Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is responsible for ensuring that rates charged by interstate oil pipelines are just and reasonable. Every five years, FERC reviews the methodology, known as the Index, used to set maximum annual rate increases. In 2020, FERC conducted its five-year review and set a new Index level, which was later modified on rehearing without adhering to notice-and-comment procedures.Initially, FERC invited comments on the proposed Index, receiving input from both pipeline operators (Carriers) and customers (Shippers). FERC issued an Initial Order in December 2020, establishing an Index level higher than proposed, effective July 1, 2021. Both Carriers and Shippers sought rehearing, with Carriers requesting minor changes and Shippers challenging the Index level. FERC issued a Rehearing Order in January 2022, adopting Shippers' suggestions and setting a new, lower Index effective March 1, 2022. Shippers sought clarification on the retroactive application of the Rehearing Order, which FERC denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. Carriers argued that FERC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by modifying the Index without notice-and-comment procedures. The court agreed, noting that once the Initial Order's Index became effective on July 1, 2021, any substantive changes required adherence to APA procedures. The court found that FERC's modification of the Index in the Rehearing Order without such procedures was improper.The court granted Carriers' petitions for review, vacated the Rehearing Order, and ordered FERC to reinstate the Initial Order. Shippers' petitions for review were dismissed as moot due to the vacatur of the Rehearing Order. View "Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC" on Justia Law

Hudson Transmission Partners, a merchant transmission facility, previously held firm rights to draw electricity from the PJM grid and was assessed costs for certain grid improvements. In 2017, Hudson relinquished its firm rights, leading to a dispute over whether it must continue paying for previously assessed costs for lower voltage facility upgrades and economic projects under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) found that Hudson must continue to pay these costs. FERC determined that the PJM Tariff dictates that prior assessments for lower voltage facility upgrades are fixed and unaffected by a change in firm rights. Additionally, the costs of economic projects are validly allocated to entities like Hudson that benefit from the energy savings, regardless of their firm rights status.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld FERC's decision, agreeing that Hudson remains responsible for the previously assessed costs. The court noted that the PJM Tariff includes a saving clause that fixes the cost responsibility for lower voltage facilities unless explicitly changed, which was not the case here. The court also found that Hudson continues to benefit from the economic projects, justifying the continued cost responsibility.The court concluded that FERC's interpretation of the PJM Tariff was consistent with its prior orders and the cost-causation principle, which assigns costs based on the burdens imposed or benefits received by a party. Therefore, the court denied the petitions for review, affirming that Hudson must continue to pay the previously assessed costs for the lower voltage facility upgrades and economic projects. View "New York Power Authority v. FERC" on Justia Law

Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC ("Clear Creek") sought to generate wind energy for sale in parts of Missouri, southeast Iowa, and northeast Oklahoma. Clear Creek challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) decision to allow Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) to assign over $100 million in upgrade costs to Clear Creek for its wind turbine project. Clear Creek argued that FERC's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to precedent.Initially, Clear Creek submitted an interconnection request to Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI) and requested Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS). AECI identified SPP and Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) as potentially affected systems. SPP conducted several studies, initially estimating upgrade costs at $31.2 million, which later fluctuated significantly. Clear Creek began construction based on initial studies but faced a restudy by SPP, which increased the estimated costs to $763 million, later adjusted to $102 million. Clear Creek filed a complaint with FERC, which partially granted and partially denied the complaint, requiring SPP to restudy the project using updated models. The restudy resulted in $88 million in upgrade costs.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld FERC's orders, finding that SPP's methodology for assigning upgrade costs was consistent with the "but for" cost allocation principle and not arbitrary or capricious. The court also found that Clear Creek's downgrade to Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS) did not moot the case, as Clear Creek retained the right to re-open the matter if it prevailed. The court concluded that FERC's decision was based on reasoned decision-making and substantial evidence, denying Clear Creek's petitions for review. View "Tenaska Clear Creek Wind, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated its regulations to ensure that the transportation fuel mix in the United States contains the required amounts of renewable fuel. The new regulations specifically address biogas-derived renewable fuel, implementing a more structured process to prevent fraud and error. The Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, representing industry stakeholders, petitioned to overturn these changes, arguing that the new rules were too rigid and burdensome.The case was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Coalition argued that the EPA lacked authority to regulate biogas producers and that the new requirements were arbitrary and capricious. They also claimed procedural violations in the rulemaking process. The EPA defended its regulations, stating that they were necessary to ensure compliance with renewable fuel standards and to prevent fraud and double counting.The Court of Appeals found that the EPA acted within its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate biogas producers and that the new rules were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The court also held that the EPA had followed proper procedures in adopting the rule. The court denied the Coalition's petition for review, upholding the EPA's updated regulations. The main holding was that the EPA's modifications to the biogas-derived renewable fuel regulations were reasonable and necessary to ensure compliance with renewable fuel standards and to prevent fraud. View "Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas v. EPA" 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

Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC (Range) and Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf) filed administrative complaints against Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Range, a natural gas producer, has long-term agreements with Texas Eastern and Columbia Gulf to transport gas through the Adair Interconnect. During two periods in 2019 and 2021, Texas Eastern's pipeline pressure was too low to move gas into Columbia Gulf's system, causing significant financial losses for Range. Petitioners sought FERC's intervention to require Texas Eastern to maintain higher pipeline pressures.FERC dismissed the complaints, finding that Texas Eastern had no minimum delivery pressure obligation. FERC also denied rehearing requests, stating that the complaints did not sufficiently demonstrate a violation of any pressure obligations. Petitioners argued that Texas Eastern failed to comply with its tariff and the Adair Interconnection Agreement, but FERC found these arguments procedurally and substantively insufficient. Additionally, FERC concluded that Texas Eastern's force majeure declaration in 2021 was irrelevant to the issue of reservation charge credits, as Columbia Gulf's refusal to accept gas was outside Texas Eastern's control.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld FERC's dismissal, agreeing that the complaints did not adequately plead violations of the Texas Eastern Tariff or the Adair Interconnection Agreement. The court also found that FERC did not need to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of equal service and the force majeure declaration, as the written record was sufficient. The court denied the petitions for review, affirming FERC's orders. View "Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

This case involves Duke Energy Progress, LLC, a grid operator, and two energy generation companies, American Beech Solar, LLC, and Edgecombe Solar LLC. The dispute centers around two orders by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The first order rejected Duke Energy's agreement with American Beech Solar, which did not require Duke Energy to reimburse the cost of network upgrades. The second order accepted Duke Energy's agreement with Edgecombe Solar, which Duke Energy filed unsigned and under protest, and required Duke Energy to reimburse the cost of network upgrades.In the lower courts, FERC rejected the agreement with American Beech Solar, arguing that it was not just and reasonable because Duke Energy had threatened to delay construction of the upgrades, preventing American Beech from connecting to the grid, unless American Beech agreed to forego reimbursement. FERC also approved the agreement with Edgecombe Solar, despite Duke Energy's protest that it should not be required to pay reimbursements.In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the court denied Duke Energy's petitions for review. The court held that FERC's orders were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court found that FERC's interpretation of its own regulation, Order 2003, was reasonable and entitled to deference. The court also found that FERC reasonably rejected Duke Energy's request for a deviation from the reimbursement requirement. Finally, the court held that FERC's orders did not violate the principle of treating similarly situated utilities differently without a reasonable justification. View "Duke Energy Progress, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

This case involves the sale of electricity under the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) efforts to limit the rates at which certain wholesale electricity is traded. For over two decades, FERC has maintained a "soft" price cap for certain short-term electricity sales in parts of the western United States. In August 2020, a heat wave in the western United States led to increased prices in the market for short-term electricity supply. Some of the short-term sales occurred at prices above FERC's soft cap. Sellers who transacted at above-cap prices were required to justify those transactions to FERC or be required to refund sale prices that exceed the cap. After reviewing the sellers' justification filings, FERC determined that some sellers had failed to justify their above-cap sales and ordered partial refunds.The case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court found that FERC should have conducted a Mobile-Sierra analysis, which presumes that contract rates formed through arms-length, bilateral negotiation are reasonable, before ordering refunds. The court agreed with the sellers that FERC erred by failing to conduct this analysis prior to ordering refunds. As a result, the court granted the sellers' petitions for review, vacated the orders they challenged, and remanded for further proceedings. The court dismissed the consumers' petitions for review as moot. View "Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves Husky Marketing & Supply Company and Phillips 66 Company, two customers of a crude-oil pipeline, who petitioned for review of orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approving the pipeline’s application to charge market-based rates for its shipping services. The petitioners argued that the Commission adopted an arbitrary and capricious definition of the relevant geographic destination market for the pipeline’s services when analyzing whether it had market power.Previously, the matter was referred to an administrative law judge (ALJ) who, after an evidentiary hearing, found the correct destination market was the narrower Wood River market advanced by Husky and Phillips, rather than the broader St. Louis BEA Economic Area advanced by Marathon. Both Marathon and the Petitioners filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision. The Commission unanimously reversed the ALJ’s decision and concluded the correct geographical destination market was Wood River together with Patoka, Illinois.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the FERC’s orders under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. The court held that the FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it concluded Wood River and Patoka together, rather than Wood River alone, represent the area in which a shipper may rationally look for transportation service. The court also held that the FERC was not required to perform any additional empirical analysis in this case. Therefore, the petitions for review were denied. View "Husky Marketing and Supply Company v. FERC" on Justia Law