Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment granting summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims challenging the decisions of a county board of supervisors approving a wind energy ordinance and a specific wind energy project, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were matters for the board of supervisors, and not the courts, to resolve.The board unanimously passed and approved a "wind energy conversion systems ordinance" and then granted conditional approval for the wind energy project at issue in this case. Plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief and for a writ of certiorari against the board seeking a declaration that the ordinance was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, void and unenforceable and a writ determining that the approval of the project should be set aside as illegal, arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable and void. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the board did not act illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously. View "Mathis v. Palo Alto County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

More than eight hundred appellants, who assert various contract and tort claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil clean-up, are divided into two groups: the Lindsay Appellants and the D'Amico Appellants. Both groups of appellants appealed their dismissals with prejudice for failure to follow the district court's order requiring they file individual complaints.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had authority to issue the order as a sensible means of managing multi-district litigation and to dismiss the parties' claims with prejudice for disobeying docket management orders. However, the court did not find the clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the D'Amico Appellants required to justify a dismissal-with-prejudice sanction. In this case, the D'Amico Appellants had a flawed understanding of PTO 63 and showed an absence of willful conduct. Accordingly, the court reversed as to the D'Amico Appellants and affirmed as to the Lindsay Appellants. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Graham v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court affirming the determination of the Board of Equalization and Review that Petitioners Murray Energy Corporation and Consolidation Coal Company's coal interests were properly valued and assessed by Defendants, holding that the circuit court properly concluded that the method of valuing coal properties violated neither the statutory requirement of assessment at "true and actual value" nor the constitutional equality requirements of the West Virginia Constitution and the equal protection provisions of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions.Specifically, the Court held (1) the methodology of valuing Petitioners' coal properties for ad valorem tax valuation purposes, as set forth in West Virginia Code of State Rules 110-1I-1 et seq., does not violate the requirement set forth in W. Va. Code 11-6K-1(a) that natural resources property be assessed based upon its "true and actual value"; and (2) the valuation methodology contained in the Code of State Rules does not violate the equality provision of W. Va. Const. art. X, 1 or the equal protection provisions of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions. View "Murray Energy Corp. v. Steager" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, small scale solar producers, filed suit alleging that CPUC's programs did not comply with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), because CPUC incorrectly defined the amount that PURPA requires utilities to pay qualifying facilities (QFs). The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for equitable damages and attorney fees, entering summary judgment for CPUC on the PURPA challenges.The panel held that the district court erred in not interpreting FERC's regulations to require state utility commissions to consider whether a Renewables Portfolio Standard changed the calculation of avoided cost. Accordingly, the panel reversed as to this issue. The panel affirmed in all other respects, holding that utilities did not violate PURPA in not compensating QFs for Renewable Energy Credits and the Net Energy Metering Program did not violate PURPA's interconnection requirement. The panel also affirmed the dismissal of equitable damages and attorney fees claims. View "Californians for Renewable Energy v. California Public Utilities Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court finding that the holder of the executive right to lease a mineral estate violated its duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing by refusing to lease in contravention of the non-executive's known wishes, holding that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding.The executive right inherent in mineral ownership encompasses the right to execute oil and gas leases. The Supreme Court has previously held that the executive's duty owed to the non-executive mineral- or royalty-interest owners of utmost faith and fair dealing requires that the executive not engage in acts of self-dealing that unfairly diminish the value of the non-executive interest. Here, Plaintiff sued the executive, alleging that, as holder of the executive rights to certain mineral interests, the executive breached the duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing by refusing to enter a lease. The trial court rendered judgment for Plaintiffs. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs met their burden to show that the executive engaged in acts of self-dealing that unfairly diminished the value of Plaintiffs' non-executive interest. View "Texas Outfitters Limited, LLC v. Nicholson" on Justia Law

After JME filed five claims for compensation with the Settlement Program, the Settlement Program determined that JME was a "failed business" under the meaning of the Settlement Agreement and calculated JME's compensation according to the Failed Business Economic Loss framework. The district court then granted discretionary review and agreed that JME was a failed business under the Settlement Agreement.Applying de novo review, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the district court misinterpreted the Settlement Agreement's first and third definition of a "failed business" and erroneously concluded that the Settlement Program correctly classified JME as a failed business because JME ceased operations and wound down, or otherwise initiated or completed a liquidation of substantially all of its assets. View "Claimant ID 100081155 v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of discretionary review in an appeal of claims submitted to BP's Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement. The court held that the reviews conducted by the Claims Administrator and Appeal Panel were consistent with the court's recent decision in Texas Gulf Seafood, BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. Claimant ID 100094497, 910 F.3d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 2018). In this case, the Appeal Panel did not defer to the claimant's "Management Fee" label as prohibited by Texas Gulf Seafood. Rather, the Appeal Panel conducted its own de novo review of the expense classification, considering the substantive nature of the Management Fee, and determined that the Management Fee was a fixed cost rather than a variable cost.The court also held that BP's arguments regarding the substantive accuracy of the "fixed" classification only raise the correctness of a fact-dependent decision in a single claimant's case. Therefore, the district court did not err in declining to grant discretionary review to determine whether the Claims Administrator and Appeal Panel accurately classified the Management Fee expense. View "BP Exploration & Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100166533" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of discretionary review of the $2 million award claimant, an manufacturer of signs, received pursuant to the Economic and Property Damages Settlement from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The court held that BP has not established that claimant's causation attestation was implausible. The court also held that, even if applying a variable classification to the research and development expenses was substantively inaccurate, it simply raised the correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant's case and thus did not warrant discretionary review. Finally, the court held that even if the claims administrator erred in omitting the adjustments at issue, the error did not raise a recurring issue on which the appeal panels were split or involved a pressing question of how the settlement agreement should be interpreted. View "BP Exploration & Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100261922" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a contract dispute between two oil-drilling businesses, Eni and Transocean. The district court granted judgment in favor of Transocean and rejected Eni's claims surrounding Transocean's maintenance of its equipment, found that Eni had wrongfully repudiated the contract, and awarded damages to Transocean.The Fifth Circuit vacated the damages award and held that the district court erred by simply applying the Standby Rate because Eni never issued any instructions after repudiation. In this case, the district court should have attempted to determine, in the hypothetical nonbreach world, how many days the Deepwater Pathfinder would have spent at each applicable rate. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to recalculate the damages using the correct methodology. The court found Eni's remaining arguments lacking in merit and affirmed as to those claims. View "ENI US Operating Company, Inc. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc." on Justia Law

BP argued that claimant was not entitled to the $65 million award it received pursuant to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Settlement Agreement because it did not suffer a loss that was caused by the oil spill despite submitting a claim form certifying that it did. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining discretionary review because BP has not demonstrated that claimant did not suffer a post-spill loss, and claimant satisfied the causation formula set out in Exhibit 4B of the Settlement Agreement and formally attested to the fact that its losses were caused by the oil spill. The court reasoned that, while the evidence BP presented may indicate additional, market-related causes for claimant's loss, the existence of these alternative causes did not eliminate the possibility that the oil spill contributed to cause claimant's loss, nor did it preclude claimant from recovering under the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "BP Exploration & Production, Inc. v. Claimant ID 100141850" on Justia Law