Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

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

This case involves a dispute over the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standards Program. The program requires the petroleum industry to introduce increasing volumes of renewable fuel into the nation's transportation fuel supply each year. However, Congress overestimated the speed at which domestic production of renewable fuel could expand, leading the EPA to reduce the statutorily required renewable fuel requirements annually.The case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by two sets of petitioners. The first set, the Biofuel Petitioners, produce cellulosic biofuels and argue that the EPA's standards are set too low. The second set, the Refiner Petitioners, are fossil fuel refiners and retailers subject to the volume requirements and contend that the standards are too high.The court held that the EPA complied with the law and reasonably exercised its discretion in setting the renewable fuel requirements for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022. The court therefore denied the petitions for review. The court found that the EPA had the statutory authority to impose a supplemental volume for 2022 to make up for volume that should have been satisfied in 2016. The court also concluded that the EPA's new formula for calculating the annual percentage standards was not arbitrary or capricious. View "Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company LLC v. EPA" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an oil spill caused by Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Plains). The spill resulted in the unlawful discharge of over 142,000 gallons of crude oil into the ocean and onto a beach. The trial court considered restitution for four groups of claimants who alleged losses due to the spill. The People of the State of California appealed the denial of restitution for claimants in two of these groups.The trial court had previously ruled that oil industry claimants were not direct victims of Plains' crimes and accepted mediated settlements in lieu of restitution. It also denied restitution to fishers based on a pending class action lawsuit, declined to consider aggregate proof presented by fishers, and refused to consider Plains' criminal conduct.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six held that restitution could not be denied based on mediated civil settlements or a class action lawsuit. However, it upheld the trial court's decision to deny restitution to fishers and oil industry workers, stating that they were not direct victims of the pipeline shutdown after the spill. The court remanded the case for consideration of restitution for four fisher claims, but in all other respects, it affirmed the trial court's decision and denied the writ petition. View "People v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) certification of the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project, a series of expanded pipelines, compression facilities, and meter stations in the Southeastern United States. Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Healthy Gulf, challenged the certification, alleging that FERC improperly applied the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, the Alabama Municipal Distributors Group, a municipal customer of Southern Natural Gas Company, argued that a new lease from Southern to Tennessee Gas may mean more profits for Southern, so Alabama Municipal should receive a portion of those profits.Prior to reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, FERC had unanimously issued a Certificate Order to Tennessee Gas and Southern, denying all objections. FERC reaffirmed its determination on rehearing. The Sierra Club and Alabama Municipal timely petitioned for review.The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld FERC's certification of the Evangeline Pass Expansion Project. The court found that FERC's certification was reasonable and reasonably explained, as was its decision to deny a windfall to a pipeline owner's existing customers. The court rejected the Sierra Club's arguments that FERC failed to consider the full scope of environmental effects of the project, erred by failing to account for the environmental impact of two ongoing authorizations to export gas, and was required to use the "social cost of carbon" tool. The court also rejected Alabama Municipal's argument that it should receive a future credit on the existing rates it pays. The court concluded that all of FERC's decisions in this case were reasonable and reasonably explained, and therefore denied the petitions for review. View "Alabama Municipal Distributors Group v. FERC" on Justia Law