2622 research outputs found
Sort by
MTSUN, LLC v. Mont. Dep\u27t of Pub. Serv. Regulation
Full text linkMTSUN, LLC initiated negotiations for a power purchase agreement with NorthWestern Energy in September of 2015 for a potential solar energy facility in eastern Montana. In December of 2016, at an impasse in contract negotiations with NorthWestern, MTSUN filed a petition with the Montana Public Service Commission requesting that the agency exercise its statutory authority to set the terms of the contract for the proposed project. Following MTSUN’s petition, the PSC issued a series of orders and reconsiderations which ultimately reconfigured the entirety of the agreement, including the terms that the parties had previously agreed upon. After exhausting its administrative remedies, MTSUN challenged the PSC’s orders in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County alleging that the PSC violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, Montana’s mini-PURPA, and the PSC’s own precedent in establishing the terms of the PPA. MTSUN, LLC. v. Mont. Dep’t of Pub. Serv. Regulation provides some insight into the PSC (one of the lesser-known state agencies) and the future of renewable energy in Montana
PREVIEW; \u3cem\u3e Butte School District No. 1 v. C.S. and Stuart McCarvel. \u3c/em\u3e Applying the \u3cem\u3eEndrew F. \u3c/em\u3e Standard: ‘Appropriately Ambitious in Light of the Child’s Circumstances’
Full text linkYou Can\u27t Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: \u3cem\u3eState v. Wilson\u3c/em\u3e in Light of Changing Marijuana Law
Full text link
The Civil Jurisdictional Landscape in Eastern Oklahoma Post McGrit v. Oklahoma
No full textThe Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020),has caused considerable unrest in Eastern Oklahoma as non-Indian individuals, businesses, and organizations try to determine how the decision might affect them. That unrest sets the stage for potential conflict and litigation over tribal and state authority in the region. But, while McGirt means that the rules governing civil jurisdiction on Indian reservations now apply to all lands within the Creek Reservation,it is cause for hope,not concern. First, as a practical matter, little is likely to change post- McGirt: tribal civil jurisdiction will mostly remain limited to “Indian lands” while the scope of state civil jurisdiction is also likely to remain largely static, although now subject to a somewhat more complicated and fact-specific inquiry. In addition, Congress has already resolved many potentially disputed jurisdictional issues and others have been avoided through successful intergovernmental cooperation between tribes and the State of Oklahoma. Ultimately, then, this overview of a post- McGirt world demonstrates that there is no reason“why pessimism should rule the day.” McGirt, 140 S.Ct.at 2481.Rather than costly winner-take-all litigation or the uncertain outcomes of congressional politics, the decision instead opens the door for a new era of innovative and effective tribal-state relations
350 Montana v. Bernhardt
Full text linkIn its second trip before the District Court of Montana, the Bull Mountain Mine expansion was again halted, this time due to coal train derailments. The Bull Mountain Mine expansion, previously enjoined in 2015 for violating the National Environmental Policy Act, was revived in 2018 when the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement approved the expansion a second time. Here, the court found the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act on grounds that the Environmental Assessment failed to properly analyze the risk of train derailments
Montana Wildlife Federation v. Bernhardt
Full text linkA federal court in Montana vacated the lease sale of several large oil and gas developments in Montana and Wyoming because BLM’s revised guidance documents, which facilitated the lease sales, failed to prioritize development outside of sage-grouse habitat, as required by BLM land use plans. BLM adopted the prioritization requirement in 2015 as part of an effort to prevent the sage-grouse from being listed under the Endangered Species Act. The court held BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act when it essentially eliminated the prioritization requirement and approved the lease sales without properly amending the land use plans