Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

These consolidated petitions for review challenged a contract between the BPA and one of its long-time customers, Alcoa. BPA's preference customers and others filed this petition for review, requesting that the court hold that the contract was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the agency's statutory mandate to act in accordance with sound business principles. Petitioners claimed, among other things, that instead of entering into a contract to sell power to Alcoa at the statutorily required Industrial Firm power (IP) rate, BPA should sell to other buyers at the market rate. The court denied the petitions for review insofar as they pertained to the Initial Period. Because the potential for BPA and Alcoa to enter into the Second Period of the contract was no longer before the court, the court dismissed those portions of the petitions. Finally, the court held that because BPA relied on a categorical exclusion to the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, requirements, declining to complete an Environmental Impact Statement was not arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's NEPA claim. View "Alcoa Inc. v. BPA, et al" on Justia Law

Kivalina appealed the district court's dismissal of their action for damages against Energy Producers. Kivalina alleged that massive greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the Energy Producers have resulted in global warming, which, in turn, has severely eroded the land where the City of Kivalina sits and threatens it with imminent destruction. Kivalina sought damages under a federal common law claim of public nuisance. At issue was whether the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., and the EPA action that the Act authorized, displaced Kivalina's claims. The court concluded that the Supreme Court has held that federal common law addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action. That determination displaced federal common law public nuisance actions seeking damages, as well as those actions seeking injunctive relief. The civil conspiracy claim fell within the substantive claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Native Village of Kivalina, et al v. Exxonmobile Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Tim DeChristopher entered a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and gas lease auction in Salt Lake City, Utah, by representing he was a bidder. His purpose was to disrupt the auction and call attention to the potential environmental harms of drilling on the leases. He proceeded to drive up the auction prices and ultimately won almost $1.8 million in bids, for which he was unable to pay. A jury convicted Defendant of interfering with the provisions of Chapter 3A of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and making a false statement or representation. He appealed, raising eight separate issues related to his conviction. Upon review of each, the Tenth Circuit determined they had no merit and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. DeChristopher" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant WildEarth Guardians sued Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) pursuant to the Clean Air Act's citizen-suit provisions seeking civil penalties and an injunction to halt construction for a new coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, Colorado. WildEarth's principal argument was that PSCo failed to obtain a valid construction permit. Although the project initially complied with all applicable federal and state laws when construction commenced in 2005, the regulatory landscape changed in 2008. A decision of the D.C. Circuit required regulators to impose additional Clean Air Act requirements upon new power plant construction. While litigation was pending, PSCo finished constructing the plant and came into compliance with the new regulatory regime. The district court dismissed the suit, reasoning that to find a Clean Air violation under the circumstances would be to give unwarranted retroactive effect to the decision of the D.C. Circuit. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether WildEarth's allegations that PSCo violated the Act became moot. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that "under the unusual circumstances of this case . . . PSCo's violations could nto reasonably be expected to recur, and thus no deterrent effect could be achieved." Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "WildEarth Guardians v. Public Service Company" on Justia Law

Summit’s natural gas sweetening plant in Michigan makes gas usable by removing hydrogen sulfide. Summit owns all of the production wells and subsurface pipelines that connect wells to the plant. The wells are located over a 43-square-mile area, from 500 feet to eight miles from the plant. Summit does not own property between the wells or property between the wells and the plant. Flares burn off gas waste to relieve pressure on gas collection equipment. The closest flare is about one half-mile from the plant, others are over one mile away. The plant and most of the wells and flares are located on a tribal reservation. All emit sulfur dioxides and nitrous oxides, air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. The plant alone has potential to emit just under 100 tons of these pollutants per year. Each flare and well has potential to emit lower amounts. The EPA determined that the plant, flares, and wells constituted a single stationary source under the CAA. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for determination of whether the plant and wells are sufficiently physically proximate to be considered “adjacent” within the ordinary meaning of that requirement. Interpreting the requirement in terms of mere functional relatedness was unreasonable. View "Summit Petroleum Corp. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

US Magnesium sought review of a recent final rule from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In its rule, the EPA called for Utah to revise its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Under the CAA, the EPA may call for a state to revise its SIP (a SIP Call) if the EPA finds the state’s current SIP substantially inadequate. Here, the EPA determined that Utah’s SIP was substantially inadequate because it contained an Unavoidable Breakdown Rule (UBR), which permits operators of CAA-regulated facilities to avoid enforcement actions when they suffer an unexpected and unavoidable equipment malfunction. In this SIP Call, published as a final rule in April 2011, the EPA requested that Utah promulgate a new UBR—one that conforms with the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA. US Magnesium maintained that the SIP Call was arbitrary and capricious and asked the Tenth Circuit to vacate it. Upon review, the Court did not find the EPA's decision arbitrary and capricious, and denied US Magnesium's petition for review. View "U.S. Magnesium LLC v. Env. Protection. Ag'y" on Justia Law

Pattison Sand Company operated a sandstone mine in Iowa. After part of the mine roof collapsed near where a miner was working, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) issued an order under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act prohibiting any activity in much of the mine. Pattison challenged the order before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. An ALJ determined that the order was valid and that the Commission lacked authority to modify it. Pattison moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing MSHA from enforcing parts of the order. The federal district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals granted in part and denied in part Pattison's petition for review and affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that the roof fall was an accident within the meaning of the Act; (2) the ALJ's determination that he lacked the authority to modify the order was in error; and (3) the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the company's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was not in error. View "Pattison Sand Co., LLC v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups (Petitioners) petitioned for review of a final rulemaking by the EPA that approved a revision to a California state plan to implement national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants. The revision required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to transfer credits to a soon-to-be-completed power plant named Sentinel. Petitioners alleged that the EPA committed procedural errors during the rulemaking process and that the substance of the revised state plan violated the Clean Air Act. Petitioners and the EPA agreed this case should be remanded because the EPA's final rule was invalid, so the only dispute was whether vacatur was appropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded without vacatur so the construction of the power plant could proceed without delay, as the power supply would otherwise be interrupted and the plant's operation was not authorized to commence without a new and valid EPA rule in place. View "Ca. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA" on Justia Law

In 2010, the EPA promulgated a final rule adopting a new, one-hour primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The American Petroleum Institute, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (collectively the API) petitioned for review of that rule, claiming the EPA, in adopting the NAAQS, was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Clean Air Act. The API also challenged a statement in the preamble to the final rule regarding the EPA's intended implementation of the NAAQS. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (1) denied the petitions insofar as they challenged the EPA's adoption of the NAAQS, holding that the EPA's adoption of the NAAQS for NO2 was neither arbitrary or capricious nor in violation of the Clean Air Act; and (2) dismissed the portions of the petitions challenging the EPA's non-final statement regarding permitting in the preamble to the Final Rule, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to consider those portions of the petitions. View "Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Grand Valley Citizens' Alliance filed a complaint alleging that it was entitled to a hearing on an application for permit to drill pursuant to section 34-60-108(7), C.R.S. (2011), of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals reversed the district court, holding that under subsection 108(7), Grand Valley Citizens were entitled to a hearing because it had a filed a petition on a matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission. After its review, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals judgment, holding that section 34-60-108(7) requires a hearing only for rules, regulations, and orders. Permits are governed by section 34-60-106(1)(f), which grants the Oil and Gas Commission broad authority to promulgate rules governing the permitting process, including the authority to determine who may request a hearing. View "Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission" on Justia Law