Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

In a consolidated action before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, several parties, including PJM Power Providers Group, Electric Power Supply Association, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, challenged a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., concerning energy resources subject to price mitigation in interstate capacity auctions. The revised tariff, which took effect by operation of law in 2021, was the outcome of a deadlock between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) commissioners. The court found that the deadlock was to be treated as an affirmative order by the FERC, allowing for judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The court held that it was required to review the FERC order under the same deferential standards set forth in the FPA and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court’s review included the entire record, including the deadlock commissioners' written statements explaining their reasoning. Upon review, the court denied all three petitions, holding that FERC’s acceptance of PJM’s tariff was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Electric Power Supply Associat v. FERC" on Justia Law

In this consolidated action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed a case concerning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) acceptance of a tariff filed by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), which took effect by operation of law in 2021. The tariff was at the center of a dispute over whether state-subsidized energy resources should be subject to price mitigation in interstate capacity auctions. Petitioners – the PJM Power Providers Group (P3), the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (State Entities) – sought review under Section 205(g) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), a provision allowing for review of FERC's action by inaction. The court held that its review of FERC action, whether actual or constructive, proceeds under the same deferential standards set forth in the FPA and Administrative Procedure Act. The court further held that its review properly encompasses the Commissioners’ statements setting forth their reasons for approving or denying the tariff filing. After reviewing the petitions, the court denied all three, finding FERC’s acceptance of PJM’s tariff was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Pennsylvania Public Utility Co v. FERC" on Justia Law

In this case, the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District reviewed a decision by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to adopt a new net energy metering (NEM) tariff. The PUC was required by the Legislature to create a successor tariff to the existing NEM scheme, which utilities argued overcompensated owners of renewable energy systems for their exported energy, raising electricity costs for customers without such systems.The petitioners, Center for Biological Diversity, Inc., Environmental Working Group, and The Protect our Communities Foundation, contended that the successor tariff did not comply with various requirements of section 2827.1 of the Public Utilities Code. The petitioners argued that the tariff failed to consider the social benefits of customer-generated power, improperly favored the interests of utility customers who did not own renewable systems, failed to promote sustainable growth of renewable energy, and neglected alternatives to promote the growth of renewable systems among customers in disadvantaged communities.The court affirmed the PUC's decision. It held that the PUC had appropriately balanced the various objectives set out by the Legislature in section 2827.1. The court found that the successor tariff was designed to reduce the financial advantage previously given to owners of renewable energy systems under the NEM tariff, which the court said was consistent with the Legislature's aim of balancing costs and benefits to all customers. The court also noted that the PUC had adopted programs to make renewable energy systems more accessible to low-income customers, satisfying the requirement to ensure growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities.Lastly, the court concluded that the PUC's decision to apply the same tariff to both residential and nonresidential customers was justified, as the nonresidential NEM 2.0 tariff, while cost-effective for the electrical system as a whole, did not balance costs and benefits among all customers. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

In this case, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Vermont Public Utility Commission approving a contract under 30 V.S.A. § 248(i) for the purchase of out-of-state renewable natural gas by Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. (VGS). The contract, which was proposed to last for fourteen-and-a-half years, required VGS to purchase a minimum volume of renewable natural gas that would be produced and transported from a landfill in New York. The contract was part of VGS's efforts to invest in nonfossil gas and incorporate renewable natural gas into its gas supply to meet regulatory requirements and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The appellant, Catherine Bock, a ratepaying customer of VGS, challenged the Commission's findings with respect to the contract’s contribution towards satisfying emissions reductions under the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020. Bock also disputed the Commission’s finding that the contract, with a condition imposed by the Commission, would comply with least-cost planning principles.The court rejected Bock's arguments, finding that the Commission's conclusions were supported by the evidence in the record and were not clearly erroneous. The court noted that the contract was only one of VGS's strategies to reduce emissions pursuant to the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020. It also pointed out that there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission's determination that the contract was cost-effective and consistent with least-cost planning principles. View "In re Petition of Vermont Gas Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case between East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., and others, against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed FERC's decision regarding AEP's calculation of its 2019 transmission rates. The petitioners, customers of AEP, challenged the calculation, but FERC rejected their claims. The petitioners then sought a review of the agency's decision.The court stated that FERC had correctly interpreted AEP's tariff terms and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. FERC's ruling was upheld on several points, including the denial of retroactive relief for alleged errors in previous rate years, the inclusion of certain coal-related costs in the 2019 rate, the classification of certain tax credits as prepayments for tax liabilities, and the classification of employee pension and benefit costs as non-contingent liabilities. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

In 2022, the Department of Energy (DOE) repealed regulations, known as the 2020 Rules, that had created new classes of dishwashers and laundry machines with shorter cycle times, arguing the 2020 rules were illegal. Several states, led by Louisiana, petitioned for the review of the repeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the states, finding that the DOE's repeal was arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider the performance characteristics of the appliances, the substitution effects, and the evidence showing that the Department’s conservation standards were leading Americans to use more energy and water. The court also noted that the DOE failed to consider other remedies short of repealing the 2020 rules entirely. The court did not reach a conclusion on whether the DOE had the statutory authority to regulate water use in dishwashers and clothes washers. The court granted the petition and remanded the case back to the DOE for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Louisiana v. DOE" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing, LLC ("Philadelphia Energy"). Philadelphia Energy, a fuel producer, had appealed a decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims denying their claim for tax refunds for excise taxes they had paid on fuel mixtures of butane and gasoline. Philadelphia Energy argued that these fuel mixtures should be considered "alternative fuel mixtures" under 26 U.S.C. § 6426(e), making them eligible for a tax credit. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, finding that butane, despite being considered a liquefied petroleum gas, is not considered an "alternative fuel" under this statute. This is because butane is also a "taxable fuel," and the statutory language creates a dichotomy between "taxable fuels" and "special motor fuels", with the two being mutually exclusive. Consequently, Philadelphia Energy's mixture of butane and gasoline does not qualify for the alternative fuel mixture credit, and they are not entitled to the claimed tax refunds. View "PHILADELPHIA ENERGY SOLUTIONS REFINING v. US " on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a tariff adopted by the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) of the State of California that affects the compensation utilities provide to customers for excess electricity generated by renewable energy systems. The tariff, known as the net energy metering (NEM) tariff, previously required utilities to purchase excess electricity from renewable systems at the same price customers pay for electricity. However, utilities complained that this overcompensated the owners of renewable systems and raised the cost of electricity for customers without renewable systems. In response, the California Legislature enacted a law requiring the Commission to adopt a successor tariff that promotes the continued sustainable growth of renewable power generation while balancing costs and benefits to all customers.Several environmental groups challenged the Commission's newly adopted successor tariff, asserting that it did not comply with various statutory requirements. The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District upheld the Commission's tariff. The court found that the Commission's successor tariff adequately served the various objectives of the law and was based on a reasonable interpretation of its statutory mandate. The court also found that the Commission's decision to value exported energy from renewable systems based on the marginal cost of energy to the utilities was a reasonable approach to fulfilling the law's requirement to balance the equities among all customers. The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the Commission had failed to properly account for the costs and benefits of renewable energy, and that it had improperly favored the interests of utility customers who do not own renewable systems. The court also found that the Commission had properly fulfilled the law's requirement to include specific alternatives designed for growth among residential customers in disadvantaged communities. The court affirmed the decision of the Commission. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Public Utilities Com." on Justia Law

In this case, the District of Columbia sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and several other energy companies, alleging that these companies violated District law by making material misstatements about their products' effects on climate change. The energy companies removed the case to a federal district court, which determined it lacked jurisdiction and sent the case back to a local court. The energy companies then appealed that decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the case was properly remanded. The Court of Appeals held that the case did not fall under federal jurisdiction because the District of Columbia based its lawsuit on a local consumer protection statute, not a federal cause of action. The energy companies' arguments essentially amounted to federal defenses, which the court held were insufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over the District's claims.The court also rejected the companies' argument that the case could be moved to a federal court under the "artful pleading" doctrine, which allows federal courts to hear cases where the plaintiff has attempted to avoid federal jurisdiction by carefully crafting their complaint to avoid mentioning federal law. The court held that this doctrine didn't apply because the energy companies couldn't rely on federal common law governing air pollution since it had been displaced by the Clean Air Act.Finally, the court rejected the companies' arguments that the case could be removed to federal court under the federal officer removal statute and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The court found that the companies failed to demonstrate a sufficient connection between their actions under color of federal office and the District's suit, and that the District's claims did not arise out of or connect with operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf. View "DC v. Exxon Mobil Corporation" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Fonda Jo Powell and Mary T. Henke, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of June A. Slagle, alongside Helen Verhasselt, the trustee of the June Slagle Family Mineral Trust, filed an appeal against Statoil Oil & Gas LP (now known as Equinor Energy LP). The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered after the district court granted Statoil's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a dispute of title allowed Statoil to suspend royalty payments and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to statutory interest. The plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in concluding there was a title dispute, while Statoil argued that this action was barred by the statute of limitations.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the decision of the district court, concluding that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations and that the court erred in concluding that Statoil lawfully suspended royalty payments. The court determined that a ten-year statute of limitations applied to the claim for untimely payment of royalties under the oil and gas lease, as per N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). Furthermore, the court concluded that, when a dispute is between the mineral developer and the mineral owner, notice of the dispute is required under N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.4. As Statoil did not provide evidence that it had notified June Slagle of a title dispute, it was required to pay interest on the unpaid royalties at a rate of 18% per annum. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Powell v. Statoil Oil & Gas" on Justia Law