American Oil and Gas Reporter - June 2024 - 16

IndustryDigest
Federal Courts Dismiss
Two Climate Lawsuits
PORTLAND, OR.-Fossil fuel
opponents' efforts to advance climate
goals through U.S. courts took a hit in
May with a pair of federal court rulings.
First came the May 1 ruling by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Juliana v. United States.
According to court documents, that
decision upheld a federal district court's
dismissal of a case brought by 21
plaintiffs, which claimed that " by
failing to adequately respond to the
threat of climate change, the federal
government has violated a putative
'right to a stable climate system that can
sustain human life.' "
The second court order, issued on
May 8, granted the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's motion to dismiss
the case. That lawsuit, G.B. v. U.S. EPA,
entailed a group of California minors
alleging the agency's inadequate
regulation is responsible for their
climate change harms.
In granting EPA's motion, U.S.
District Judge Michael Fitzgerald cited
redressability concerns, but left an
opening for the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint.
In a related note, on May 22,
Republican attorneys general for 19
states filed a motion for leave to file bill
of complaint with the U.S. Supreme
Court that asserts climate lawsuits
against oil companies by California,
Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and
Rhode Island are an attempt to wrest
control of the country's energy policy
outside the democratic process. ❒
Oklahoma State Court
Blocks Pension Law
Defending Oil And Gas
OKLAHOMA CITY-A state judge
has halted an Oklahoma law that
prevents the state's pension system from
doing business with firms that are
considered to be boycotting fossil fuel
companies. Court documents indicate
the suit was filed by retired state
employee Don Keenan, a beneficiary of
the Oklahoma Public Employees
Retirement System (OPERS).
On May 7, Oklahoma District Court
Judge Shiela D. Stinson granted a
temporary injunction against the
16 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER
enforcement of the Oklahoma Energy
Discrimination Act of 2022, citing the
plaintiff's claims of vagueness and
violation of exclusive benefit, but
rejecting a few other claims.
Stinson indicates that her injunction
suggests the state is likely to lose its
case. The opinion notes that officials
overseeing OPERS funds are
constitutionally required to manage
them " solely in the interest of the
participants and their beneficiaries. " She
then goes on to quote Oklahoma
Treasurer Todd Russ's notice to the
OPERS governing board that describes
the Oklahoma Energy Discrimination
Act as an effort to counter some
financial firms' political agenda and
back the state's oil and gas sector.
" The court finds a substantial
likelihood that this stated purpose of
countering a 'political agenda' is
contrary to the retirement system's
constitutionally stated purpose, " the
decision says. " An attempt by the
treasurer or board to divest or transfer
funds for any purpose other than the
benefit of the members or beneficiaries
is contrary to and a violation of the
Oklahoma Constitution, Article 23,
Section 12. "
That section says public retirement
systems' funds " shall be held, invested,
or disbursed as provided for by law as
in trust for the exclusive purpose of
providing for benefits, refunds,
investment management, and
administrative expenses of the
individual public retirement system, and
shall not be encumbered for or diverted
to any other purposes. "
Press accounts note that Oklahoma
Attorney General Gentner Drummond
has fired the counsel Russ hired.
Writing about the case on the Mintz
Law Firm's website, attorney Jacob H.
Hupart suggests implications for
similar laws in other states are unclear.
" While this ruling is undoubtedly
significant, the reasoning embraced by
the court may limit its ultimate impact, "
he assesses.
He explains that the state court based
its injunction on the law's vagueness
and the Oklahoma constitution's
demand that public pension funds be
managed only for retirees' benefit.
" Both of these rationales are specific
to Oklahoma-whether the language of
the statute or of the state constitution-
and may lack broader resonance, "
Hupart notes. " For example, a more
well-crafted law, and a less stringent
state constitution, could have led to a
different result. (Notably, the court
rejected the First Amendment argument
propounded by the petitioner, which
might have had broader implications.) "
❒
U.S. Supreme Court
Opts Against Revisiting
Challenge To MVP
WASHINGTON-The U.S.
Supreme Court has decided not to
revisit a case involving several Virginia
landowners who claim the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission lacks
authority to exercise eminent domain on
their land for the Mountain Valley
Pipeline. The high court's decision not
to hear the case came only one day
before MVP submitted to FERC a status
update on the project that included a
request to place the line in service by
early June.
According to Shayna Greene in
Bloomberg Law News, the case
originates in a claim by landowners in
the pipeline's right-of-way who were
unwilling to sell their properties. The
plaintiffs assert that FERC's 2017
certificate of public convenience and
necessity to MVP, which includes the
eminent domain power MVP used to
condemn those properties, improperly
allows Congress to delegate its
legislative powers to another entity.
" The landowners argued in their
January 2020 complaint that the
condemnation was barred by the
nondelegation doctrine, which blocks
Congress from delegating its legislative
powers to another entity, " Greene
writes. " FERC therefore shouldn't have
been able to issue the certificate of
public convenience and necessity to the
company for the pipeline, the
landowners said. "
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in February
affirmed a federal district court ruling
that dismissed the lawsuit, she adds, and
the Supreme Court in December
rejected a temporary injunction to halt
work on MVP's relevant section.
Meanwhile, in a May 21 letter to
acting FERC Secretary Debbie-Anne
Reese, MVP offered a status report on
the project and responded to
American Oil and Gas Reporter - June 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - June 2024
