Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The State of Indiana approved a plan to retire a coal-fired facility and replace it with wind and solar energy sources, supplemented by two new natural gas turbines to ensure grid reliability. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a natural gas pipeline to serve these turbines. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana challenged FERC’s approval, arguing that FERC’s environmental analysis was unreasonable and inconsistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA). The core claim was that FERC should have analyzed non-gas alternatives before approving the pipeline.The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission initially denied CenterPoint Energy’s proposal for an 850-megawatt natural gas unit due to inadequate consideration of alternatives. CenterPoint then modified its plan to include wind generation and applied to build two smaller gas-fired turbines, which the Indiana Commission approved. CenterPoint contracted with Texas Gas Transmission for a 24-mile pipeline to supply natural gas to the new units. Citizens Action intervened in the FERC proceeding, raising environmental concerns. FERC prepared an environmental impact statement and approved the pipeline. Citizens Action’s request for rehearing was denied by operation of law, leading to the current petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that FERC acted lawfully and reasonably in its environmental analysis and public convenience and necessity determination. FERC was not required to consider non-gas alternatives outside its jurisdiction and properly identified the project’s purpose as supporting CenterPoint’s new natural gas units. The court also found that FERC’s use of emissions percentages and the absence of a significance label were reasonable and consistent with NEPA. The petition for review was denied. View "Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Stingray Pipeline Company LLC operates a pipeline system under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Due to declining throughput and financial losses, Stingray sought FERC's permission to abandon part of its pipeline network by selling it to a non-jurisdictional entity. However, a hurricane damaged a segment of the pipeline, Segment 3394, which has remained out of service since 2020. FERC granted the abandonment request but imposed a condition that Stingray must either restore Segment 3394 to service or reach an agreement with the affected shipper, ERT.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission largely granted Stingray's application to abandon the pipeline but imposed the condition regarding Segment 3394. Stingray challenged this condition as unreasonable and unsupported by the record. FERC reaffirmed its order, leading Stingray to petition the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and denied the Petition for Review. The court held that FERC's decision to impose the condition was not arbitrary and capricious. The court found that Stingray had not met its burden to show that unconditional abandonment was consistent with the public convenience and necessity. The court emphasized that Stingray had repeatedly assured FERC that it would restore Segment 3394 to service but failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify abandoning the segment without restoring service or reaching an agreement with ERT. The court also rejected Stingray's arguments that the condition exceeded FERC's regulatory authority. View "Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C. v. FERC" on Justia Law

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

Liberty Petroleum Corporation appealed a judgment affirming North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders approving a plan of unitization for the Haystack Butte (Bakken Pool) Unit (HBU) in McKenzie County, North Dakota. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. LP petitioned NDIC for unitized management of the HBU, which would allow drilling without regard to spacing unit boundaries. Liberty, holding federal oil and gas leases and working interests in the HBU, objected to the plan, particularly Article 11.8, which provided for the payment of pre-unitization risk penalty balances from unit production proceeds. Liberty argued this would unfairly take revenue from wells it participated in to satisfy penalties on non-consent wells.The District Court of McKenzie County affirmed NDIC's orders, finding that the plan of unitization was in the public interest, protective of correlative rights, and necessary to increase oil and gas recovery and prevent waste. NDIC concluded that production from the unit area would be distributed to each tract within the unit area, regardless of where it was produced, and rejected Liberty's objections to Article 11.8.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The Court found that NDIC did not exceed its authority, misapply the law, or authorize an unconstitutional taking. It held that NDIC's approval of Article 11.8 was consistent with the unitization statutes, which allow for the recovery of risk penalties from unit production. The Court also concluded that NDIC's findings were supported by substantial and credible evidence, including expert testimony from Burlington. The judgment was affirmed, and NDIC's orders were upheld. View "Liberty Petroleum Corp. v. NDIC" on Justia Law

The case involves a proposed electric substation in East Boston by NSTAR Electric Company, doing business as Eversource Energy. The Energy Facilities Siting Board (the board) granted a certificate of environmental impact and public interest to Eversource for the substation. The petitioners, Conservation Law Foundation and GreenRoots, Inc., challenged this decision, arguing that Eversource failed to show "undue delay" by two city agencies, and that the board did not properly consider environmental justice principles, among other issues.Previously, Eversource's petition to build the substation was approved by the board in 2017, with a project change approved in 2018. The petitioners intervened in the proceedings, and the board issued a decision in November 2022, granting the certificate. The petitioners then filed for judicial review in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and upheld the board's decision. The court found that the board's determination of "undue delay" by the city agencies was supported by substantial evidence. The court also concluded that the board properly considered environmental justice principles, including the equitable distribution of energy benefits and burdens. Additionally, the court found that the board's decision to issue the equivalent of a G. L. c. 91 tidelands license was lawful and supported by substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's findings on the need for the substation, its compatibility with environmental protection, public health, and safety, and its alignment with the public interest. The decision of the board was affirmed. View "Conservation Law Foundation v. Energy Facilities Siting Board" 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

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) have a longstanding dispute over PG&E's obligation to wheel energy to SFPUC's customers. SFPUC generates power and sells it to end users in San Francisco but relies on PG&E to distribute this energy. The disagreement centers on which consumers are entitled to wheeled service under a grandfathering clause in PG&E's 2015 Tariff, which incorporates a statutory provision allowing wheeling for consumers served by SFPUC as of October 24, 1992.Initially, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected SFPUC's class-based approach, which argued that PG&E should wheel energy to the same types of customers served in 1992. FERC's 2019 order was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which remanded the case for FERC to provide a reasoned analysis of the statutory requirements. On remand, FERC adopted a class-based interpretation, allowing wheeling to all customers of the same class served in 1992, not just specific end users.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed FERC's orders and found them contrary to law. The court held that the plain meaning of "ultimate consumer" in the statutory provision refers to specific end users, not classes of consumers. The court emphasized that the statutory text does not support a class-based interpretation and that such an interpretation would undermine the primary restriction against FERC-ordered wheeling. Consequently, the court vacated FERC's orders and remanded the case for FERC to apply the plain meaning of the statute and determine which of SFPUC's consumers qualify for wheeled service under the 2015 Tariff. View "Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. FERC" on Justia Law

A collection of Dutch and Luxembourgish energy companies invested in solar power projects in Spain, relying on promised economic subsidies. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Spain withdrew these subsidies, prompting the companies to challenge Spain's actions through arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The companies prevailed in arbitration, securing multi-million-euro awards. However, the European Union (EU) argued that the ECT's arbitration provision does not apply to disputes between EU Member States, rendering the awards invalid under EU law.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the cases. In NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain and 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, the court held it had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) arbitration exception and denied Spain's motion to dismiss. The court also granted anti-anti-suit injunctions to prevent Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in foreign courts. Conversely, in Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, the district court deemed Spain immune under the FSIA and denied the companies' requested injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the cases. The court held that the district courts have jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception to confirm the arbitration awards against Spain. However, it found that the district court in NextEra and 9REN abused its discretion by enjoining Spain from pursuing anti-suit relief in Dutch and Luxembourgish courts. The court emphasized that anti-suit injunctions against a foreign sovereign raise significant comity concerns and that the domestic interests identified were insufficient to justify such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part in NextEra, reversed in 9REN and Blasket, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Turenne v. State" on Justia Law

A collection of Dutch and Luxembourgish energy companies invested in solar power projects in Spain, relying on promised economic subsidies. Following the 2008 financial crisis, Spain withdrew these subsidies, prompting the companies to challenge Spain's actions through arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The companies won multi-million-euro awards in arbitration. However, the European Union argued that the ECT's arbitration provision does not apply to disputes between EU Member States, rendering the awards invalid under EU law. The companies sought to enforce the awards in the United States, invoking the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the cases. In NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain and 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, the court held it had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) arbitration exception and denied Spain's motion to dismiss. The court also granted anti-anti-suit injunctions to prevent Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in foreign courts. Conversely, in Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, the district court found Spain immune under the FSIA and dismissed the case, denying the requested injunction as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the cases. The court held that the district courts have jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception to confirm the arbitration awards against Spain. However, it found that the district court in NextEra and 9REN abused its discretion by enjoining Spain from pursuing anti-suit relief in Dutch and Luxembourgish courts. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part in NextEra, reversed in 9REN and Blasket, and remanded for further proceedings. View "NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain" on Justia Law