The Energy Law Blog : Energy Lawyer & Attorney : Liskow & Lewis Law Firm : Gulf Coast, Offshore

By Michael A. Mahone, Jr.

In U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Dizona, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently considered allegations by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission that a natural gas trader had attempted to manipulate the price of natural gas by knowingly delivering false and inaccurate price and volume data to reporting services. These data gathering services would solicit bid data at the end of each month and would analyze this data to postulate an index price for natural gas, which would in turn set the price for the following month. Supposedly, the data reported to the reporting service was not based upon actual trades but was instead fabricated by the defendant to affect these indices, either positively or negatively. The Fifth Circuit ultimately agreed with the district court that there was insufficient evidence of price manipulation, once incriminating hearsay evidence was excised. Specifically, the Court explained that the Commission’s expert’s “general findings of biased reporting” and the vague incriminating statements made by the defendant on an audiotape (i.e., wherein he implicitly indicated that he would make sure to set the price at a particular level) were insufficient to show that the defendant delivered false reports in an attempt to manipulate the market price of natural gas. Yet, while the Commission was unable to prove its case in this instance, the theory advocated could very well be successful in the future, provided that better evidence is available.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0820418cv0p.pdf
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Matthew Simone

On January 6, 2010, the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, announced plans to reform the nation’s policy on oil and gas development in an effort to shift from the Bush Administration’s “anywhere, anyhow” policy. The goals of this reform are to improve environmental protection and to reduce costly litigation and protests. Under the reformed policy, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will provide more detailed environmental review prior to leasing oil and natural gas resources. Secondly, the BLM will make forums available for public involvement in the development of Master Leasing and Development Plans prior to leasing areas where intensive new oil and gas development is anticipated. The new policy will also include a comprehensive parcel review process taking a site-specific approach to individual lease sales, which will include public participation, interdisciplinary review of available information, and visits to parcels when necessary to supplement or validate existing data. Lastly, Secretary Salazar’s reforms will provide guidance regarding the use of categorical exclusions (CXs) established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which allows the BLM to streamline the environmental review process for certain oil and gas exploration and development activities. The new policy will require more extensive environmental review on CXs when the BLM is presented with “extraordinary circumstances.” Secretary Salazar also created the Energy Reform Team which is charged with implementing the new policies and helping other agencies to coordinate and manage public energy resources in the future.

To read further, please go to http://7lmoganewsbits623.blogspot.com/

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Stephen Wiegand

On December 15, 2009, EPA published in the Federal Register its final endangerment findings with respect to greenhouse gases. See 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf]. This rulemaking is a response to Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), in which the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases were “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and ordered EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” under Section 202 of the Act.
In its findings published on December 15, EPA concluded that six greenhouse gases taken in combination may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and public welfare. These gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflourocarbons, perflourocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. In reaching these conclusions, EPA considered the extent to which elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases may cause changes in air quality, increases in temperature, changes in extreme weather events, increases in food- and water-borne pathogens, and changes in aeroallergens. EPA relied on assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council.
While these findings do not in themselves impose any requirements on regulated entities, they are a prerequisite to future regulation of greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority. Many view the existing Clean Air Act as ill-suited to the regulation of greenhouse gases. This endangerment finding, along with EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under existing Clean Air Act authority, see EPA Proposed PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule [http://www.hss.energy.gov/nuclearsafety/env/rules/74/74fr55292.pdf], is being used as a forcing function to accelerate the passage of stand-alone greenhouse gas legislation by Congress.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link