The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Energy => Topic started by: thackney on January 16, 2019, 01:28:02 pm
-
Colorado Supreme Court reverses impact analysis requirement ruling
https://www.ogj.com/articles/2019/01/colorado-supreme-court-reverses-impact-analysis-requirement-ruling0.html (https://www.ogj.com/articles/2019/01/colorado-supreme-court-reverses-impact-analysis-requirement-ruling0.html)
01/15/2019
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision that would have required the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission to consider potential health and climate impacts before authorizing more exploration and production. The suit was filed after COGCC rejected a late-2013 petition asking it to reject applications for new drilling permits unless they did not pose a human health or climate threat.
The rule the petitioners proposed would have, among other things, kept the commission from issuing any drilling permits unless the best available science demonstrated—and an independent third-party organization confirmed—that drilling would occur without impairing Colorado’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land; adversely affecting human health; and contributing to climate change.
The state supreme court agreed on Jan. 14 with the commission’s initial findings that it did not have this authority and was working already with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to address such concerns. The Denver District Court concurred with COGCC’s stand, but a division of the state’s appeals court reversed the district court’s ruling in a split decision.
The supreme court said that it reached its decision for three primary reasons:
• A court’s review of an administrative agency’s decision whether to engage in rulemaking is limited and highly deferential.
• COGCC correctly determined that it could not adopt the rule that the petitioners proposed because of language in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act.
• COGCC, when it declined the rulemaking request, relied on the fact that it was already working with CDPHE to address concerns underlying the proposed rule, and that other COGCC priorities took precedence....