Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘law suit’

Dominion Energy vs. Dept. of the Interior et al

Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, Regulation, tagged , , , , , on December 30, 2025| Leave a Comment »

Dominion’s suit challenging the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind suspension order is attached.

Summary: “BOEM’s order sets forth no rational basis, cannot be reconciled with BOEM’s own regulations and prior issued lease terms and approvals, is arbitrary and capricious, is procedurally deficient, violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), and infringes upon constitutional principles that limit actions by the Executive Branch. This Court must therefore vacate the Order and enjoin BOEM from taking further action with respect to that Order.”

Key points raised by Dominion:

  • Dominion Energy Virginia (DEV) has spent approximately $8.9 billion to develop CVOW to date, which is over two-thirds of the total projected cost of $11.2 billion.
  • BOEM and Interior afforded DEV no advance warning or due process regarding the Order for CVOW.
  • The Order alleges no CVOW violation or deficiency.
  • The Order points to unnamed “national security threats” based on a November 2025 “additional assessment regarding the national security implications of offshore wind projects” by DoD, “including the rapid evolution of relevant adversary technologies and the resulting direct impacts to national security from offshore wind projects” generally.
  • The Order deems this information “new” and “classified” without any justification or detail. Moreover, as BOEM and DoD should know, certain DEV officials have security clearances to receive and review classified information, yet never were afforded such an opportunity prior to issuance of the Order.
  • DEV is suffering more than $5 million per day in losses solely for costs relating to vessel services associated with the Order. DEV is also incurring losses related to additional storage costs for the significant amount of equipment, idle workforce, contractual penalties, and additional costs.
  • BOEM’s Order comprises a single page, identifies no specific concerns, and provides no supporting documentation.
  • Agencies are required to consider costs and benefits in their decision-making
  • Agencies are required to consider alternatives in their decision-making.
  • The CVOW Order unlawfully deprives DEV of a property interest without due process.

    Dominion’s weakest argument follows (bad State legislation shouldn’t dictate Federal energy policy):

    CVOW is critical to Virginia’s legislative clean energy directive and DEV’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions. The VCEA requires the transition of Virginia’s electric grid to 100 percent non-carbon producing energy generation by 2045. Va. Code § 56-585.5. The VCEA also states that the construction of Virginia offshore wind facilities is in the public interest. Va. Code § 56-585.1:11 (C)(1).

      dominion-power-vs-bureau-of-ocean-engery-managementDownload

      Read Full Post »

      Sable Offshore sues the California Coastal Commission!

      Posted in California, energy policy, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , on February 19, 2025| Leave a Comment »

      John Smith forwarded Sable’s court filing (attached) and highlighted important text.

      The Coastal Commission has asserted that anomaly repair work on Sable’s onshore pipeline, which was required by the California Fire Marshall and approved by Santa Barbara County, constitutes a violation of the Coastal Act.

      Santa Barbara County had confirmed in writing that Sable’s repair work is authorized by the pipeline’s existing coastal development permits and, consistent with the County’s past practices, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required.

      John and I believe Sable has a strong case, but you can be the judge. For the Commission and County to have such divergent opinions is rather surprising.

      Among other assertions, Sable argues (par. 115) that the Coastal Commission violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the temporary or permanent taking of private property for public use without prior, just compensation. This could lead to significant liability costs for the State.

      Much more on Sable’s Santa Ynez Unit challenges.

      Sable Suite CCC 021825 highlightedDownload

      Read Full Post »

      Ocean City MD et al sue to vacate Maryland Offshore Wind approval

      Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged , , , , , on October 30, 2024| Leave a Comment »

      As promised, Ocean City, Maryland, neighboring towns, counties, fishing groups, the Save Right Whales Coalition, and a long list of commercial entities have sued BOEM for approving the Construction and Operations Plan (COP) for the Maryland Offshore Wind project. The complete filing is attached.

      The plaintiffs’ discussion of BOEM’s failure to consider true alternatives (begins on p. 43) is particularly interesting. They contend that “BOEM rejected out-of-hand all true alternatives, and selected alternatives with only minor differences in number of turbines and the route for the power cables from the proposed action.“

      The plaintiffs also assert (p. 44) that “BOEM flatly rejected the option of not authorizing the Maryland Offshore Wind Project—as though approval were foreordained, with only the details to be determined.“

      The plaintiffs’ argue further (p. 46) that BOEM failed to analyze the 3 phases of the project, particularly the third phase which is open-ended at this time.

      Blade failure concerns are discussed beginning on p. 49. Excerpt:

      “Missing from BOEM’s Final EIS is any discussion or analysis of the environmental impacts in the event of blade and turbine failure and the degradation of Project components, which are known and foreseeable possibilities that should have been reviewed and analyzed by BOEM. Risks of blade and turbine failure and component degradation are not hypothetical. Rather, they pose real dangers to the water quality of the ocean, fish and essential fish habitats, marine mammals, benthic resources, and recreational and commercial boaters.”

      As previously recommended, wind leasing and plan approvals should be paused until BSEE’s investigation of the Vineyard Wind blade failure and the associated environmental damage study have been completed.

      There is much more in this filing for those who want to take a closer look.

      093114415371Download

      Read Full Post »

      SpaceX lawsuit against the California Coast Commission: Many long-time offshore industry observers are nodding approval.

      Posted in California, Regulation, tagged , , , , on October 21, 2024| Leave a Comment »

      Per a related post, the full SpaceX lawsuit is attached. It’s mostly exhibits, so don’t be intimidated by the length.

      This excerpt summarizes the case nicely:

      “Rarely has a government agency made so clear that it was exceeding its authorized mandate to punish a company for the political views and statements of its largest shareholder and CEO. Second, the Commission is trying to unlawfully regulate space launch programs—which are critical to national security and other national policy objectives—at Vandenberg Space Force Base (the Base), a federal enclave and the world’s second busiest spaceport.”

      Even Gov. Newsome sides with SpaceX saying “I’m with Elon.”

      Will this case teach the Commission some humility? Probably not, but we shall see.

      spacex-v-california-coastal-cmmissionDownload

      Read Full Post »

      Chutzpah Award winner! 🏆

      Posted in California, energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , on July 2, 2024| Leave a Comment »

      Followers of the US OCS oil and gas program have observed some impressive chutzpah over the years, but a new law suit challenging the extension of Santa Ynez Unit leases raises the bar.

      Groups that helped block every attempt to resume production in the Santa Ynez Unit are now suing to terminate the leases for non-production. Brilliant!🥇

      “Without these extensions, each of the leases would have expired and ExxonMobil would have been required to permanently cease its oil and gas operations, plug its wells, and decommission its other infrastructure.” See the full text of the law suit.

      More posts on the Santa Ynez Unit saga.

      Read Full Post »

      Can Nord Stream AG ‘pig’ the investigation pipeline?

      Posted in accidents, climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, natural gas, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , , , , on March 14, 2024| Leave a Comment »

      Pictured: pig for cleaning gas pipelines. Will Nord Stream’s suit against the insurers unplug investigation findings?

      Nord Stream AG has sued insurers Lloyds and Arch in the English High Court for failing to pay for pipeline damage incurred during the Sept. 2022 Baltic Sea explosions. The estimated pipeline repair costs range from €1.2 to €1.35 billion, and Nord Stream is seeking €400 million from the insurers.

      Could this litigation help us learn more about the findings of the official Nord Stream investigations? After 17 months of investigation, Denmark recently concluded that “there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark.” Only nineteen days before Sweden had announced that “Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed.” These weak announcements at the end of lengthy investigations seem too convenient, and may lend credence to Hersh’s Nord Stream account or a recent variation that implicates the UK. Germany is presumably still investigating, and it remains to be seen whether they will release findings.

      Could the parties in the Nord Stream case pursue documents or testimony from the Swedish, Danish, or German investigation teams? Both sides in this case, Nord Stream AG and the insurers, would benefit from details that could help identify the responsible parties.

      It’s more than a little hypocritical for Western governments and their NGO partners to rail against offshore oil and gas operations while quietly accepting (without investigation) the economic and environmental consequences of the Nord Stream sabotage. Compare the Nord Stream methane emissions with those associated with Gulf of Mexico operations.

      Read Full Post »

      Another California law suit: Center for Biological Diversity sues BOEM, BSEE, NMFS for failure to protect endangered species

      Posted in California, decommissioning, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, tagged , , , , , on January 26, 2022| Leave a Comment »

      The law suit makes reference to the aging offshore facilities and the Huntington Beach pipeline spill:

      Oil companies have been drilling off California for more than 50 years. The first platforms were installed in 1968 and production continues today. Much of this infrastructure has outlived its expected lifespan and is well beyond the age scientists say significantly increase the risk of oil spills.

      Indeed, just months ago a pipeline connected to a platform in federal waters off Huntington Beach ruptured and spilled tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the marine environment. The spill fouled sensitive marine, beach, and wetland habitat; forced closure of fisheries; and harmed and killed birds, fish, plants, invertebrates, and marine mammals.

      CBD law suit

      Read Full Post »