly denied. View "Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co LLC v. Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board" on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Attorney General's attempt to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline, which runs underwater across the Straits of Mackinac between Michigan’s Lower and Upper Peninsulas. The Attorney General filed the case in Michigan state court in 2019, alleging violations of three state laws. Enbridge responded by moving for summary disposition, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The state court held oral argument on those dispositive motions, focusing on preemption issues, including whether the Attorney General’s claims were preempted by either the Pipeline Safety Act or the federal Submerged Lands Act.In 2020, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a notice of revocation of the 1953 easement, calling for Line 5 to be shut down by May 2021, and simultaneously filed a complaint in state court to enforce the notice. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The district court denied the Governor’s motion to remand, holding that it had federal-question jurisdiction. The Governor subsequently voluntarily dismissed her case.Enbridge removed the Attorney General’s case to federal court in December 2021, citing the district court’s order denying the motion to remand in the Governor’s case. The Attorney General moved to remand this case to state court on grounds of untimely removal and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion on both grounds, excusing Enbridge’s untimely removal based on equitable principles and estopping the Attorney General from challenging subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that Enbridge failed to timely remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), and there are no equitable exceptions to the statute’s deadlines for removal. The case was remanded to Michigan state court. View "Nessel v. Enbridge Energy, LP" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) approval of a project to expand a natural-gas pipeline from western Pennsylvania to the New York metropolitan area. The petitioner, Food & Water Watch, argued that FERC overlooked environmental issues in approving the project. Specifically, they claimed that FERC's Environmental Impact Statement failed to quantify greenhouse-gas emissions from upstream drilling for the extra gas, to quantify ozone emissions from its downstream burning, and to categorize emissions impacts as either significant or insignificant. Additionally, Food & Water Watch argued that FERC did not adequately consider New York State and New York City laws mandating reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions.The case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lower courts had approved the project, with FERC issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the East 300 Upgrade Project. FERC had prepared a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which estimated the downstream carbon-dioxide emissions but declined to address upstream environmental effects. FERC also declined to characterize downstream emissions as significant or insignificant.The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the petitioner's contentions and denied the petitions for review. The court found that FERC had reasonably concluded that there was too much uncertainty regarding the number and location of additional upstream wells. The court also held that FERC had reasonably explained its decision not to give a quantitative estimate of how much ozone would be produced as a result of the project. Finally, the court found that FERC had amply discussed the significance of GHG emissions and that it was not required to label the increased emissions and ensuing costs as either significant or insignificant. The court also found that FERC had reasonably explained why the New York State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act did not undercut its finding of need for the project. View "Food & Water Watch v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law