Podcasts about natural gas act

The recent passage of the Unlocking Domestic LNG Potential Act by the House Republican majority, alongside support from some Democrats, marks a significant setback for President Joe Biden and his administration's climate change agenda. The legislation, approved in a 224-200 vote, received backing from nine Democrats and 215 Republicans, reflecting bipartisan concern over Biden's decision to cancel liquefied natural gas (LNG) drilling projects, which critics argue weaken the country and compromise energy independence. Introduced by Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), the bill aims to reverse Biden's suspension of permits for new LNG export projects. Pfluger criticized Biden's actions, accusing him of reneging on commitments made to supply Europe's LNG needs and highlighting the detrimental impact of limiting U.S. LNG exports, particularly in bolstering adversarial regimes like Russia and Iran. Amidst leading up to the 2024 election, surveys indicate that issues related to climate change rank lower among voters' top concerns compared to economic worries, border security, and inflation. Pfluger underscored the importance of American LNG exports, emphasizing the environmental benefits of U.S. gas compared to Russian gas while condemning Biden's moratorium on LNG exports as detrimental to environmental efforts. If enacted, Pfluger's legislation would amend the Natural Gas Act of 1938, granting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive authority over LNG export project permits. The bill requires FERC to prioritize the public interest in approving or rejecting permits, aiming to safeguard American jobs and energy security against what House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) described as Biden's Green New Deal agenda, which he argues threatens American jobs and energy independence.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Energy lawyer and law school professor William Massey, at 10 years the longest-serving commissioner ever at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, discusses the vast body of legal precedent finding FERC has expansive authority under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act, and reviews pending cases before the Supreme Court that may test whether this expansive view of FERC's authority will continue under the court's new Major Questions Doctrine."The courts have said FERC's authority is at its zenith when it comes to remedying undue discrimination. And FERC has remembered that and bases many of its policy choices on finding undue discrimination in either natural gas or electricity markets," Massey says. "We'll have to wait and see whether this Major Questions Doctrine, as it plays out over the next few years, whether it limits FERC's authority in certain ways."Massey also speaks to FERC's early days restructuring natural gas and electricity markets in the 1990s, the vast economic benefits that consumers have accrued as a result, and suggests that opening up the electricity sector to greater competitive forces will help policy makers bring about the clean-energy transition in response to the climate change threat at least cost to consumers.Support the show

Shan Zaidi, President, NGV Global Group Inc., and his teams are amongst corporate and civi pioneers who have accepted the enormous challenge to design, test & implement a better more sustainable and engaging future across diverse communities (technologically and individually.). 00:00 - Introduction & Overview (How To Cut Through Chaos & Noise) 03:00 - Getting to know Shan Zaidi 04:10 - NGV Golbal Group (of companies) pioneering cutting edge work and technology focussed addressing regional and global challenges in the space. 14:22 - What makes a person successful in the current environment 23:30 - What skillsets are useful for navigating our VUCA environmernt 27:00 - Fatherhood - modelling succes, growth and opportunity creation 33:00 - 3 Hands & A Deep Hole 36:00 - Contact information TheJourney.RyoSports.com NGV Global Group Inc  

The Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls “the accelerating threat of climate change” with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases said to be the principal cause of global warming. The White House has directed regulatory agencies and departments across the executive branch to “tackle the climate crisis.” The administration has set a goal to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 2035.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC's statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? Join us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question. Featuring:-- Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-- J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

The Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls "the accelerating threat of climate change" with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases said to be the principal cause of global warming. The White House has directed regulatory agencies and departments across the executive branch to "tackle the climate crisis." The administration has set a goal to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 2035.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC's statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? J. Kennerly Davis, Jr. and Bernard McNamee joined us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question.Featuring:- J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Former Senior Attorney, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia- Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This week, I am repeating part of a show that ran this past Sunday on PNN. The show deals with how Spire, one of the largest natural gas suppliers has been causing a panic in St. Louis (where Spire is based), over a 65 mile stretch of pipeline. The STL or St. Louis Pipeline as it has been dubbed had its certificate yanked by a DC court, over claims that the FERC assessment and certification was not in accordance with the actual LAW. The EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) brought the lawsuit against Spire, requesting that FERC do its job in accordance with the Natural Gas Act.  Spire's response was to send thinly veiled threatening emails and using local media as propagandists, claiming that without the 65-mile pipeline--there will be power outages as early as December 13. That is NOT totally true. FERC can extend the temporary permit and will most likely do so. EDF just wants to make sure that Spire isn't allowed to profit from their illegal move. During this investigation, I read from the court document, and found that Spire isolated St. Louis from any other pipelines, rendering us totally dependent on this single pipeline. Spire 'retired' the other pipelines which connected St. Louis to heating gas. EDF is ok with another temporary permit extending through the Winter, as long as Spire doesn't profit from this illegal action.  While investigating this story and making calls to Spire's Public Affairs Director Jason Merrill or it's CEO Suzanne Sitherwood, I must have stepped on some politically powerful toes, because I was 'visited' by 3 detectives from the Intelligence Unit of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. And no--I'M NOT KIDDING.  This was obviously an intimidation tactic. They claimed that Spire filed a complaint against me--FOR MAKING A PHONE CALL.  Come listen.  Jeanine

PennEast Pipeline Co. v New Jersey was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the sovereign immunity of states to delegated powers of eminent domain granted to private companies from federal agencies, in the specific case, acquiring property for the right-of-way to build a natural gas pipeline. The Court, in a 5–4 decision issued in June 2021, ruled that states, by nature of ratifying the Constitution, gave up their ability to exercise sovereign immunity from the federal government or from those parties whom they have delegated that authority. Background. The PennEast Pipeline was proposed by the PennEast Pipeline Co., a consortium of five regional energy companies, to move up 1 million cubic feet (28,000 m3) of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania to New Jersey over a distance of about 115 miles. As part of the approvals and permitting process, the consortium got approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for their proposed pipeline route in 2018. FERC's approval included the ability for PennEast to use eminent domain to obtain parcels of property along the route under terms of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and its 1947 amendment to 15 U.S.C. §717f(e). This approval was met with numerous criticisms by New Jersey and other respondents, and a separate suit challenging the FERC's order was raised at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As the case challenging the FERC order proceeded, PennEast began legal action to use eminent domain power to acquire the land for the pipeline. About forty parcels of land were owned by the state of New Jersey and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and PennEast turned to court action to assert eminent domain. New Jersey requested these suits be dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity, that the state should be immune from such a lawsuit by a private company. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the motion and allowed PennEast's suits to proceed. New Jersey appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court's ruling. The Third Circuit ruled that on the basis of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, states did enjoy sovereign immunity from private lawsuits, blocking the process of PennEast's suits. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar Penneast Pipeline Co., exercising federal eminent domain authority under the Natural Gas Act, from suing the State of New Jersey to acquire state-owned property to construct a natural gas pipeline. The Supreme Court rejected New Jersey's arguments that the federal eminent domain power had not been properly delegated to PennEast, and even if the authorization were appropriate, the State's sovereign immunity precluded this federal court suit. The federal government has always had the supreme power to condemn state property,the Court ruled, and the tradition of delegating this power to build public infrastructure goes back to the days of the nation's founding. Penneast was represented by former Solicitor General, Paul Clement.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Barrett filed a dissent joined by Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Featuring: -- Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP -- Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

On April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of PennEast Pipeline LLC v. New Jersey. In this case, the Court will address the conflict between state sovereign immunity secured to the states by the Eleventh Amendment and the Federal Natural Gas Act which authorizes certain private actors to exercise Federal eminent domain power. In this case, PennEast Pipeline used the Act to take forty-two New Jersey properties in order to build a pipeline. New Jersey fought the taking, arguing that PennEast was not appropriately authorized under the Act and even if the authorization were appropriate, sovereign immunity applied. The District Court sided with PennEast, finding the exercise of eminent domain was authorized. The Third Circuit disagreed, holding that even though the authorization under the Act was appropriate, the Act does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court takes up the question whether the Natural Gas Act does delegate federal eminent domain power and if so, whether that delegation removes Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity. Featuring: -- Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirland & Ellis LLP -- Moderator: Roger J. Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

QUESTION PRESENTED:(1) Whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit properly exercised jurisdiction over this case.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 24 2020 | Application (19A836) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 3, 2020 to March 4, 2020, submitted to Justice Alito.Jan 27 2020 | Application (19A836) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until March 4, 2020.Feb 18 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 23, 2020)Mar 09 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC.Mar 20 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Marcellus Shale Coalition and Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association filed.Mar 20 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Industrial Energy Consumers of America filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Pennslvania Manufacturers' Association, et al. filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. filed.Mar 23 2020 | Waiver of New Jersey Conservation Foundation of right to respond not accepted for filing. (March 24, 2020)Mar 23 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation to respond filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Consumer Energy Alliance filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute filed.Mar 23 2020 | Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry filed.Mar 23 2020 | Waiver of right of respondents State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al. to respond filed.Apr 01 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.Apr 13 2020 | Response Requested. (Due May 13, 2020)Apr 30 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 13, 2020 to June 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Apr 30 2020 | Response to motion from petitioner PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed.May 01 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including June 2, 2020, for all respondents.Jun 02 2020 | Brief of respondents State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al. in opposition filed.Jun 02 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation to respond filed.Jun 03 2020 | Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.Jun 09 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020.Jun 09 2020 | Reply of petitioners PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed. (Distributed)Jun 29 2020 | The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.Dec 09 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Dec 23 2020 | Supplemental brief of respondents State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al. filed.Jan 07 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.Feb 03 2021 | Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Did the Court of Appeals properly exercise jurisdiction over this case? The case will be set for argument in the April 2021 argument session.Feb 05 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, PennEast Pipeline Company, LLCFeb 08 2021 | Joint motion to set the briefing schedule filed by the parties.Feb 10 2021 | Joint motion to set the briefing schedule GRANTED. Petitioner's brief on the merits will be filed on or before March 1, 2021. Respondents briefs on the merits will be filed on or before March 31, 2021. The reply brief will be filed in compliance with Rule 25.3.Feb 22 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, New Jersey Conservation FoundationMar 01 2021 | Brief of petitioner PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed.Mar 01 2021 | Joint appendix (two volumes) filed.Mar 04 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, State of New Jersey; NJ Department of Envrionmental Protection, et al.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al. filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Pennslvania Manufacturers' Association and the New Jersey Business & Industry Association filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute filed.Mar 08 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Marcellus Shale Coalition and Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association filed.Mar 12 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, April 28, 2021.Mar 15 2021 | Record requested.Mar 30 2021 | CIRCULATEDMar 31 2021 | Brief of respondent New Jersey Conservation Foundation filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Brief of respondents New Jersey, et al. filed. (Distributed)Mar 31 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Apr 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of State of Oregon, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 07 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. (Distributed)Apr 07 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Council of State Governments, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 16 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.Apr 16 2021 | Reply of petitioner PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC filed. (Distributed)Apr 28 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Counsel to the Attorney General, Trenton, N. J.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest, and whether it also abrogates state sovereign immunity in such cases.

A case in which the Court held that the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government's eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest, and that it abrogates state sovereign immunity in such cases.

This week's episode covers the PennEast's eminent domain issue, FERC allowing additional briefing on construction under the Natural Gas Act, the Enbridge energy line replacement, the Seattle City 2018 Energy Code, a delay with the effective date of the Migratory Bird Rule, and the Treasury Bureau delaying publishing a rule that could affect the Oil and Gas industry.  Host:  Sara Jenkins, Research Assistant Editor: Erin M. Lieberman, Research Assistant  For a print version, see the Shale Law Weekly Review. Follow us on Twitter @AgShaleLaw  Like us on Facebook Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law   Music is “Caazapá (Aire Popular Paraguayo)” by Edson Lopes and is licensed under CC BY 3.0. 

This week's podcast discusses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit regarding PHMSA and the Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline, an Executive Order by President Trump to accelerate energy infrastructure projects, a Final Rule issued by FERC for natural gas projects approved under the Natural Gas Act, and a bill out of Oklahoma which clarifies ownership and responsibility of wastewater from oil and gas production.  Host:  Sara Jenkins, Research Assistant Editor: Kaela Gray, Research Assistant  For a print version, see the Shale Law Weekly Review for June 16, 2020.  Follow us on Twitter @AgShaleLaw  Like us on Facebook Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law   Music is “Caazapá (Aire Popular Paraguayo)” by Edson Lopes and is licensed under CC BY 3.0. 

In this episode, we will be discussing a Penn State study on methane leaks, the new draft of the recovery plan for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, and a recent FERC order that provides the agency's views on the eminent domain provisions in the Natural Gas Act. This week's host:  Research Assistant, Lisa Cumming Music is “Caazapá (Aire Popular Paraguayo)” by Edson Lopes and is licensed under CC BY 3.0. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider the third of several petitions for certiorari asking it to review a question which has split the lower federal courts: whether district courts have the power under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to issue preliminary injunctions in takings under the Natural Gas Act which allow private pipeline condemnors to obtain immediate possession of property, even though Congress has withheld the federal “quick take” power in the NGA. The Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have concluded that simply because Congress did not delegate to private pipeline condemnors the quick take authority—the power to obtain immediate title and possession of condemned property upon a deposit of estimated compensation—neither did it withhold from federal courts their usual equitable powers to issue injunctions. The Seventh Circuit concluded otherwise: that because private pipeline condemnors were not delegated the quick take power in the NGA, possession must wait until the court adjudicates the final compensation owed, and the pipeline condemnor exercises its option and makes that payment. This Term, the Court declined to review two of the three petitions, but the issue is one that is not going away.Featuring: Chris Johns, Partner, Johns & Counsel PLLCJeffrey A. Simmons, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLPModerator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider the third of several petitions for certiorari asking it to review a question which has split the lower federal courts: whether district courts have the power under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to issue preliminary injunctions in takings under the Natural Gas Act which allow private pipeline condemnors to obtain immediate possession of property, even though Congress has withheld the federal “quick take” power in the NGA. The Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have concluded that simply because Congress did not delegate to private pipeline condemnors the quick take authority—the power to obtain immediate title and possession of condemned property upon a deposit of estimated compensation—neither did it withhold from federal courts their usual equitable powers to issue injunctions. The Seventh Circuit concluded otherwise: that because private pipeline condemnors were not delegated the quick take power in the NGA, possession must wait until the court adjudicates the final compensation owed, and the pipeline condemnor exercises its option and makes that payment. This Term, the Court declined to review two of the three petitions, but the issue is one that is not going away.Featuring: Chris Johns, Partner, Johns & Counsel PLLCJeffrey A. Simmons, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLPModerator: Robert H. Thomas, Director, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

The advent of fracking and other technological innovations has unleashed a new era of American energy independence, and increased energy production has required increased construction for pipeline and other related energy infrastructure projects. With this construction has come a wave of litigation, as environmental organizations raise objections under the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Natural Gas Act, and a variety of other environmental statutes and property owners in the path of proposed pipelines try to avoid the exercise of eminent domain over their land. Please join us for a teleforum that explores the challenges facing energy suppliers and property owners in today’s legal environment along with a look ahead to possible future developments.Featuring:Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticePeter Tolsdorf, Vice President of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel, National Association of Manufacturers Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The advent of fracking and other technological innovations has unleashed a new era of American energy independence, and increased energy production has required increased construction for pipeline and other related energy infrastructure projects. With this construction has come a wave of litigation, as environmental organizations raise objections under the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Natural Gas Act, and a variety of other environmental statutes and property owners in the path of proposed pipelines try to avoid the exercise of eminent domain over their land. Please join us for a teleforum that explores the challenges facing energy suppliers and property owners in today’s legal environment along with a look ahead to possible future developments.Featuring:Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticePeter Tolsdorf, Vice President of Litigation and Deputy General Counsel, National Association of Manufacturers Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

For Episode 26 of the Eminent Domain Podcast, we discuss four eminent domain cases to watch in 2019.  1.  Knick v. Township of Scott. An article from the Wall Street Journal about the recent re-argument in the case:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-hears-cases-involving-land-use-alcohol-permits-11547678921?shareToken=st6639c9e086044c66b109cb0a13b74ac9&ref=article_email_share 2.  The Border Wall (Soon to be?) Cases. Articles from Professor Gerald Dickson and Ilya Somin are here: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/424195-trumps-militarized-land-seizure-for-border-wall-is-more-complicated-than and here:  https://reason.com/volokh/2019/01/07/eminent-domain-emergency-powers-and-trum Rep. Amash's proposed bill:  https://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/documents/Eminent%20Domain%20Just%20Compensation%20Act.pdf 3.  The Flooding and Wildfire Cases. 4.  Nexus Gas Transmission v. City of Green, Ohio (the circuit split about when a FERC regulated pipeline can take possession of property it is condemning) The 6th Circuit joined the 3rd and 4th Circuits in concluding that, notwithstanding a lack of quick take power in the Natural Gas Act, a trial court may by injunction grant a FERC regulated pipeline that meets the standards to exercise the eminent domain power, immediate possession of property to commence construction.  The 7th Circuit stands in contrast to the 3rd, 4th, and 6th.  The Nexus Gas opinion is here:  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/18-3325/18-3325-2018-12-07.html Thank you to Robert Thomas, one of the co-planning chairs of the 2019 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conference, for recording information about the upcoming on January 24-26 at the Marriott Renaissance Hotel in Palm Springs, California.  https://www.ali-cle.org/course/Eminent-Domain-and-Land-Valuation-Litigation-CA007 For those in the DFW area, I am very excited and honored to be one of the presenters at the 2019 TEDx Conference in Flower Mound, Texas on February 7, 2019.  The conference theme is World Changers.  I will be speaking on Finding Your Second Wind - Resiliency in the Journey of Life.  If you wish to attend, a link to the event website is here:  https://tedxflowermound.com/