Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP’s Post

The Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al v. Raimondo has overturned the long-standing Chevron precedent, altering the landscape of administrative law by ending the practice of courts deferring to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Partner Chip Cannon and senior counsel J. Porter Wiseman explain how this seismic shift impacts regulatory frameworks and raises questions about the future of energy projects and regulatory authority. Read our insights here: https://lnkd.in/eSn8AsYw #FERC #EnergyRegulatory #Energy

Investors that use shareholder resolutions to pressure companies on environmental and social issues said they are worried that an Exxon Mobil #lawsuit bypassing the U.S. securities regulator could undermine their influence. Under appointees of U.S. President Joe Biden, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has made it more difficult for companies to prevent these resolutions from moving to a shareholder vote by appealing to the regulator. Exxon sidestepped the SEC and filed a lawsuit earlier this month against two shareholders that had put forward a resolution calling on the oil major to set new targets for reducing some of its greenhouse gas #emissions. Exxon accused the investors in its lawsuit of abusing the process by putting forward resolutions to advance their agenda of diminishing its fossil fuels business, rather than grow shareholder value. Ross Kerber and Jody Godoy have more: https://reut.rs/4bbvTOR #legal #energy #oilandgas #climate

The U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. In ending “Chevron deference,” the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts. There is little doubt that it will significantly affect the federal government and regulated industries, including the energy industries regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gbfzusAJ By: Stephen Hug, Emily Mallen, Scott Johnson, Ben Reiter #AkinEnergy #Energy #Regulatory #SCOTUS

Lansdowne Appoints Lawyers, Continues Search for Funding in ECT Claim Against Ireland Reporting from Alliance News Limited, shared by Morningstar, provides an update on Lansdowne Oil & Gas efforts to bring a claim against the Irish government. The company announced that it has appointed Mantle Law to lead the legal proceedings, saying that the law firm has “the best dispute and arbitration lawyers in the construction, infrastructure and energy sectors.” The claim is focused on allegations that the Irish government failed to act in a fair and reasonable manner under the ECT when it withdrew an exploration license for the Barryroe prospect. Lansdowne had already invested $20 million in the project. Whilst the focus of the announcement is that Lansdowne has appointed lawyers for the case, it also included the detail that the oil and gas company is still ‘in the process of contacting litigation funders to finance the ECT claim and subsequent arbitration process.’ https://lnkd.in/ehKzXAGT #litigationfinance #litigationfunding #litfin #legalfinance #arbitrationfunding #ECT

In June and July, the US Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions that shifted the regulatory landscape for businesses in the energy sector. In a decision released on June 28, 2024, the Court overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine and abolished the principle of judicial deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Historically, Chevron deference granted agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission latitude in interpreting regulations. Instead, the new Loper Bright decision requires courts to conduct a judicial review of agency actions, applying their judgment without deferring to the agencies. This marks a significant shift in regulatory interpretation that amplifies risks for businesses in the US energy sector. Dig deeper into our client alert here: https://lnkd.in/dvjuxFs2 #Energy #SCOTUS #EnergySector Sara Hayes, GuyLaine Charles

There have been some significant changes in #administrativelaw over the past week that have implications for #transmission planning. This post is a round up of a few key resources to help readers get in the know quickly and walk away with key points. Quick background: The Chevron Doctrine in a nutshell: courts grant deference to an agency's reasonable interpretation regarding ambiguities in statutes that the agency administers. The doctrine gets its name from the 1984 case: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This case was overturned on June 28, 2024 by the US Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In a related but different administrative law development, the Court also said in an opinion issued on July 1, 2024 that plaintiffs can sue over regulations that affect them six years after being affected rather than six years from the regulations being issued. This decision in Corner Post v. the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System therefore takes what was a fixed window and makes it a moving target much farther out into the future. While six years may have been a wait for some additional certainty regarding the durability of regulations, it did provide a bookend. What are the implications? First up, I'm linking to a Utility Dive article by Ethan Howland, and I'll feature that in the image link: https://lnkd.in/ejNmHBdu. This does a nice job of wrapping up some quick takes and key implications. It also quotes a few of my K&L Gates partners: Varu Chilakamarri, formerly of the U.S. Department of Justice, and David Fine - both extremely talented litigators who have seen the evolution of Chevron over the years. As Varu notes: Chevron has been cited over 18,000 times since its inception in the mid-80s, "making it the most cited administrative law case in history." This article is helpful in pulling together recent developments in the courts and at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Commissioner Christie, who issued a strong dissent against #FERC's recent Order No. 1920, notes that 1920 builds on Order No. 1000, which was upheld under Chevron. Note, the Sup. Ct. states that prior decisions that rely on Chevron are not overturned but remain intact under the doctrine of stare decisis - Latin for "let the decision stand" and the basis for building law one on top of the next in the US legal system. Side note for non-lawyers: this is why all the case cites in a brief to a court. Counter to Commissioner Christie, Chairman Willie Phillips issued his own statement of the impact of the Loper Bright decision: https://lnkd.in/exHspZN3 K&L Gates partners Varu Chilakamarri, Mark Ruge, David R. Fine, Tre A. Holloway, and Falco Muscante II provide the concise overview of the Loper Bright decision here: https://lnkd.in/ejahRQvA #energy

Chevron doctrine before the Supreme Court - are you paying attention? Anyone operating in a regulated industry, consuming regulated goods and services, or just living in the U.S. should be interested in this case. Having worked as a regulator and for the regulated, I believe the implications are beyond vast. “Chevron deference” has defined four decades of regulatory application. Is it time to reevaluate? #chevron #regulation https://lnkd.in/g7JNbVWK

Shell’s tax rebates near $750m for decommissioning giant Brent oilfield A headline in Energy Voice (https://lnkd.in/eJaHD5tj) that is sure to spark outrage but Shell are simply following what was agreed with GOVUK decades ago. What should spark outrage is - why are we removing offshore architecture, removal will destroy associated thriving ecosystems? I outline my thoughts in this article - Why we should leave old oil rigs in the sea – and why we don’t (https://lnkd.in/duAVxiW).

Chevron is writing down ~$4B primarily due to "regulatory challenges in the state [of California] that have resulted in lower anticipated future investment levels in its business plans." While people in California who are against oil and gas will celebrate this news, it needs to be pointed out that this does nothing to reduce the demand of oil and gas that people use everyday. It only continues to impair the supply. The oil and gas will still be produced from other states and countries. Countries that do not have the same environmental protections and humans rights records as California. The investments that could have been made in California will now trickle out to other states and countries. Investments that could have helped a state with a record $68B budget deficit this past year. Investments that could have improved education, safety, and infrastructure in our local communities. In the state that uses the most oil and gas in the country, this will continue to exacerbate California's rising energy costs. As a friendly reminder, ~40% of CA electricity comes from natural gas. This will not just affect the price people pay at the pump. In the end, nothing has really changed on a global level with Chevron's write down. Only that this will lead to higher emissions overall, less revenue for California and higher costs for state residents. But hey, just as long as it's not in my backyard, right? https://lnkd.in/g4Tuca8e

California