On July 11, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, TX, decided the case of Freestone Power Generation, LLC, v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, et al., reversing the trial court’s ruling that eight Texas power companies were not entitled to certain property tax exemptions administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Continue Reading ›
On July 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided an important case involving oil and gas producers, intermediaries, and the ultimate purchasers of the oil and gas. The case, a bankruptcy matter, is In re: SemCrude, LP, et al.
The appellants, many oil and gas producers located in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, sold their product to SemCrude, L.P. (SemCrude), a “midstream” oil and gas service provider, who then sold oil to and traded oil futures with downstream oil purchasers. SemCrude’s unsuccessful futures trading activities cause the company to become insolvent and enter into bankruptcy. However, the producers had taken no steps to protect themselves in case SemCrude went bankrupt in contrast to the downstream purchasers. As a result, when SemCrude filed for bankruptcy, the downstream purchasers were paid in full, and more than a thousand producers were unpaid.
The California Supreme Court’s recent Ardmore decision expanding the applicability of California’s Documentary Transfer Tax Act will no doubt be the source of future litigation. In their recent client alert, colleagues Craig A. Becker, Richard E. Nielsen, Breann E. Robowski and Dianne L. Sweeney examine the issue.
In a breakthrough for offshore wind energy in the United States, construction of the Block Island Wind Farm, the first U.S. offshore wind farm, was completed in August 2016 about 30 miles off the coast of Rhode Island. The project began delivering power to the New England grid on May 5 of this year. While Block Island is a big step forward for the industry, broad public support for offshore wind farms in the U.S. has been lacking due in large part to concerns about aesthetics when the turbines are visible from land. As demonstrated by the collapse of the Cape Wind project in 2014 off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, failure to get public buy-in can be fatal to a project.
In 1971, the citizens of Pennsylvania overwhelmingly approved a proposed amendment to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, now known as the “Environmental Rights Amendment” (ERA). The amendment provides:
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Governor Tom Wolf, held , in a 4 to 32 ruling, that two 2009 fiscal laws passed by the legislature were facially unconstitutional under the ERA because they did not provide that all funds generated by royalties from the leasing of state lands for the exploration and production of oil and gas were wholly directed to the protection and preservation of the Commonwealth’s public natural resources.
Continue Reading ›
On July 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, et al. This is referred to as the “ Moonlight Fire” case.
The Ninth Circuit framed the issues before it as follows:
We are asked to decide whether certain allegations of fraud, some of which were known before the parties settled, and some of which came to light after the settlement, rise to a level of fraud on the court, such that relief from the settlement agreement is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3).
In California Supreme Court Decision Changes the Transfer Tax World, Pillsbury attorneys Craig Becker, Richard Nielsen, Breann Robowski and Dianne Sweeney discuss the California Supreme Court’s decision in 926 North Armore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles:
The first Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) solid waste definitional decision, the celebrated American Mining Congress v. EPA case, was decided exactly 30 years ago, and it reverberates to this day.
In American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on July 7, 2017, the Court of Appeals reviews the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) latest effort to regulate the recycling of hazardous secondary materials in a way that is consistent with the RCRA. RCRA provides that only truly discarded materials can be solid wastes and perhaps regulated hazardous wastes. The Court of Appeals has now handed down its opinion, which, as befits RCRA, is very complex.
This is another decision that illustrates the powerful role the federal courts play in the proper interpretation of the environmental laws that apply to many industries, including the real estate and construction industries.
On July 6, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (case no. S221980). In this case, coastal homeowners alleged that, in issuing a permit to construct a protective seawall, the California Coastal Commission imposed unconstitutional conditions. In particular, the plaintiffs objected to the permit being limited to a 20-year term, after which they could be required to remove the seawall. However, to the disappointment of many who closely watched the case (as well as the plaintiffs), the Court declined to reach constitutional issues. Instead, the Court ruled that the homeowners waived their objection to permit conditions by constructing the seawall prior to the resolution of litigation.
On July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue a temporary stay of its new methane rule that had been promulgated in June 2016. This new rule, which affects many oil and gas producers, took effect on August 21, 2016. The case is Clean Air Act Council, et al. v. EPA.
