Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act prohibits states from imposing taxes that “discriminat[e] against a rail carrier,” 49 U.S.C. 11501(b)(4)A, including: Assessing rail transportation property at a value with a higher ratio to the true market value of the property than the ratio applied to other commercial and industrial property; levying or collecting an ad valorem property tax on rail transportation property at a tax rate that exceeds the rate applicable to commercial and industrial property in the same jurisdiction; or imposing “another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier providing transportation.” Railroads sued, claiming that Tennessee sales and use tax assessments were discriminatory. The district court agreed, holding that imposition of those taxes on railroad purchases and use of diesel fuel was discriminatory. In response, in 2014, Tennessee enacted a Transportation Fuel Equity Act that repeals the sales and use tax on railroad diesel fuel, but subjects railroads to the same per-gallon tax imposed on motor carriers under the Highway User Fuel Tax. Previously railroads, like other carriers using diesel fuel for off-highway purposes, were exempt from a “diesel tax.” The Railroads contend the Act is discriminatory because it now subjects only railroads to taxation of diesel fuel used off-highway. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of the Railroads’ motion for a preliminary injunction on its targeted or singling-out approach and the functional approach, but remanded for consideration of the Railroads’ argument under the competitive approach. View "CSX Transp., Inc. v. Tenn. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Two sets of landowners brought suit seeking damages and a declaration of their rights under oil and gas leases executed with with predecessor to an oil and gas producer. Additionally, the landowners sought a declaration that the lessee production companies had miscalculated and underpaid royalties due under the leases. Specifically, the landowners claimed that the lease provision basing their royalty on “one-eighth the market price at the well” should be understand to contemplate the sale of gas made “marketable” and then “sold at the well.” The trial court rejected these claims and dismissed the landowners’ complaint. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not err in ruling that given royalty provisions such as those in the leases at issue here, Kentucky law does not embrace the “marketable product” approach to royalty calculation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, for the purposes of gas lease royalty valuation under standard “market price (value) at the well” royalty clauses, the lessee is solely responsible for the costs of production, but post-production costs may be deducted from gross receipts before the calculation of the royalty share. View "Baker v. Magnum Hunter Prod., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the apportionment of natural gas severance taxes for purposes of calculating royalties when a producer-lessee severs natural gas from the earth. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Kentucky Supreme Court asking whether Kentucky’s at-the-well rule allows a natural gas processor to deduct all severance taxes paid at market prior to calculating a contractual royalty payment to a royalty owner-lessor based on the market price of gas at the well or whether the resource’s at-the-well price includes a proportionate share of the severance taxes owed such that a processor may deduct only that portion of the severance taxes attributable to accumulating, compressing, processing, and transporting the gas prior to calculating the appropriate royalty payment. The Supreme Court rejected the two options presented and concluded that, in the absence of a specific lease provision apportioning severance taxes, lessees may not deduct severance taxes or any portion thereof prior to calculating a royalty value. View "Appalachian Land Co. v. EQT Prod. Co." on Justia Law

MISO, an organization of independent transmission-owning utilities, has linked the transmission lines of its members into a single interconnected grid across 11 states. The Generators, which operate 150-megawatt wind-powered electric generation facilities in Illinois, wish to connect to the system run by MISO. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), acting under 16 U.S.C. 824(a), has standardized the process: the Generators submitted requests to MISO, which then produced studies (paid for by the Generators) to assess potential impact on the grid and calculate the cost of necessary upgrades. After the studies were complete and agreements signed, MISO notified the Generators of a “significant error” that failed to include certain upgrades and that the Generators would either have to agree to fewer megawatts or pay for additional upgrades estimated to cost $11.5 million. MISO presented superseding Agreements to both Generators. The companies refused to sign. FERC found that the Generators should pay for the additional network upgrades. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. The record failed to show that the Generators relied on the original, mistaken studies or that reducing the output would have made their farms economically unsustainable. They also had an exit option. The court noted that the Generators apparently built their wind farms despite the dispute. View "Pioneer Trail Wind Farm, LLC v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n" on Justia Law

Petitioners, wholesale electricity customers, challenged FERC's orders requiring the Bonneville Power Administration to provide transmission services on terms "not unduly discriminatory or preferential." Petitioners are wholesale electricity customers of Bonneville. The court concluded that petitioners have Article III standing by demonstrating that they have an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The court concluded, however, that petitioners failed to demonstrate statutory standing, which requires them to be "aggrieved" within the meaning of the Federal Power Act section 313(b) (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 8251(b), and the Administrative Procedure Act section 10, 5 U.S.C. 702. In this case, the zone-of-interests test was not satisfied where petitioners' interests are not arguably protected by section 211A of the FPA. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "NRU V. FERC" on Justia Law

The South Dakota Department of Revenue assessed Northern Border Pipeline Company, the operator of an interstate pipeline that provides transportation services to natural gas owners who desire to ship their gas, for use tax on the value of the shippers’ gas that the shippers allowed Northern Border to burn as fuel in compressors that moved the gas through the pipeline. An administrative law judge affirmed the assessment. The circuit court reversed, holding that Northern Border’s burning of the shippers’ gas was exempt from use tax under a tax exemption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Northern Border did not own the gas, use tax may not be imposed under this Court’s precedents. View "N. Border Pipeline Co. v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

After PG&E's natural gas pipeline ruptured in San Bruno, killing and injuring several people, San Francisco filed suit against the Agency, alleging that the Agency failed to comply with the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. The court concluded that the plain statutory language, the statutory structure, the legislative history, the structure of similar federal statutes, and interpretations of similar statutory provisions by the Supreme Court and its sister circuits lead to the conclusion that the Pipeline Safety Act does not authorize mandamus-type citizen suits against the Agency. The court also concluded that San Francisco's claims that the Agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), by unlawfully withholding the action of deciding whether the CPUC adequately enforces federal pipeline safety standards, and arbitrarily and capriciously approving the CPUC’s certification and providing federal funding to the CPUC, were not cognizable under the APA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit. View "City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. U.S. D.O.T." on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the Commission's issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Columbia Gas conditionally authorizing the company to extend a natural gas pipeline in Maryland. The court concluded that petitioners satisfied the requirements of Article III standing; the court has jurisdiction over the present controversy and the case is not moot; but petitioners' interest in protecting its members property from eminent domain in the face of alleged non-compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), does not fall within the zone of interest protected by the NEPA, the CWA, and the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 71. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review for want of a legislatively conferred cause of action. View "Gunpowder Riverkeeper v. FERC" on Justia Law

Knickel approached Macquarie Bank about a loan to develop North Dakota oil and gas leases, providing confidential information about leased acreage that he had assembled over 10 years. Macquarie entered agreements with Knickel’s companies, LexMac and Novus. His other company, Lexar was not a party. Macquarie acquired a mortgage lien and perfected security interest in the leases and in their extensions or renewals. Royalties and confidential information—reserves reports on the acreage, seismic data, and geologic maps—also served as collateral. The companies defaulted. Because of the lack of development or production, many leases were set to expire. Knickel claims he agreed to renew only leases that included automatic extensions. Macquarie claims that Knickel promised to renew all leases serving as collateral in the names of LexMac and Novus. Upon the expiration of the leases without automatic extensions, Knickel entered into new leases in the name of Lexar, for development with LexMac and Novus, since they owned the confidential information. A foreclosure judgment entered, declaring that LexMac and Novus’s interest in the leases would be sold to satisfy the debt: $5,296,252.29,. Marquarie filed notice of lis pendens on Lexar’s leases, leased adjoining acreage, used the confidential information to find a buyer, and sold the leases at a profit of about $7,000,000. Marquarie filed claims of deceit, fraud, and promissory estoppel, and alleged that the corporate veil of the companies should be pierced to hold Knickel personally liable. The defendants counterclaimed misappropriation of trade secrets and unlawful interference with business. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on all but one claim and judgment that Macquarie had misappropriated trade secrets. View "Macquarie Bank Ltd. v. Knickel" on Justia Law

Soo Line Railroad Company and G-4, LLC appealed the grant of summary judgment declaring Soo Line did not own an interest in the minerals in and under certain Mountrail County property, and that G-4 did not hold a valid leasehold interest in the property. Soo Line and G-4 argued the district court erred in finding seven private deeds conveyed only easements and not a fee simple title to Soo Line's predecessor-in-interest. EOG Resources, Inc. had an interest in an oil and gas leasehold estate in Mountrail County and operated oil and gas wells. Soo Line operated in North Dakota. G-4 had exploration leases with Soo Line. EOG brought an action to quiet title to minerals in and under certain Mountrail County property against Soo Line, G-4, and other defendants claiming an interest in the property. EOG sought a declaration that Soo Line and G-4 had no interest in the minerals in and under the disputed property. Soo Line answered and brought counterclaims against EOG and cross-claims against the other defendants. G-4 filed a separate answer and brought counterclaims against EOG and cross-claims against the other defendants. The other defendants filed separate answers to EOG's complaint and Soo Line and G-4's cross-claims, aligning with EOG. After a hearing and based on the parties' stipulation, the district court partially granted EOG's motion for summary judgment and dismissed G-4's claims. After a hearing on the motion, the district court denied Soo Line and G-4's motions for summary judgment and granted the EOG parties' motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that several of the private deeds were unambiguous and conveyed a fee simple title to the railroad. One of the private deeds, the Court concluded, was ambiguous, but summary judgment was not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the EOG parties with respect to the deeds, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the "Faro" deed and for entry of judgment in favor of Soo Line and G-4 for the property covered by the unambiguous deeds. View "EOG Resources, Inc. v. Soo Line Railroad Co." on Justia Law