We previously reported that President Trump issued a series of executive actions to fulfill his pledge to advance the United States’ domestic energy economy. These executive actions, such as President Trump’s Executive Orders Unleashing American Energy, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, and Reinvigorating…[the] Coal Industry…., now face legal challenges from environmental groups, led by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit law firm that exclusively represents youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments.[1] Presently, Our Children’s Trust seeks to enjoin these orders from taking effect because of their potential impact on climate change in the youths’ future. This post will provide a brief overview of the litigation and its pending timeline.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, et al,[1] recently declined to review whether the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) exceeded its authority by granting a preemption waiver for California’s greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero emission-vehicle mandate.[2]
Under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), “emission standard” refers to the legal limit on the amount of a specific air pollutant that can be released from a source, like a vehicle or factory.[3] CAA Sections 209(b) and 209(e) permit the State of California to request a waiver or authorization from federal preemption of state-level regulatory programs for certain vehicle emissions.[4] The EPA must grant the CAA waiver before California’s rules may be enforced.[5]
Petitioners—a group of states led by Ohio and various fuel industry organizations led by American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers—asked the Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court’s April 2024 decision siding with the EPA. The Circuit Court had found that some petitioners lacked standing to pursue these claims, while others failed on the merits, and upheld the Agency’s authority to grant California this waiver.
The Supreme Court of the United States’ recent ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo[1]dealt a significant blow to the power of federal agencies by ending the 40-year-old precedent commonly known as “Chevron deference.” Loper has now removed the judicial mandate that courts apply “Chevron deference” and defer to agencies on the interpretation of ambiguous language in laws pertaining to their authority. While it is unclear what impact this ruling will have in environmental enforcement cases as well as environmental regulations, federal judges will now have the power to decide what a law means for themselves, expanding the federal bench’s role in enforcement actions and policymaking.
The Chevron Deference Doctrine
The “Chevron deference” doctrine refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council,[2] which required judges to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes that those agencies administer. If Congress did not directly address a debated issue, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.
The Chevron doctrine involves a two-step test.[3] In the first step, courts determine if Congress has spoken to the “precise question at issue.”[4] If the statute is ambiguous, courts move to step two.[5] However, “if the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”[6] In the second step, courts defer to the agency as long as their interpretation of the statute is reasonable.[7] Reasonableness is not a high bar. Typically, if a court finds the statute to be ambiguous, the agency’s interpretation will receive deferential preference. At the time of the holding, the Chevron doctrine marked a jurisprudential shift in the interpretive power of the courts, which have historically determined “what the law is,”[8] to agencies in the executive branch.[9]
On March 6, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted amendments to the disclosure rules under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although the final rule is a scaled-back version of the proposal published on March 21, 2022, the new rule will require many publicly traded companies to disclose both their direct and indirect emissions, also known as “Scope 1” and “Scope 2” emissions, provided the emissions are material. Companies must also disclose to investors their climate-related risks, including information about financial harm caused by severe weather events and other natural events. The new rule will be phased in beginning with the filing of annual reports for the year ending December 31, 2025.
Of significance to the business community is the SEC’s decision to exclude the requirement to report Scope 3 emissions which would have required businesses to disclose all indirect greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions not otherwise included in a registrant’s Scope 2 emissions that occur in the upstream and downstream activities of the registrant’s value chain. In deciding to eliminate the requirement to report Scope 3 emissions, the SEC observed that “Scope 3 emissions typically result from the activities of third parties in a registrant’s value chain and, thus, collecting the appropriate data and calculating these emissions would potentially be more difficult than for Scopes 1 and 2 emissions.”
Climate change-related litigation has been increasing in the United States for the past several years. Not only have the actual number of these types of cases increased, but the claims raised in these cases have been expanding—from state tort claims (nuisance, trespass, and negligence) to federal and state constitutional claims. These cases have been slowly working their way through the legal system, with a major consideration being: Should these cases be in state court, involving state tort claims, or federal court, involving federal statutes or federal common law, because of the major national policy implication of climate change that these cases have the potential to affect?
The energy industry has been at the forefront of the 2020 election, and energy development is an issue that polarizes Americans and our businesses and political leaders in choosing the path for the future. Energy developments are inextricably linked to our economy and national security, and the decisions and policies that will be implemented over the next four years are critical to the nation and our participation and role in world affairs.
On September 10, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC” or “the Commission”) Division of Enforcement (“the Division”) issued guidance for CFTC staff on the factors to be considered when evaluating compliance programs in connection with enforcement matters. The guidance will be inserted in the CFTC Enforcement Manual. Although not binding on the Commission or any other Division of the CFTC, the Compliance Guidance is binding on Enforcement staff.
In recent years, the Division has taken several steps to increase transparency regarding the performance of its enforcement functions. First, the Division published its Enforcement Manual, which is updated periodically and publicly available on the CFTC’s website. On May 20, 2020, the Division issued guidance to staff regarding factors to be considered in recommending a civil monetary penalty in an enforcement action. Those factors include the existence and effectiveness of an existing compliance program, as well as efforts to improve that compliance program following detection of a violation. The recently issued Compliance Guidance provides factors to be used in evaluating such compliance programs.
The Compliance Guidance focuses on whether the compliance program was reasonably designed and implemented to achieve prevention, detection, and remediation of the misconduct at issue. The Compliance Guidance acknowledges that this assessment depends upon the specific facts and circumstances involved and further states that “[a]t all points, the Division will conduct a risk-based analysis, taking into consideration a variety of factors such as the specific entity involved, the entity’s role in the market, and the potential market or customer impact of the underlying misconduct.”
The Compliance Guidance provides a number of factors for staff to consider in determining whether a compliance program was reasonably designed and implemented to achieve the three goals identified above.
Stakeholders in the U.S. infrastructure industry should note that ongoing litigation and new court decisions issued in the first half of 2020 are reshaping the development of energy projects.
Energy developers should carefully review the impact of new rulings that have interpreted environmental analyses required for Clean Water Act (“CWA”) permitting as greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”) on the complex regulation of infrastructure projects. At the same time, several other recent proceedings have raised questions about practices and procedures of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) regarding natural gas infrastructure.
Status of Nationwide Permit 12. In Northern Plans Resource Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Montana District Court vacated the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide (“Corps”) Permit 12 disrupting permitting and enforcement under the CWA. The court later clarified that the ruling applies to new projects and not existing pipeline projects and the Ninth Circuit recently denied a request to stay the implementation of the order pending appeal.
Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Significant litigation is expected to challenge a new restrictive rule of what constitutes “waters of the United States” under the CWA. Infrastructure projects will also be impacted by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund.
National Environmental Policy Act GHG Review. The District of Montana ruled in Wildearth Guardians et al. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, that the Bureau of Land Management must consider cumulative GHG impacts of oil and gas lease sales. Litigation is expected to challenge whether the Corps has adequately considered GHG for Section 404 permits.
Climate Change Litigation. Many state and local governments continue to file common law lawsuits against oil and gas companies seeking damages for climate change mitigation measures. The 9th and 4th Circuits have rejected arguments that federal law applies to these disputes and similar cases are pending in the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Circuits. Also, in v. Exxon, the District of Massachusetts ruled that a suit alleging Exxon violated state fraud statutes should be litigated in state court.
FERC Update
Precedent Agreements as Evidence of Market Need. In a 2019 case, City of Oberlin v. FERC, the D.C. Circuit held that FERC failed to adequately explain why it is lawful to consider a proposed pipeline’s precedent agreements with foreign shippers serving foreign customers as evidence of market need for the pipeline. FERC recently addressed City of Oberlin and explained why precedent agreements between a proposed pipeline and LNG terminal were lawfully credited as evidence of market need for the pipeline.
FERC’s Tolling Order Practice. In Allegheny Defense Project v. FERC, the D.C. Circuit granted en banc rehearing over whether FERC violated the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) and landowners’ due process by issuing tolling orders to extend the time to consider rehearing requests of FERC’s pipeline approval, while allowing a pipeline to begin construction and exercise eminent domain. On June 9, FERC issued a final rule to preclude natural gas projects under sections 3 and 7 of the NGA from proceeding with construction until FERC issues a decision on the merits of any request for rehearing.
Pipeline Right-of-Ways (“ROWs”) through the Appalachian Trail. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument over a 4th Circuit ruling that the U.S. Forest Service lacks authority to grant a pipeline ROW across the Appalachian Trail. On June 15, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Forest Service had authority to issue the pipeline ROW through the Appalachian Trail.
FERC Authority over Pipeline Transportation Service Agreements (“TSAs”) in Bankruptcy. Several pipelines recently have filed petitions for declaratory orders, requesting FERC to declare it has concurrent jurisdiction with bankruptcy courts over natural gas pipeline TSAs and that FERC approval is required to in order to modify or reject such contracts in bankruptcy. We are continuing to follow this area for developments.
We invite you to read, watch, and share the below resources from our recent webinar for further details. Contact any of us if you have questions about the impact of recent cases, decisions, and regulations on your energy project(s).
Please click here for the presentation materials and here to listen to the recording.
On March 19, 2020, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) announced several regulatory responses to the coronavirus pandemic and FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee held a press conference to discuss the agency’s initiatives. The Chairman emphasized the capabilities of the Commission and its staff to work in a timely manner throughout the pandemic response, while striving to provide necessary flexibility to regulated entities.
The Chairman named Caroline Wozniak, a Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Energy Market Regulation, as the point of contact for all energy industry inquiries related to the impacts of COVID-19. Members of the regulated community may e-mail PandemicLiaison@FERC.gov with questions for Commission staff.
Chairman Chatterjee clarified that the Commission will provide regulated entities with flexibility when needed, but emphasized the Commission is fully functioning and will try not to delay decisions. Chairman Chatterjee also stated his goal is to issue certain rehearing orders involving pipeline certificate projects challenged by affected landowners within 30 days, consistent with guidance from the Chairman issued on January 31, 2020.
On August 16, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “the Commission”) issued an order granting in part and denying in part requests for further clarification of its reform of Large Generator Interconnection Agreements (“LGIA”) and Procedures (“LGIP”).[1] Order No. 845-B affirms FERC’s prior findings that the expansion of an interconnection customer’s option to build does not impede transmission owners’ ability to recover a return of and on network upgrades. The order also reiterates FERC’s determination not to revise the pro forma LGIA’s indemnity provisions.
Order No. 845—FERC’s Final Rule revising the pro forma LGIP and LGIA—made various reforms to “improve certainty for interconnection customers, promote more informed interconnection decisions, and enhance the interconnection process.”[2] Among these changes, the Commission expanded interconnection customers’ ability to exercise the option to build transmission providers’ interconnection facilities and standalone network upgrades beyond instances where the transmission provider is unable to meet the interconnection customer’s preferred construction timeline.
A subsequent decision, Order No. 845-A, among other things, rejected arguments that the option build revisions contradicted the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s (“D.C. Circuit”) decision in Ameren Services Co. v. FERC. According to the Commission, “Ameren stands for the principle that the Commission cannot prohibit a transmission owner from earning a return of, and on, the cost of its network upgrades.”[3] In that case, the D.C. Circuit vacated FERC’s orders requiring the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (“MISO”) to remove an option under its tariff allowing transmission owners to unilaterally elect to initially fund network upgrades and to thereafter recover the interconnection customer’s portion of the cost burden through periodic network upgrade charges that included a return on the capital investment (i.e., the “transmission owner initial funding option”). Although the Commission initially found the transmission owner initial funding option unjust and unreasonable, the D. C. Circuit remanded the orders directing the Commission to “explain how investors could be expected to underwrite the prospect of potentially large non-profit appendages with no compensatory incremental return.”[4] The Commission reinstated the transmission-owner initial funding option on remand.
