|
Alaska Supreme Court denies DNR petition Justices decline to revisit ruling that could slow oil, gas projects; Native, environmental groups hail prospect of more public review Wesley Loy For Petroleum News
The Alaska Supreme Court has rejected the state’s request to reconsider a ruling that could complicate approvals for oil and gas projects.
The court in March ruled the state Department of Natural Resources is constitutionally required to assess the cumulative impacts of oil and gas projects at their various stages.
Lawyers for the state petitioned the court for rehearing. They argued the court had gone too far, ruling on an issue that wasn’t “ripe for decision.”
The court, without discussion, denied the state’s petition on Nov. 1.
The challengers The case originated in 2010, when a challenge was brought against DNR concerning its “best interest finding” in support of planned Beaufort Sea areawide lease sales for 2009 to 2018.
The plaintiffs included Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, or REDOIL; the Gwich’in Steering Committee; the Alaska Wilderness League; the Center for Biological Diversity; and the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
The Anchorage environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska represented the groups.
The groups argued DNR’s practice of making best interest findings only for the leasing stage, and not for subsequent stages including exploration and development, violated the state constitution.
A lower court judge ruled favorably for the groups, but the Supreme Court reversed. That was a victory for DNR, which didn’t want to write multiple best interest findings, potentially slowing down oil and gas development.
The high court, however, also ruled the state “is constitutionally required to consider the cumulative impacts of an oil and gas project at its later phases.”
What now? DNR’s lawyers, in their petition for rehearing, argued cumulative impacts wasn’t even an issue properly before the Supreme Court. The only ripe question, they argued, was whether best interest findings were required for project phases beyond lease sales.
Lawyers for the Native and environmental groups urged the Supreme Court to reject the state’s petition for rehearing.
The groups, in a Nov. 5 press release, hailed the high court’s denial.
“The Inupiat rely on the subsistence resources of the Beaufort Sea to live. Now it is clear that before giving permits to corporations to explore and drill, DNR will have to look at what the impacts are, including the cumulative impacts, and include the public in deciding if it’s the right thing to do,” said Robert Thompson, REDOIL chairman and a resident of the village of Kaktovik.
It will be interesting now to see how the Supreme Court’s March opinion affects DNR procedure with respect to oil and gas project approvals.
The administration of Gov. Sean Parnell has been working to streamline oil and gas permitting, but the language of the opinion could compel additional, time-consuming public reviews.
“Although best interest findings in future phases are not required under the constitution, DNR must continue to analyze and consider all factors material and relevant to what is in the public interest after the lease sale phase, including the cumulative impacts of the project, and to provide the public with timely and meaningful notice of its cumulative impacts assessment in order to ensure the constitutional principle of maximum use consistent with the public interest is given effect,” the opinion said.
| 