Court Ruling Regarding the Dodd-Frank Conflict Minerals Disclosure Requirements

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a capital resurgence, driven by stabilizing interest rates and renewed attention from institutional investors. Private equity is leading the charge with private credit filling the void in traditional energy finance and hybrid capital instruments gaining in popularity. Family offices are also playing a crucial role, providing long-term, flexible investments.

Under a second Trump presidency, the U.S. is expected to consider reversal of many of the Biden administration’s climate and environmental policies, in addition to a markedly different approach to trade policy and oil & gas regulation. This includes expanding oil & gas development on public lands and offshore, lifting the pause on liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to non-Free Trade Agreement countries and repealing the methane fee.

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Drilling Down: What Oil & Gas Companies Can Expect from Federal Agencies During Trump’s Second Administration.”

On January 6, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Final Rule to amend its regulations governing the maximum civil monetary penalties assessable for violations of statutes, rules and orders within FERC’s jurisdiction. The Final Rule is a result of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which requires each federal agency to issue an annual inflation adjustment by January 15 for each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the agency’s jurisdiction. The adjustments in the Final Rule represent an increase of approximately 2.6% for each covered maximum penalty. FERC’s adjusted maximum penalty amounts, which will apply at the time of assessment of a civil penalty regardless of the date on which the violation occurred, are set forth here and will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Join projects & energy transition partners Ike Emehelu and Shariff Barakat as well as climate change partner Ken Markowitz at Infocast's Projects & Money, where Ike will moderate the "The State of Project Finance – View from the C-Suite" panel, and Shariff will moderate the "Capital Markets & Other Capital Sources for Project Finance & Investment" panel. Ken will moderate the “Carbon Markets Forecast for 2025” panel.

On December 16, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Proposed Penalty proposing to assess staggering civil penalties against American Efficient, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, American Efficient) in connection with an alleged scheme to manipulate the capacity markets operated by PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO).¹ The Order directs American Efficient to show cause as to why it should not be required to pay a civil penalty of $722 million and disgorge $253 million.²

On November 27, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC, an order that sets aside, in part, the Commission’s prior authorization of the CP2 LNG Terminal and CP Express Pipeline Project (collectively, the CP2 Project) under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). 

On November 27, 2024, in Venture Global, CP2 LNG, LLC,¹ the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) explicitly overruled precedent set in Northern Natural Gas Co.,² a 2021 decision in which FERC made an affirmative finding that an interstate natural gas pipeline project it was certificating under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) would not make a “significant” contribution to global climate change. Northern Natural is the only FERC decision in which a so-called significance determination was made with respect to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) arising from a FERC-regulated natural gas infrastructure project. In Venture Global, FERC rejected arguments that it needed to follow Northern Natural and assess the significance of GHG emissions in all NGA certificate proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies, including FERC, that perform “major federal actions,” which include issuing NGA section 7 certificates, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) if the action will “significantly affect[] the quality of the human environment.”³ FERC has been under pressure to fully explain why it has chosen not to apply Northern Natural’s significance analysis in subsequent cases, and that issue is currently before FERC on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) in Healthy Gulf et al. v. FERC, which reviewed FERC’s approval of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal under NGA section 3.