Today, the United States Supreme Court granted a Petition for Certiorari filed by energy companies in Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit. By granting the petition, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision remanding the suit to state court after rejecting the energy companies’ contention that they were acting as federal officers pursuant to historical contracts with the federal government.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court To Review Scope of Appellate Review for Federal Officer Removal in Climate Change Litigation
Environmental
DOI Announcement of a Proposed Rule on Risk Management, Financial Assurance and Loss Prevention
The long-awaited proposed changes to the Department of Interior’s Financial Assurance Rule (“Proposed Rule”) were finally announced yesterday by the Trump Administration. The announcement provides, among other things, that the proposed rulemaking is in efforts to clarify, streamline and provide greater transparency to the financial assurance requirements (e.g., supplemental bonding) for OCS lessees and grant holders of pipeline rights-of-way (“ROW”) and rights-of-use and easement (“RUE”), while protecting U.S. taxpayers against picking up the tab for high-risk decommissioning liabilities. Once this Proposed Rule is published in the Federal Register (date yet to be announced), the public will have a 60-day comment period.
Continue Reading DOI Announcement of a Proposed Rule on Risk Management, Financial Assurance and Loss Prevention
U.S. Customs Revokes Recent Offshore Wind Ruling; Maintains Uncertainty Whether the Jones Act Applies to Wind Farm Installations on the OCS
On July 15, 2020, the Unites States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) issued a ruling (HQ H309672) in connection with the installation of an offshore wind farm located off the coast of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in U.S. territorial waters (the “July 15 Ruling”). CBP determined that activities to be conducted in connection with the installation of offshore wind turbine generator (“WTG”) units using a non-coastwise-qualified jack up vessel (i.e., not a Jones Act compliant vessel) (the “Installation Vessel”) did not violate the Jones Act (46 U.S.C. § 55102) (or the Passenger Vessel Services Act (46 U.S.C. § 55103)).
Continue Reading U.S. Customs Revokes Recent Offshore Wind Ruling; Maintains Uncertainty Whether the Jones Act Applies to Wind Farm Installations on the OCS
U.S. Department of Interior Announces Formal Partnership with Norway to Promote and Share Offshore Energy Knowledge and Experience
Yesterday, the United State Department of Interior (DOI) announced the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy of the Kingdom of Norway to formalize a partnership to share best practices, knowledge, experience, policy, and regulatory initiatives in connection with the development of as oil, gas, and wind energy resources.
Continue Reading U.S. Department of Interior Announces Formal Partnership with Norway to Promote and Share Offshore Energy Knowledge and Experience
Climate Change Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kicks Climate Change Case Back to State Court
Amidst historically low oil prices and economic shutdowns, fossil fuel companies continue to defend against lawsuits brought by state and local governments claiming climate-change related damages. In two companion cases, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided whether a federal district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over climate change suits brought against energy companies by cities and counties in California. In County of San Mateo et al. v. Chevron Corporation et al., Docket No. 18-15499, the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) limited appellate review of an order to remand to the extent the order addressed whether removal was proper under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit further held that the district court did not err in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute. In City of Oakland et al. v. BP PLC et al., Docket No. 18-16663, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying remand and sent the case back to the federal district court with instructions to consider whether alternative grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction exist.
Continue Reading Climate Change Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kicks Climate Change Case Back to State Court
OSHA Addresses Reporting COVID-19 Cases as Job-Related and In-Person Workplace Inspections
On May 19, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued two noteworthy enforcement memos. The first memo announced the reversal of OSHA’s April 10, 2020 policy that limited the requirement to track on-the-job cases of COVID-19 to health-care facilities, emergency response providers, and corrections facilities. The new policy, which goes into effect on May 26, 2020, mandates that all employers who are required to maintain OSHA injury and illness logs determine whether employees’ cases of the COVID-19 virus are “work-related” and record those that meet certain requirements. Specifically, employers subject to OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements must record a case of COVID-19 as job-related if (1) it is a confirmed case of the virus as defined by the CDC, (2) it is “work-related” in that an event or exposure in the work environment either contributed to or caused an employee to contract the virus, and (3) it results in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness or involves a significant diagnosed injury or illness. Employers who have no recordkeeping obligations need only report work-related COVID-19 illnesses resulting in an employee’s death or in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.
Continue Reading OSHA Addresses Reporting COVID-19 Cases as Job-Related and In-Person Workplace Inspections
The Supreme Court Looks for a Middle Ground to Determine When Clean Water Act Permit is Required for Discharges to Groundwater
On April 23, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al., where the Court held that, in limited circumstances, a party discharging pollutants into groundwater that ultimately end up in navigable waters will need a permit under the Clean Water Act.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Looks for a Middle Ground to Determine When Clean Water Act Permit is Required for Discharges to Groundwater
ARCO v. Christian: Supreme Court Allows State Law Claims for Restoration Damages in Excess of EPA Superfund Cleanup, but EPA Must Approve Any Additional Remedial Action
This week, in a split 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that Montana state law claims brought by private landowners against Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) for alleged impacts from the Anaconda Smelter Superfund site are not preempted by CERCLA and are not precluded by ARCO’s settlement of EPA’s CERCLA claims; however, any restoration damages awarded to the landowners must be spent on actual restoration of the property, as required by Montana state law, and restoration must be conducted in a manner either approved by the EPA or consistent with the EPA’s already-approved remedial action plan.Continue Reading ARCO v. Christian: Supreme Court Allows State Law Claims for Restoration Damages in Excess of EPA Superfund Cleanup, but EPA Must Approve Any Additional Remedial Action
COVID-19 as a Force Majeure? The Texas and Louisiana Perspectives
Today, countries worldwide are responding to a pandemic of respiratory disease spreading from person-to-person caused by a novel coronavirus. The disease has been named “coronavirus disease 2019” (abbreviated “COVID-19”). The pandemic poses a serious public health risk, and government response has included closure of schools and businesses, declarations of emergency, and issuance of a variety of “stay home” orders—typically instructing all but “essential personnel” to remain in their residences other than to gather necessaries. These events have dramatically impacted the world economy, and wreaked havoc on the day-to-day functions of individuals and businesses in the United States and elsewhere. Does this pandemic and resultant disruption constitute a force majeure event under Louisiana and Texas law?Continue Reading COVID-19 as a Force Majeure? The Texas and Louisiana Perspectives
Commissioner of Conservation Issues Letter Addressing Emergency Measures to Help Louisiana Oil and Gas Industry
The impacts of COVID-19 have rapidly swept across the country and the globe. Coupled with the recent decline in oil and gas prices, many operators are left scrambling in an attempt to navigate unprecedented circumstances. With shutdowns and stay-at-home orders in place and regulatory deadlines looming, Louisiana operators are looking for guidance from regulators on how to proceed.Continue Reading Commissioner of Conservation Issues Letter Addressing Emergency Measures to Help Louisiana Oil and Gas Industry