Frederick M. Lowther
On August 18, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in Constitution Pipeline Company LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Docket No. 16-1568 (“Constitution”). At issue—once again—was whether a single State (in this case, New York) has the power under §401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341 (“CWA”), to deny a water quality certification for an interstate pipeline previously certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), when the effect of the denial is to veto a pipeline project that would serve multiple States. In 2008, the 2d Circuit determined that such a veto power exists. Islander East Pipeline Co. v. McCarthy, 525 F.3d 141 (2d Cir, 2008) (“Islander East”). Although the factual situation in Constitution differs in some respects (noted below) from that in Islander East, the end result is the same: if a State determines that a FERC-approved pipeline is not consistent with its water quality standards approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Court finds (as it did here) that the determination was not arbitrary and capricious (i.e., is supported by “sufficient evidence to provide rational support” for the denial, Constitution, sl. op. at 24), the federally-approved interstate pipeline cannot proceed. Continue reading “CONSTITUTION PIPELINE: The 2d Circuit Reaffirms a State’s Right to Veto a FERC-Approved Interstate Pipeline Project”
First business meeting set for September 20. NEXUS Natural Gas Pipeline leads the list of backlog of projects awaiting approvals.
New FERC Commissioner Robert Powelson, formerly of the Pennsylvania Utility Commission and former President of NARUC, was sworn last Thursday, giving the Commission a quorum for the first time in six months.
Continue reading “FERC Gets Quorum and New Acting Chairman”
Liz E. Klingensmith, Jeremy A. Mercer, Amy L. Barrette
In Samson Exploration, LLC v. T.S. Reed Properties, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the decision by the Ninth Court of Appeals siding with royalty owners in concluding that the operator of a well within two overlapping units had to pay twice.
Samson’s leases contractually authorized unilateral pooling. Samson created Unit 1, which had boundaries of 6,000 to 13,800 feet subsurface, and obtained production from two wells within Unit 1’s boundaries, Well No. 1 and Well No. 2. Well No. 1 produced from 12,304 feet to 12,332 feet subsurface. Well No. 2 produced from 13,150 to 13,176 feet. Samson then unilaterally amended Unit 1 to reduce the surface acreage and change the depth to 12,400 feet subsurface and below (the “Amended Unit”). No production from Well No. 1 was attributed to the Amended Unit. Continue reading “You Made Your Bed, Now Lie in It: Samson Exploration, LLC v. T.S. Reed Properties, Inc.“
Margaret Anne Hill, Michael L. Krancer, Frank L. Tamulonis III, and Stephen C. Zumbrun
On June 20, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its opinion in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF) v. Commonwealth, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1393 (Pa. June 20), in connection with the so-called Environmental Rights Amendment or ERA (Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution). Suffice it to say, the opinion has reopened the debate as to the meaning of the ERA, and more importantly, how the ERA is implemented as a practical and legal matter. In brief, the court ruled that amendments to the state’s fiscal code (which sought to address budgetary shortfalls by redirecting money from a fund containing rents and royalties from oil and gas leases on commonwealth land to the general fund) violated the ERA. While the facts before the court were narrowly drawn, the court used the opportunity to revisit the decades old “test” applied in evaluating ERA claims, an issue it first addressed in its 2013 plurality opinion in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013). It abruptly rejected the well-established Payne v. Kassab test and roughly 45 years of ERA-related case law, thereby placing the ERA, and industry, back into legal limbo. Despite some legal uncertainty, this opinion should not be interpreted as a major stumbling block to key energy and infrastructure projects.
Continue reading “ERA Revisited: Solutions For Navigating An Uncertain Legal Landscape”
Frederick M. Lowther
On July 14, 2017, Federal District Judge Shah (N.D. Ill.), in EPSA v. Star, 1:17-cv-01164, dismissed the complaints of electricity consumers and an array of electric power generators and their association seeking to invalidate the Illinois Future Energy Jobs Act, enacted in December 2016. The Act created “zero emission credits” (“ZECs”) for the benefit of two nuclear power plants, which the plant owner (Exelon) threatened to retire absent outside economic support. As the Act’s title indicates, a principal motivation for the legislation was the prospect of significant job loss and other economic harms caused by shuttering the two nuclear plants, but the environmental benefit of “zero emission” nuclear power was a major driver as well. Continue reading “ZECs and RECs: A Quick Look at the EPSA v. Star Decision on Nuclear Plant Subsidies”
Stephen C. Zumbrun and Frank L. Tamulonis
In American Petroleum Institute (“API”) v. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), 2017 WL 2883867 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2017), the D.C. Circuit upheld, severed, and vacated portions of a 2015 EPA final rule, Definition of Solid Waste, 80 Fed. Reg. 1,694, 1,738/3 (Jan. 13, 2015) (the “Final Rule”). As explained below, the court: 1) upheld “Factor 3” of the “legitimate recycling” test defined in the rule; 2) vacated “Factor 4” of the legitimate recycling test; 3) vacated the Verified Recycler Exclusion (“VRE”), thereby reinstating the Transfer Based Exclusion (“TBE”) while retaining emergency preparedness requirements for generators and expanded containment requirements; and 4) held that the court did not have jurisdiction to review a deferred action by the EPA on containment and notification conditions for materials, products, or processes specifically excluded from the definition of “solid waste.” Continue reading “Recent D.C. Circuit Decision and Definition of Solid Waste”