- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Air Products Blue Energy, LLC v. Livingston Parish...
Collection
Air Products Blue Energy, LLC v. Livingston Parish Government
Air Products Blue Energy, LLC v. Livingston Parish Government ↗
3:22-cv-00809M.D. La., United States Federal Courts12 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
02/14/2023
Decision
Joint motion for consent judgment granted.
The federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted a joint motion for consent judgment in a lawsuit brought by the developer of a carbon sequestration project against the Livingston Parish Government to challenge a moratorium that blocked the project. The court previously granted a preliminary injunction and enjoined the defendants from enforcing the moratorium. The parties’ joint motion stated that the parties agreed that the law was “invalid and unenforceable” as to the developer and its affiliates, contractors, and subcontractors, and that it would not be enforced against those entities. The parties further agreed that the developer’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
12/26/2022
Decision
Motion to dismiss denied and motion for preliminary injunction granted.
The federal district court for the Middle District of Louisiana enjoined the Livingston Parish Government and related parties from enforcing a moratorium on construction and drilling of Class V wells, seismic surveys, and other activities. The plaintiff had entered into a Carbon Dioxide Storage Agreement with the State of Louisiana and intended to build a carbon sequestration facility. The court rejected the Parish defendants’ arguments that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the moratorium and that the claims were unripe. The court further found that the plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the moratorium was preempted due to its encroachment on the field of underground injection control, an area in which the Louisiana Legislature granted the State pervasive authority to regulate. The court also found that the plaintiff faced irreparable harm and concluded that because State law preempted the moratorium, a preliminary injunction to enjoin the moratorium’s enforcement would serve the public interest and would not cause harm.