Once again, a federal district court has enjoined enforcement of a rule implemented by a wayward federal agency as it governs oil and gas activities. This one is North Dakota, et al v. US Department of Interior, et al. from the District of North Dakota.
The Department of the Interior implemented the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule (the 2016 Rule) that mandated flaring rather than venting of excess methane gas. The 2016 Rule was struck down as unlawful. Not to be denied, the BLM published the 2024 Rule, which continued the same mandate.
In this suit the plaintiff States claim that the 2024 Rule exceeds BLM’s statutory authority, is an unlawful regulation of air emissions, unlawfully regulates state and private mineral interests, and is arbitrary and capricious.
The arbitrary and capricious claim is based on allegations that the BLM:
- Reversed itself on a communitization issue (burdening private lands with regulatory burdens that are lawful only on federal lands) without adequate explanation;
- Failed to adequately explain how the air emission requirements are justified as cost-effective waste prevention measures;
- Failed to account for the possible decrease in royalties that is likely attributable to the Rule that will decrease gas production; and
- Failed to adequately respond to plaintiffs’ comments.
Defendants disagreed strongly on all points raised by the States.
Plaintiff States sought a preliminary injunction pending final trial. The court considered the four factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, of which the most significant was the probability of success on the merits.
The States showed that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the 2024 Rule is arbitrary and capricious. “Arbitrary and capricious” in this context means the agency has
- relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,
- entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
- offered an explanation of its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or
- is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.
In issuing the injunction the court discussed the requirements and purposes of several federal statutes: the Mineral Leasing Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Oil and Gas Management Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and 2023’s Inflation Reduction Act.
The court concluded that several of the requirements imposed by the 2024 Rule:
- are unsupported by ancillary environmental benefits,
- conflict with other state and federal laws, and
- add another layer of federal regulation on top of a myriad of existing state and federal regulations.
The court found that the Rule interfered with the States’ sovereign authority by “haphazardly adding more stringent flaring restrictions and “bureaucratic hoops” for the States to jump through when they have crafted their own plans under the Clean Air Act, cited “evidence” from a 1980 source without explanation,
The court gratuitously observed that “this case is an example of the left hand of the government not knowing what the right hand of the government is doing.”
Kris Kristofferson RIP
[View source.]
