Tag: Environmental Law

No Implied Duty to Develop Particular Strata in Pennsylvania (e.g. Marcellus Shale)

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

On June 21, 2013, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (the “Court”) held that a lessee does not owe a duty to a lessor to develop each and every “economically exploitable strata” under an oil as gas lease in Pennsylvania.

In early 2012, Terry L. Caldwell and Carol A. Caldwell, husband and wife (“Plaintiffs”) sued Kriebel Resources Co., Range Resources—Appalachia, LLC and others (“Defendants”) regarding an oil and gas lease executed between the Plaintiffs and Defendants on January 19, 2001 (the “Lease”). The Lease provided for a primary term of twenty four (24) months and so long thereafter as oil or gas was being produced. The Defendants drilled a number of shallow wells on the property that Defendants alleged held the entire property under the terms of the Lease. Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendants in early 2012 alleging that, among other things, Defendants breached the implied duty to develop the property by not drilling deeper wells to exploit the valuable Marcellus Shale and, based on such potential unexploited value, the current production did not amount to production in paying quantities. The trial court sustained certain preliminary objections raised by the Defendants that resulted in a dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims. In Terry L. Caldwell et al. v. Kriebel Resources Co. et al. (1305 WDA 2012), the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case.

Regarding the duty to develop, Plaintiffs argued that without direct Pennsylvania case law on topic the Court should follow a Louisiana case, Goodrich v. Exxon Co., 608 So.2d 1019 (La. App. 1992), which held that Exxon’s duty to develop as a reasonably prudent operator included the obligation to develop valuable oil-producing sands underlying the leased premises. Based on this rationale, Plaintiffs alleged there is an implied duty to “develop all strata, not simply to extract shallow gas . . .” The Court rejected the application of the Goodrich rationale and held that the specific terms of the Lease were to control. Therefore, because the Lease provides for the continued validity of the Lease upon production of gas and allows for the guarantee of delay rentals if no gas is produced, the Court found that it was “not compelled to follow Louisiana law.” The production from various shallow wells was found to be sufficient to hold the entirety of the leased estate.

The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ claim that the concept of “paying quantities” should be based on all potential gas strata underlying the Lease and should impose some obligation relating to good faith. The Court quickly dismissed this claim and made clear that “paying quantities” in Pennsylvania merely requires the well to “consistently pay[] a profit, however small.” It is of no legal effect that the extent of the profit produced from these shallow wells is “not to the extent appellants desire.” Due to the continued production in paying quantities and the Court’s failure to impose a duty on Defendants to develop all potentially economic strata, the Court chose not to terminate Defendants’ Lease.

Article By:

 of

Financial Innovation for Clean Energy Deployment: Congress Considers Expanding Master Limited Partnerships for Clean Energy

Mintz Logo

Technological innovation is driving renewable energy towards a future where it is cost competitive without subsidies and provides a growing share of America’s energy. But for all the technical progress made by the clean energy industry, financial innovation is not keeping pace: access to low-cost capital continues to be fleeting, and the industry has yet to tap institutional and retail investors through the capital markets. This is why a bipartisan group in Congress has proposed extending master limited partnerships (MLPs), a financial mechanism that has long driven investment in traditional energy projects, to the clean energy industry.

Last month Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced the Master Limited Parity Act (S. 795); Representatives Ted Poe (R-TX), Mike Thompson (D-CA), and Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced companion legislation (H.R. 1696) in the House of Representatives. The bills would allow MLP treatment for renewable energy projects currently eligible for the Sec. 45 production tax credit (PTC) or 48 investment tax credit (ITC) (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, combined heat and power, fuel cells) as well as biofuels, renewable chemicals, energy efficient buildings, electricity storage, carbon capture and storage, and waste-heat-to-power projects. The bill would not change the eligibility of projects that currently qualify as MLPs such as upstream oil and gas activities related to exploration and processing or midstream oil and gas infrastructure investments.

MLPs have been successfully utilized for traditional fossil-fuel projects because they offer an efficient means to raise inexpensive capital. The current total market capitalization of all energy-related MLPs exceeds $400 billion, on par with the market value of the world’s largest publicly traded companies. Ownership interests for MLPs are traded like corporate stock on a market. In exchange for restrictions on the kinds of income it can generate and a requirement to distribute almost all earnings to shareholders (called unitholders), MLPs are taxed like a partnership, meaning that income from MLPs is taxed only at the unitholder level. The absence of corporate-level taxation means that the MLP has more money to distribute to unitholders, thus making the shares more valuable. The asset classes in which MLPs currently invest lend themselves to stable, dividend-oriented performance for a tax-deferred investment; renewable energy projects with long-term off-take agreements could also offer similar stability to investors. And since MLPs are publicly traded, the universe of potential investors in renewable projects would be opened to retail investors.

The paperwork for MLP investors can be complicated, however. Also, investors are subject to rules which limit their ability to offset active income or other passive investments with the tax benefits of an MLP investment. Despite the inherent restrictions on some aspects of MLPs, the opportunities afforded by the business structure are generating increasing interest and support for the MLP Parity Act.

Proponents of the MLP Parity Act envision the bill as a way to help renewable energy companies access lower cost capital and overcome some of the limitations of the current regime of tax credits. Federal tax incentives for renewable energy consist primarily of two limited tools: tax credits and accelerated depreciation rates. Unless they have sizeable revenue streams, the tax credits are difficult for renewable project developers to directly use. The reality is only large, profitable companies can utilize these credits as a means to offset their income. For a developer who must secure financing though a complicated, expensive financing structure, including tax equity investors can be an expensive means to an end with a cost of capital sometimes approaching 30%. Tax credits are a known commodity, and developers are now familiar with structuring tax equity deals, but the structure is far from ideal. And as renewable energy advocates know all too well, the current suite of tax credits need to be extended every year. MLP treatment, on the other hand, does not expire.

Some supporters have noted that clean energy MLPs would “democratize” the industry because private retail investors today have no means to invest in to any meaningful degree in clean energy projects. Having the American populace take a personal, financial interest in the success of the clean energy industry is not trivial. The initial success of ‘crowd-funded” solar projects also provides some indication that there is an appetite for investment in clean energy projects which provide both economic and environmental benefits.

Sen. Coons has assembled a broad bipartisan coalition, including Senate Finance Energy Subcommittee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Republican and Democratic cosponsors agree that this legislation would help accomplish the now-familiar “all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy.

However, some renewable energy companies that depend on tax credits and accelerated depreciation are concerned that Republican supporters of the legislation will support the bill as an immediate replacement for the existing (but expiring) suite of renewable energy tax credits. Sen. Coons does not envision MLP parity as a replacement for the current production tax credits and investment tax credits but rather as additional policy tool that can address, to some degree, the persistent shortcomings of current financing arrangements. In this way, MLPs could provide a landing pad for mature renewable projects as the existing regime of credits is phased out over time, perhaps as part of tax reform.

So would the clean energy industry utilize MLP structures if Congress enacts the MLP Parity Act? The immediate impact may be hard to predict, and some in renewable energy finance fear MLP status will be less valuable than the current tax provisions. This is in part because the average retail investor would not be able to use the full share of accompanying PTCs, ITCs, or depreciation unless Congress were also to change what are known as the “at-risk” and “passive activity loss and tax credit” rules. These rules were imposed to crack down on perceived abuse of partnership tax shelters and have tax implications beyond the energy industry. Modifying these rules is highly unlikely and would jeopardize the bipartisan support the bill has attracted so far. But other renewable energy companies believe they can make the structure work for them now, and industries without tax credits — like renewable chemicals, for instance — would not have the same concerns with “at-risk” and “passive activity loss” rules. Furthermore, over the long term, industry seems increasingly confident the structure would be worthwhile. Existing renewable projects that have fully realized their tax benefits and have cleared the recapture period could be rolled up into existing MLPs. Existing MLP infrastructure projects could deploy renewable energy assets to help support the actual infrastructure. Supporters of the legislation see the change as a starting point, and the ingenuity of the market will find ways to work within the rules to deliver the maximum benefit.

The future of the MLP Parity Act will be linked to the larger conversation in Congress regarding tax reform measures. The MLP Parity Act is not expected to pass as a stand-alone bill; if it were to be enacted, it would most likely be included as part of this larger tax-reform package. Congress currently is looking at ways to lower overall tax rates and modify or streamline technology-specific energy provisions. This has many renewable energy advocates on edge: while reform provides an opportunity to enact long-term policies (instead of one-year extensions) that could provide some level of stability, it also represents a chance for opponents of renewable energy to exact tough concessions or eliminate existing incentives. As these discussions continue in earnest this year, the reintroduction of the MLP Parity Act has already begun to generate discussions and mentions in policy white papers at both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Whether a highly partisan Congress can actually achieve such an ambitious goal as tax reform this year remains uncertain. But because of its bipartisan support, the MLP Parity Act certainly will be one of the many potential reforms Congress will consider seriously.

Is Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Through the Clean Air Act Becoming “Too Big to Fail”?

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

In a much-publicized decision in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is authorized to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) through the Clean Air Act. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). A slew of recent cases have rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to assert common law claims for damages based on the consequences of past emissions of GHGs. The courts generally have found that USEPA has occupied the role of regulating GHGs, and challenges to the agency’s actions must be brought through the appropriate administrative channels. As the Supreme Court weighs whether to grant certiorari in the Coal. for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al. v. EPA, No. 09-1322 (D.C. Cir. June 26, 2012), the case that addresses four USEPA GHG rules, the Supreme Court may have difficulty in changing course from the idea that GHGs should be regulated pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

Comer v. Murphy Oil et al., No. 12-60291 (5th Cir. May 14, 2013).

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mississippi Gulf residents sued numerous energy companies, alleging that the defendants’ emissions of GHGs exacerbated the severity of and damage caused by the Class 5 hurricane (hereinafter Comer I). The claims ranged from public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence, to fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy. The district court dismissed Comer I with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring these claims and the claims were non-justiciable because they involved a political question.

Comer I became mired in technical details and procedures, and ultimately the plaintiffs tried to refile the case to bring an entirely new lawsuit, Comer II. The Fifth Circuit dismissedComer II because the plaintiffs brought the same claims they alleged in Comer I, and the district court had already dismissed those claims on the merits. The court applied the doctrine of res judicata, which bars parties from litigating the same claim a second time, and, consequently, Comer II was barred by the district court’s original dismissal in Comer I. Because Comer I held that plaintiffs have no standing to challenge GHG emissions through common law claims, it supports the idea that GHGs should be regulated through the Clean Air Act, rather than addressed through litigation.

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. et al., No. 09-17490 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2012).

Kivalina is a village located on the far northwest shore of Alaska. The village had long been protected by the winter ice that persisted and protected the land mass itself. Due to melting icebergs and rising sea levels, the village land mass is eroding, and remains unprotected by the ice wall for much of the year. The village almost certainly will be either eroded into nothingness or inundated by the Arctic Ocean in the next twenty years. Kivalina sued a large group of energy companies, alleging that the GHGs emitted by them resulted in global warming and their village’s imminent destruction. Under a theory of common law public nuisance, the village sought damages to allow the relocation of the community.

The District Court held that political questions such as those raised by the allegations were not justiciable. Further, the court held the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they could not show that the named defendants likely caused the injuries, nor could the injuries be traced to an act of any of the defendants.

The Ninth Circuit agreed but expounded on the role of federal common law in pollution cases. The Court noted that federal common law has developed to fill gaps arising in cases of transboundary pollution and that those cases generally arise as nuisance claims. Despite its acknowledgement that nuisance claims can be used to regulate pollution, the Ninth Circuit explained that where a statute directly addresses the underlying issue, developing a federal common law was not necessary to address the issue. Accordingly, because the Supreme Court found that Congress acted through the Clean Air Act to address GHG pollution inMassachusetts v. EPA, filling the gap with federal common law (or public nuisance claims) was not necessary. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit found that federal common law does not fill a gap solely based on the type of relief requested. In other words, the plaintiffs inKivalina sought damages rather than emission reduction, the latter being the type of relief afforded by the Clean Air Act. Although the plaintiffs’ requested relief was not available under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Air Act still displaced federal common law and prevented plaintiffs from seeking damages through a common law claim (such as public nuisance).

Consequently, Kivalina, like Comer, supports the idea that USEPA is charged with regulation of GHGs through the Clean Air Act.

Public Trust Doctrine Cases

Along a similar avenue, a number of public trust doctrine cases have been filed on behalf of children since 2011. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege that children’s futures are being affected by the lack of action to regulate GHGs, and they request that the various agencies cited in the lawsuits — primarily USEPA and Department of the Interior — take immediate action to reduce GHGs. These cases use the public trust doctrine as the basis of the complaint by alleging that the atmosphere is a common resource that must be managed for the public good and the agencies have failed to properly manage that resource. These cases have generally been dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.See Alec L. v. Perciasepe, No. 11-cv-2235 (D.D.C. May 22, 2013); Sanders-Reed v. Martinez, No. D-101-cv-2011-01514 (D.N.M. July 14, 2012); Alec L. v. Jackson, No. 1:11-cv-02235 (D.D.C. May 31, 2012); Loorz v. Jackson (D.D.C. April 2, 2012); Filippone v. Iowa Dep’t of Natural Resources, No. 2-1005, 12-04444 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2013); Aronow v. State, No. A12-0585 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2012).

In general, cases arising under the public trust doctrine face two challenges. First, the Supreme Court held in PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana, No. 10-218 (2012), that the public trust doctrine is a matter of state, not federal, common law and so a federal claim is not justiciable in federal court. Second, in AEP v. Connecticut, No. 10-174 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the role of regulating GHGs, and any consequence(s) of GHGs, has been occupied by the Clean Air Act and therefore challenges to the regulation of GHGs should be brought through the Clean Air Act rather than through a common law claim. Again, these cases are important for the future of GHG regulation because they affirm the agency’s role as the regulator of GHGs through the Clean Air Act.

Montana Envt’l Info. Center v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. cv-11-15-GF-SEH (D. Mont. June 14, 2013).

In another case affirming the role of the Clean Air Act in regulating GHGs, environmental groups claimed that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to adequately consider climate change, global warming, and the emission of GHGs in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before approving oil and gas leases on federal land in Montana in 2008 and 2010. The environmental groups argued that BLM’s failure to follow NEPA procedures would result in emissions of methane gas from the oil and gas leases at issue. The release of methane gas would cause global warming and climate change, which would present a threat of harm to their aesthetic and recreational interests in lands near the lease sites by melting glaciers, warming streams, and promoting the destruction of forests through the proliferation of plagues of beetles.

The district court dismissed the lawsuit because the environmental groups lacked standing to bring the claim. The court found that the environmental groups failed to demonstrate that BLM’s alleged failure to follow proper procedure created an increased risk of actual, threatened, or imminent harm to their recreational and aesthetic interests in lands near the lease sites. Although the environmental groups had local recreational and aesthetic interests at heart, the court found that the effects of GHG emissions are diffuse and unpredictable, and the groups presented no scientific evidence or recorded scientific observations to support their assertions that BLM’s leasing decisions would present a threat of climate change impacts on lands near the lease sites. Furthermore, the environmental groups did not show that methane emissions from the lease sites would make a meaningful contribution to global GHG emissions or global warming. The court therefore found that the environmental groups failed to establish injury-in-fact and causation. As a result, the court foreclosed another potential avenue for litigating claims surrounding GHG emissions, and potential plaintiffs now seem to be left only with direct challenges to USEPA’s regulations (or lack thereof).

Conclusion

The Court would mark a dramatic shift if it moved away from these cases. By the time the Supreme Court has the opportunity to review climate change regulation again, the Obama administration may have set a “too big to fail” bar with its climate policies. Regardless of what happens in the future, however, as of today, the Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA appears to have had a pronounced impact, acceding to USEPA the authority to regulate GHGs through the Clean Air Act, and denying common law remedies for impacts tied to climate change.

Article By:

 of

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) To Hold Technical Conference on Centralized Capacity Markets in Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs)

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) announced this week that it will hold a technical conference on centralized capacity markets in Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs). The purpose of the technical conference is to consider how current centralized capacity market rules and structures are supporting the procurement and retention of resources necessary to meet future reliability and operational needs. In its Notice, FERC pointed out that since their establishment, centralized capacity markets have continued to evolve. Meanwhile, the mix of resources is also evolving in response to changing market conditions, including low natural gas prices, state and federal policies encouraging the entry of renewable resources and other specific technologies, and the retirement of aging generation resources. This changing resource mix, according to FERC, may result in future reliability and operational needs that are different than those of the past. In addition, some states have pursued individual resource adequacy policies to ensure the development of new resources in particular areas or with particular characteristics, and questions have been raised as to how those individual policies can be accommodated in centralized capacity markets.

FERC noted that it has addressed a number of these issues in specific cases, based on the facts and circumstances presented in a given case and the particular centralized capacity market design implemented by individual regions. This technical conference will provide an opportunity to review at a high level the centralized capacity market rules and structures, and will examine how these markets are accomplishing their intended goals and objectives through a competitive, market-based process. Recognizing and respecting differences across the markets, the technical conference will focus on the goals and objectives of existing centralized capacity markets (e.g., resource adequacy, long-term price signals, fixed-cost recovery, etc.) and examine how specific design elements are accomplishing existing and emerging goals and objectives (e.g., forward period, commitment period, product definition and specificity, market power mitigation, etc.).

The technical conference will take place at the Commission on September 25, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. All interested persons are invited to participate and the conference will be broadcast free by webcast. A supplemental notice will be issued in Docket No. AD13-7-000 with further details regarding the agenda and information regarding interest in speaking at the technical conference.

Article By:

 of

California’s Future Uncertain as U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Postpones Oil and Gas Lease Auctions

AM logo with tagline

Recently, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced that it would postpone all oil and gas lease auctions in California until at least October 2013.  The agency cited the toll of litigation and other costs as factors behind the decision.

Many attribute the postponement to an April 2013 federal district court ruling in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 11-06174 PSG, in which the court held that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to analyze potential environmental impacts of “fracking” on 2,700 acres of federal lands in Monterey and Fresno Counties before leasing the lands to oil companies.  Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel, and chemicals into rock to extract oil.  The technique has been used for decades in California, and is also used in other states to recover natural gas.  However, fracking has recently been under increased scrutiny, amid concerns that the practice could contaminate groundwater.

The court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity does not void the leases that were the subject of the case, but requires BLM to go back and take a closer look at the potential impacts of fracking.  The ruling is largely limited to the specific facts that were before the court, and the case is unlikely to have sweeping application as a legal precedent, but it marks a victory for environmental groups attempting to stop, or at least delay, fracking in California.

BLM’s decision to postpone oil and gas lease auctions in California coming on the heels of the Center for Biological Diversity decision suggests that policy impacts of the case may be more widely felt.  BLM announced this month that it will put off a previously scheduled late May auction for leases to drill almost 1,300 acres of public lands near the Monterey Shale.  The Monterey Shale is one of the largest deposits of shale oil in the nation, containing an estimated 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil.  Another auction for about 2,000 acres in Colusa County was also put on hold.

“Our priority is processing permits to drill that are already in flight rather than work on new applications,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told reporters in Washington.  The decision to postpone leasing doesn’t mean that drilling on existing leases will stop, but it does raise questions about what BLM will do in the fall, when the postponement expires, and how the postponement decision will impact oil and gas production more broadly.

California accounts for 6 percent of the 247 million acres under BLM control, and oil and gas drilling on BLM lands has been on the rise as advances in horizontal drilling and fracking have made hard-to-reach deposits recoverable.  The impact of litigation such as the Center for Biological Diversity matter on BLM, and on the industry as a whole, is therefore significant.

For California at least, the future is uncertain.  “We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going,” said Governor Jerry Brown (D, California), during a March 13 press conference.  “That’s the balance that is required.”  Amid budget concerns, financially strapped government agencies may be increasingly risk-averse when it comes to potential litigation, leading to decisions like the California postponement that have industry-wide implications.

As published in Oil & Gas Monitor.

How Monsanto Applies to Nonagricultural Biotechnology

Womble Carlyle

The facts behind the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Monsanto v. Bowman are simple enough. Farmers are able to buy soybeans containing Monsanto’s patented glyphosate resistance technology under a license that permits them to plant and grow one generation of crops. Vernon Bowman skirted this program, however, by purchasing commodity soybeans from a grain elevator knowing that the seeds would nonetheless likely contain the very same Monsanto technology. He then planted the seeds, raised crops, and saved seeds from these crops to plant new crops. The Supreme Court held that Bowman’s actions infringed Monsanto’s patents because unlicensed growth of the seeds was a new making of the patented invention. Consequently, the doctrine of patent exhaustion did not provide any defense as to these new seeds.

This was not a surprising result for the biotechnology industry. The idea that patent rights in seed progeny are not exhausted by the original sale of their “parents” was well established in the United States, and is even codified in the European Biotechnology Directive.

The Court left us with a relatively clear answer regarding the scope of patent exhaustion related to seeds. The use of the purchased, licensed seeds for consumption and/or processing cannot be interfered with by the original seller, as the patent rights on those individual (sold) seeds have been exhausted. The planting and cultivation (i.e., replication) of those seeds, however, can only be done under a license from the patentee. In other words, even though someone sells you a bag of seed, you have no right to plant and grow that seed without a license (although there may be a good argument that the license should be implied in appropriate cases).

So, where does Bowman leave us when it comes to determining the infringement or enforceability of self-replication biotechnology patents outside of the agricultural context? For other patented self-replicating (or easily replicable) technologies, the circumstances may present more complicated questions.

Biotechnology inventions such as cell lines, bacteria, and other living material often must exist in a condition of continuous self-replication simply to be maintained for any use. Vectors, plasmids, etc., replicate within cells, and from generation to generation within host cells, allowing for production of vastly more nucleic acid copies than initially used for transfection. Even small linear nucleic acids such as those used for primers and probes may be “replicated” to generate large quantities relatively easily using PCR or other methods in molecular biology. In each case, (cells, viruses, vectors, probes), something analogous to planting, watering, cultivating, is required. In view of the Bowman decision, the question persists as to whether such replication will be permitted or considered an unlicensed “remanufacture” or new making of the original, patented item.

In this regard, we note that Justice Kagan left open the possibility that the replication might be “a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.”[1] Certainly, the replication contemplated in this part of the opinion is that which must necessarily occur in connection with some authorized practice of the invention. Maintenance of culture cells, for example, where the cells are necessarily replicating only for the purpose of maintaining the culture during its authorized use or in preparation for such use is one example that seems to fit comfortably within this aspect of the Court’s opinion.  In other words, a license for multigenerational use of a cell line may be implied in these circumstances, even if it is not given expressly.

Other technologies may not present quite so simple an analysis. DNA vectors can be used for a variety of purposes, not all of which require replication. For example, vectors can be used as probes or markers, they can be used to transport sequences of interest for further manipulation, or they can be used as immunizing agents. None of these uses require or specifically contemplate replication. Of course, some vectors are used in contexts where replication is likely or assumed (e.g., transfection of cells or bacteria, generation of transgenic tissues or organisms). The consideration of vectors under Bowman will, therefore, likely depend more heavily on context, including the sales and licensing practices of the patentee.

Some commentators have characterized the Bowman holding as “limited to the facts,” pointing to the Court’s comment that “[o]ur holding today is limited – addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating technology.”[2] Attempts to limit Bowman to its specific facts should be taken carefully. Indeed, the Court cut through much of the surrounding facts to reach its core holding – that replication is a new making of the patented invention and an infringement in the absences of a license. Accordingly, it does appear that the holding may address the most important “situation” for all self-replicating technologies, even if it does not address all of the context-dependent permutations of the facts involving self-replication technologies.

Consequently, assertions of “self-replicating” material turning otherwise innocent parties into patent infringers are simply not credible. To paraphrase the Court in Bowman, the soybeans Bowman took home from the grain elevator didn’t plant themselves, didn’t spray themselves with glyphosate, and didn’t otherwise cultivate themselves to produce the unauthorized crop. Similarly, in biotechnology, it is likely that unauthorized and infringing activity will quite clearly fit the Monsanto “situation” and be easily recognizable as infringement. For example, maintaining an initial cell culture in the hands of the licensee-purchaser, although it also involves replication, should be easily distinguished from distribution of the culture (or vectors, or phage, etc.) to unauthorized third parties.

Nonetheless, given the potential for unnecessarily complex analysis and possible confusion of courts, patent holders should carefully consider how their license provisions may be used to clarify not only express grant and restriction provisions, but also how the license may shape an understanding of how the invention works and its intended use. The dividing line between authorized and infringing activity will be influenced by context, and parties are well advised to define that context by the licensing contract and not rely on the bare contours of the doctrine of patent exhaustion. The license is the place where the parties involved, the patent holder and the licensee, have a chance to agree on what is authorized and what is not. It is also the place where the patent holder has an opportunity to shape future interpretations of what the practice of the invention encompasses and what it does not. An effort to be as comprehensive as possible in the positive, express grant of the license may be as important as the restrictions that are expressly stated. If, as is quite possible, the restrictions fail to contemplate the full scope of intended unauthorized activities, a grant of authorization that is more specific may allow a court to more accurately determine what is “necessary but incidental” to the authorized practice of the invention and what is not.

The Bowman decision provides the biotech community some much needed clarity regarding self-replicating inventions. Perhaps equally important, the Court displayed a keen sensitivity to the negative implications of an overly broad exhaustion doctrine. While there will undoubtedly be further development of the law as it is applied to different technologies, the fundamental ability to control self-replicating inventions at each generation through the grant or withholding of a license places authority where it belongs – with the patentee. And, by reducing the need for complex work-arounds, the clarified authority and more calibrated level of control provided by theBowman decision should facilitate licensing negotiations to the benefit of both parties.

This article was written by guest bloggers Christopher Jeffers, Ph.D., Carl Massey, Jr., Thomas F. Poché, Ph.D.

[1]Although the Court referenced the copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1), in conjunction with this “necessary but incidental” fact pattern, the statute actually considers only computer programs and states there is no infringement if “a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer programin conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner.” From this, better language in the Bowmanopinion might have been “necessary and essential” or even “necessary and incidental.” 

[2] Bowman Op. at 10.

Article By:

 of

Bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Modernization Bill, Chemical Safety Improvement Act, Introduced in Senate

Beveridge Diamond Logo

In a major breakthrough, bipartisan and broadly supported legislation to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been introduced in the Senate. The Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), S. 1009,[1] was announced on May 22, 2013[2] by its chief Democratic and Republican sponsors, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Senator David Vitter (R-LA). This client alert provides the political context for this remarkable development, and then explains the key provisions of the bill. It concludes with comments on the prospects for passage.

Political Context

Just weeks ago, Senator Lautenberg, a longtime champion of TSCA reform, had reintroduced his own comprehensive chemical safety bill, the Safe Chemicals Act (SCA), as described in our previous report.[3] The SCA targets many of the same aspects of TSCA as the CSIA does, but applies different, often more complex approaches. The SCA has obtained support only from the Democratic caucus, with 26 Democratic and 2 Independent co-sponsors. This one-sided support left the SCA with few prospects for passage by the Republican-majority House of Representatives, even assuming that the Democratic majority in the Senate could pass it.

Now, with Senator Lautenberg’s retirement next year lending more urgency to his quest for a viable TSCA modernization bill, the long-sought goal of bipartisan support has been achieved. As of this writing, the CSIA has been co-sponsored not only by a number of Democratic senators who had co-sponsored the SCA,[4] but also by eight Republicans,[5] as well as three more conservative Democratic senators who had not signed on to the SCA.[6] Since the original introduction, three Democrats and one Republican have co-sponsored the bill,[7] for a total of 19 co-sponsors (10 Democrats and 9 Republicans).

Initial reactions to the CSIA have been generally been very favorable, by both industry groups[8] and some NGOs.[9] Other NGOs have already announced their opposition, however.[10]

EPA has not commented publicly on the bill, although two former EPA officials in the TSCA office, Steve Owens and Charlie Auer, issued statements of support.[11]

There is no guarantee of passage, but never before have the prospects for TSCA modernization been more favorable.

Key Provisions

1. Overview

The CSIA would mandate that EPA determine, on a prioritized basis, whether chemical substances meet a safety standard under the intended conditions of use. If they are found not to meet the safety standard, EPA would have to regulate them. The CSIA would establish a prioritization mechanism; set a safety standard; require EPA to determine whether chemical substances meet that safety standard under the intended conditions of use, by deadlines set by EPA; authorize EPA to require testing when additional information is needed in order to complete that determination; and direct EPA to select risk management measures by taking costs and benefits into account, but not by requiring use of the least burdensome alternative.

In addition to these core provisions, the bill would make limited changes to the new chemical provisions; require reporting by processors; lead to identification of chemical substances that are actively manufactured or processed; revise confidentiality protections, including protection for chemical identities; expand preemption of state and local restrictions of chemicals; and update export and import reporting requirements.

2. Prioritization

The prioritization mechanism would classify a chemical substance as being a high priority or a low priority for a safety assessment and safety determination. With few exceptions, only chemicals classified as active (see below) would be considered for prioritization. Only high-priority chemical substances would continue on to safety assessments and determinations.

For the most part, there would be no statutory deadlines for completing the prioritization process, but EPA would have to make every effort to complete the prioritization of all active substances in a timely manner. A state governor or agency could recommend chemical substances for prioritization; EPA would have to complete its prioritization of those substances within 180 days. If EPA were to need additional information before prioritizing a chemical substance, it could ask the public to submit existing data, but it could not require testing. Lists of high- and low-priority substances would be made public.

3. Safety Assessments and Safety Determinations

EPA would conduct a safety assessment and then a safety determination of each high-priority substance. The safety assessment would be based solely on considerations of risks to health and the environment. EPA would have to establish a methodology for conducting safety assessments and would have to rely on the best available science. The methodology would have to be reviewed every five years and updated as necessary.

Upon completing a safety assessment, EPA would make a safety determination, i.e., determine whether or not the chemical substance meets the safety standard under the intended conditions of use, taking into account factors such as the range of exposure, the weight of the evidence, and the magnitude of the risk.

EPA could require testing if necessary for it to complete either a safety assessment or a safety determination.

There would be no statutory deadlines, but EPA would have to set its own deadlines for completing each safety assessment and safety determination. Those deadlines could vary for different chemical substances. If EPA found that it could not meet a deadline, it would have to explain publicly the reasons for extending the deadline. This innovative approach would subject EPA to deadlines that are likely to be realistic (since it would set them itself), but would avoid the sue-and-settle litigation over failure to meet statutory deadlines that has proven problematic under some other environmental statutes.

Proposed safety assessments and safety determinations would be available for public comment. Final versions would also be made public. Safety determinations would be subject to judicial review.

4. Safety Standard

The safety standard used for safety determinations would be a standard that ensures that no unreasonable risk of harm to human health or the environment will result from exposure to the chemical substance. Compliance with the safety standard would be assessed in light of the intended conditions of use, meaning the circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended or reasonably anticipated to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.

This “unreasonable risk” standard would differ from the “unreasonable risk” standard currently in TSCA. That one mandates a weighing of costs and benefits of regulation, the chemical substance, and its alternatives. The CSIA “unreasonable risk” standard would not be a weighing of competing economic and social factors, but rather a judgment after evaluation of various aspects of risk to health and the environment. Among the factors that EPA would consider would be the subpopulations that would be exposed, the degree of exposure, and the protections provided by the intended conditions of use (such as use of engineering controls, protective clothing, or warnings). For example, presumably EPA could find that a chemical substance meets the safety standard under the intended conditions of use for occupational exposure but not for exposure to children.

5. Risk Management

If EPA were to find that a chemical substance did not meet the safety standard under the intended conditions of use, it would have to adopt risk management measures through rulemaking. EPA could consider a wide variety of options, such as labeling, quantity or use restrictions, or even phase-outs or bans, if appropriate. Unlike under current TSCA, EPA would not be constrained to select the least burdensome option.

EPA would evaluate the different risk management options in terms of costs and benefits. It would have to consider whether technically and economically feasible alternatives exist; the risks of those alternatives as compared to the risks of the chemical substance under the intended conditions of use; the economic and social costs and benefits of the preferred regulatory option and other options considered; and the economic and social costs and benefits of the chemical substance and its alternatives.

6. New Chemicals and Significant New Uses of Existing Chemicals

Under the CSIA, the current approach for premanufacture notifications (PMNs), significant new use rules (SNURs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs) would continue. The bill would codify some of EPA’s current administrative practices for review of PMNs and SNUNs. The authority for the current PMN exemptions, such as those for R&D, polymers, and low volume, would remain unchanged.

In evaluating PMNs and SNUNs, EPA would determine whether or not the new chemicals and significant new uses were likely to meet the safety standard under the intended conditions of use. If so, EPA would allow the review period to end and the PMN submitter to submit a notice of commencement of commercial manufacture or import (NOC). If EPA were to determine that a new chemical substance or significant new use would not be likely to meet the safety standard, it would have to impose restrictions in a manner similar to section 5(e) consent orders under current TSCA.

If EPA were to determine that it needed more information in order to make a determination about likelihood of meeting the safety standard, it could require the submitter to develop the information through testing. However, rather than require test results to be submitted before manufacture or the significant new use could commence, EPA could allow the submitter to file an NOC, begin commercial manufacture or the significant new use, and thereby generate income to pay for the testing. If the test results later created concerns for EPA, it could prioritize the chemical substance as a high-priority substance.

7. Testing

Unlike the SCA, the CSIA would have no requirements for submission of minimum information sets in specified circumstances. Instead, under the CSIA, EPA could require testing where it found that it needed additional data in order to complete a safety assessment or a safety determination, or to make a determination of likelihood of meeting the safety standard for a new chemical substance or a significant new use. It could also require testing to meet agency needs under another federal law.

EPA would have to explain its need for testing, including an explanation of why existing information could not be extrapolated to meet the need. Testing requirements would have to be tiered. There would be provisions to encourage alternatives to animal testing.

It would generally be easier for EPA to require testing under the CSIA than under current TSCA. EPA would not have to establish that a chemical substance may pose an unreasonable risk or meets certain volume or exposure levels, and it would not have to proceed by rulemaking. Instead, it could issue an order or enter into a consent agreement to require testing.

8. Reporting and Recordkeeping

EPA currently has authority to require processors to report information, but it rarely exercises that authority. The CSIA would require EPA to adopt reporting requirements for processors, although the requirements could differ from those for manufacturers.

The CSIA would address some of issues of nomenclature used for naming chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory. For example, individual members of statutory mixtures listed on the Inventory would be declared to be on the Inventory. EPA would be directed to continue using its Class 2 and carbon chain length nomenclature.

EPA would have to identify those chemical substances on the Inventory that are active, i.e., have been manufactured or processed within the past five years. It would do so by establishing a candidate list of proposed active substances, then requiring manufacturers and processors to report either the candidate list substances or other substances on the Inventory that they have manufactured or processed in the past five years. For chemical substances on the confidential Inventory, manufacturers and processors would have to reaffirm (but not resubstantiate) that the identities continue to be confidential. If no one were to reaffirm that a chemical substance on the confidential Inventory was still confidential, EPA could make that identity public. EPA would publish the list of active substances (or generic names of confidential active substances). With few exceptions, EPA would prioritize only active substances.

9. Confidential Business Information (CBI)

CBI would be protected from disclosure if certain requirements were met. Like the SCA, the CSIA would identify categories of information likely to be eligible for CBI protection or likely not to be eligible for CBI protection. New CBI claims would have to be substantiated. In most cases, previous CBI claims would not need to be resubstantiated.

Chemical identities could be protected as CBI, even if present in health and safety studies. Additional substantiation would be required, and a structurally-descriptive generic name would have to be made public. Chemical identities could be disclosed under prescribed circumstances, such as in a medical emergency.

Instead of setting fixed time periods for CBI protection, as under the SCA, the CSIA would allow CBI to be protected for the time period requested by the submitter, except where the submitter either withdrew the CBI claim or EPA otherwise learned that the claim could no longer be substantiated. In most cases, before releasing CBI publicly, EPA would have to notify the submitter and afford an opportunity to seek a court order barring release.

10. Preemption

Whereas the SCA would have allowed for virtually no preemption of state or local requirements, the CSIA would expand the preemptive effect of EPA actions as compared with current TSCA.

EPA testing requirements would continue to preempt new or existing state or local testing requirements. With limited exceptions, EPA rules, orders, and consent agreements under sections 5 or 6 for a chemical substance would preempt new or existing state or local restrictions or bans on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, or use of that substance, as would a completed safety determination for the substance.

New state or local restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, or use of a chemical substance would be preempted by EPA’s classification of a chemical substance as a high-priority substance or a low-priority substance.

State and local provisions relating to disposal of chemical substances, such as environmental monitoring requirements, generally would not be preempted.

A state or locality could seek a waiver of preemption if it could meet prescribed criteria. Waiver applications would be subject to notice and opportunity for comment, and waivers could be appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

11. Exports and Imports

Export notifications would only be required for chemical substances that EPA found under section 5 not to be likely to meet the safety standard under the intended conditions of use, or that a safety determination had found not to meet the safety standard under the intended conditions of use, or for which the U.S. was required by treaty to provide export notification. The latter provision refers to treaties which the U.S. has not yet ratified, such as the PIC and POPs Conventions.

Import certifications would be similar to those today, but would also require notification that an imported chemical substance was a high-priority substance or a substance for which the U.S. was required by treaty to provide export notification.

Prospects for Passage

No hearings on the CSIA have been announced, nor has a schedule for consideration been established. These are early days; some senators may still be evaluating the bill (for example, the Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer, has not yet indicated whether she will support the bill).

Still, this bipartisan bill has fundamentally changed the prospects for passage of TSCA legislation in this Congress, which had been dim. It has effectively stopped any consideration of the SCA as a viable bill, although the SCA will serve as a touchstone for Democrats in evaluating whether to support amendments to the CSIA.

The House of Representatives remains unlikely to initiate its own TSCA legislation. However, if the Senate were to pass the CSIA with a large majority, including many Republicans, the House leadership would be likely to bring a companion bill up for consideration.

Some NGOs (e.g., the Environmental Working Group) have already announced their opposition to the bill, although others are taking a pragmatic approach of considering the CSIA as the best bill that has a realistic chance of passage.

Some Democrats are likely to seek to amend the CSIA, such as by adding statutory deadlines. Some Republicans may also want changes. Given that less than six months of the 113th Congress have passed, there is time for the Senate to consider the bill thoroughly, pass it or an amended version, and still have the House agree to what the Senate had passed. Another scenario, less likely but still possible with this breakthrough, is that both Houses would consider and pass the legislation within a short time. That is what happened with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. One thing is certain: it is important to stay tuned, because TSCA has suddenly become a hot topic on Capitol Hill.

[1] Chemical Safety Improvement Act, available atwww.bdlaw.com/assets/attachments/Chemical%20Safety%20Improvement%20Act.PDF.

[2] Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Press Release, “Senators Lautenberg And Vitter Reach Groundbreaking Agreement To Reform Nation’s Chemical Laws; Bipartisan Legislation Would Protect Americans From Risks Posed By Exposure To Chemicals” (May 22, 2013),http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ccf8cd45-e41f-28bd-0252-9984333f7335.

[3] Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., “‘Safe Chemicals Act,’ First TSCA Reform Bill of 113th Congress, Reintroduced” (Apr. 16, 2013), http://www.bdlaw.com/news-1462.html; see also Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., “TSCA Modernization Proposals in Congress: Recent History and Prospects” (Feb. 25, 2013), http://www.bdlaw.com/news-1447.html.

[4] Senator Lautenberg is listed as the sponsor. Democratic co-sponsors include Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Tom Udall (D-NM), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Patty Murray (D-WA).

[5] Senator Vitter is listed as a co-sponsor. Other Republican co-sponsors include Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), James Inhofe (R-OK), Susan Collins (R-ME), Marco Rubio (R-FL), John Boozman (R-AR), John Hoeven (R-ND), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

[6] Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mark Begich (D-AK).

[7] Democratic Senators Begich, Harkin, and Murray, and Republican Senator Murkowski.

[8] E.g., American Chemistry Council, Press Release, “ACC Commends Senators Lautenberg and Vitter for Bipartisan Leadership to Reform TSCA” (May 22, 2013),http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/ACC-Commends-Senators-Lautenberg-and-Vitter-for-Bipartisan-Leadership-to-Reform-TSCA.html/;American Cleaning Institute, Press Release, “Introduction of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act” (May 22, 2013), http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/22/aci-safety-act-reax-idUSnPNDC19227+1e0+PRN20130522.

[9] Environmental Defense Fund, Press Release, “A bipartisan path forward to reform U.S. chemical safety law; Hard-fought compromise legislation would better protect American families” (May 22, 2013), http://www.edf.org/news/bipartisan-path-forward-reform-us-chemical-safety-law. For a variety of NGO viewpoints, see Safer Chemicals Healthy Families blog, “Reactions to the bi-partisan Chemical Safety Improvement Act” (May 23, 2013), http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.saferchemicals.org%2F2013%2F05%2Finitial-reactions-to-the-bipartisan-chemical-improvement-safety-act.html.

[10] E.g., Environmental Working Group press release, “EWG President Ken Cook Weighs In On Senate Chemical Policy Reform Bill” (May 23, 2013), http://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-president-ken-cook-weighs-senate-chemical-policy-reform-bill.

[11] Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “Top EPA Toxics Officials Under Obama & Bush Admins Hail Lautenberg-Vitter Bill to Reform Nation’s Chemical Laws” (May 23, 2013),http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d2553c0f-beb5-e270-2971-ff2b84a06e88&Region_id=&Issue_id=.

Article By:

 of

Watt’s New? Michigan Energy Newsletter – May 2013

Varnum LLP

New DTE Electric PPAs for Wind Energy

Two 20-year power purchase agreements (PPAs) between DTE Electric and Pheasant Run Wind, LLC and Pheasant Run Wind II, LLC received ex parte approval from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) on May 15, 2013. Each PPA is for 74.8 MW of wind energy for projects in Michigan’s Thumb region. Also approved was an option agreement wherein DTE Electric can purchase the Pheasant Run Wind II project. This option expires on March 31, 2014. These contracts resulted from unsolicited proposals from Next Era Resources on a timetable which would qualify for production tax credit benefits. The price in each PPA is “up to” $49.25 per MW hour (4.925¢ kWh). The average net capacity factor is estimated to be 43%. Geronimo Energy LLC attempted to intervene at the MPSC, arguing that its 100 MW Apple Blossom Wind Project in Huron County was a competing proposal that would pass through the same tax benefit. Its request that DTE Electric be made to undertake a competitive bidding process was rejected and its petition was denied.

Five Ethanol Plants in Michigan

Michigan has five corn ethanol refineries. In 2008 it appeared there would be six more, but ultimately the demand for ethanol in Michigan did not justify 11 facilities. The operating plants are in Riga Township, Albion, Caro, Marysville, and Lake Odessa. Generally they have 40-50 employees, each with a capacity between 50-60 million gallons per year. Total ethanol production in the state is approximately 240 million gallons per year.

Offshore Team Sails to Cleveland

Muskegon-based Andrie Inc. has been hired to assist in the development of an offshore wind energy project in Lake Erie. The company’s 90’ by 50’ jack-up barge recently traveled to Cleveland to assist in lake bottom sediment testing seven to nine miles offshore. A jack-up barge is a floating platform with long poles in each of the four corners that can be lowered into the water down to the lake bottom to secure the platform above the water surface. LEEDCo, a public-private partnership, is developing a 27 MW, five to nine turbine offshore project.

Energy Forum Update

Initial review and gap analysis of the information presented at the seven energy forums and on line is now being conducted. It is expected that the gap analysis will be complete by the end of May. The month of June will see an effort to fill in the gaps. By the end of June it is expected everything needed for reports will be in hand. Draft reports are targeted for the end of September, with public comment beginning as early as mid-October.

Nuclear Plant Off-Line Again

The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Covert has been shut down due to a water leakage issue in the Safety Injection Refueling Water Tank. The leak was estimated to be 34 gallons per day, with 79 gallons of slightly radioactive water having drained into Lake Michigan. A half-inch crack about the width of a thumbnail is believed to have been the source of the leak. Entergy Corporation, a New Orleans-based company, owns and operates the Palisades facility and has a 15-year power purchase agreement with Consumers Energy that will expire in 2021.

43 Degrees North @ Muskegon

The Michigan Energy and Technology Center has been formed by a consortium of companies to generate economic activity in the state. The founding members of the group include Consumers Energy, Energetx Composites LLC, Rockford Berge, Sand Products Co., and Verplank Dock Co. Initial affiliate members are Astraeus Wind Energy Inc. and Ventower Industries. The group will initially focus on two projects. The first is to enhance the infrastructure at the Port of Muskegon, the only deep water port on the Michigan side of Lake Michigan. In support of this project, Consumers Energy has made a commitment to allow access to its coal port at the Cobb generating plant, which will be idled within the next three years. The second project is a pilot program by Michigan State University to develop a virtual clean technology and logistics research center [MTEC @ MSU] to assist in developing clean energy technology, scaling up manufacturing, and transporting products.

Michigan Energy Fair Returns

The Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association will conduct the 13th annual Michigan Energy Fair in Ludington on June 7-8. The event will take place at the Mason County Fairgrounds. The program on Friday is intended for energy professionals, facility managers, and educators and will run from noon to 5 p.m. There is a $25 charge for the workshops. The Saturday events begin at 9 a.m., will be more oriented toward the general public, and are free. Energy Fair exhibits will provide information on solar, wind, energy efficiency, and other energy related topics.

Michigan Shorts

NextEra has ordered 59 1.7 MW wind turbines from General Electric for its Tuscola II project scheduled to be complete by the end of the year.  Tecogen has purchased the proprietary 5300 permanent magnet generation line as part of the liquidation of Danotek Motion Technologies of Canton.  The Great Lakes Renewable Energy Association has been awarded a $33,304 grant from the Michigan Energy Office to conduct a feasibility study of community solar in Michigan.  Ornicept, a startup with technology to study bird migration issues associated with wind turbines, has relocated to Ann Arbor.  Muskegon’s Wastewater Management System director has reported that six months of meteorological testing by Gamea Energy has confirmed average wind speeds are sufficient to support a viable wind energy project Ω The Michigan Public Service Commission has approved an opt out option for residential smart meters consisting of an initial fee of $67.20 and a $9.80 monthly fee.  NextEra has selected General Electric’s new 1.7-100 brillant wind turbine for its new Michigan wind farm project.  WindTronics LLC of Muskegon has ceased manufacturing its gearless wind turbine and ended operations.  Nexteers Sunsteer solar tracking system is manufactured in Michigan with 90 percent U.S. content and 50 percent Michigan content.

Article By:

 of

Department of Energy Approves Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Export Authorization for Freeport LNG – A Win for LNG Exports?

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

The Department of Energy recently authorized Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. (“FLEX”) to export LNG to non-Free Trade Agreement countries. Importantly, this is the first order on LNG exports issued by the DOE since it collected comments on its two-part LNG Export Study and likely represents the analysis DOE will use in reviewing the queue of pending LNG export applications.

FLEX proposes to export 1.4 Bcf/day from the Freeport LNG terminal, which is situated on the Gulf Coast in Texas. After filing its export application, FLEX secured long-term contracts with three entities for 88 percent of the requested export capacity; most of the gas for export would be sourced from Texas, and in particular, the Eagle Ford Shale.

By way of background, as the domestic natural gas markets shifted to favoring LNG exports in recent years, numerous applications were filed with the DOE for authorization to export LNG. In response to this onslaught, DOE commissioned a two-part study, consisting of (1) an Energy Information Administration study on the effects on increased natural gas exports on domestic energy markets; and (2) a NERA Economic Consulting study on the macroeconomic imports of LNG exports (together, the “LNG Export Study”). The NERA study has recently been the subject of substantial debate as DOE noted that it received over 188,000 comments and 2,700 reply comments, though DOE admits the majority of such comments were nearly identical form letters. Substantive and unique comments numbered nearly 800, with 11 different economic studies prepared by commenters.

In general, the FLEX order is a positive development for LNG exporters for two main reasons:  (1) DOE found the LNG Export Study to be sufficiently reliable and supportive of LNG exports; and (2) DOE strongly suggested that it would let market forces govern LNG exports (while being closely monitored by DOE). The FLEX order tracks with and builds upon DOE’s last order granting authorization for LNG exports to non-FTA countries, Sabine Pass, issued nearly two years ago. In approving the application as “not inconsistent with the public interest,” DOE considered the same public interest factors relied upon in its earlier Sabine Pass order, namely, the economic impacts, international impacts, and security of natural gas supply. DOE continued to consider the factors identified in its now-expired 1984 policy guidelines, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE’s policy of promoting market competition.

While at first glance the FLEX order appears to represent a big win for the LNG export industry, there are several conclusions worth attention. Arguably, the order is a broad endorsement of free-market principles as DOE determined the competitive market to be the proper mechanism for allocating a scare resource like natural gas. However, although DOE did not state it would impose limits or caps on LNG exports, DOE did indicate that it will take a “measured approach” in reviewing other pending LNG export applications. “Specifically, DOE/FE will assess the cumulative impacts of each succeeding request for export authorization on the public interest with due regard to the effect on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals.” This approach suggests lower-queued applications may face a higher hurdle due to the cumulative impacts of the preceding applications and possibly suggests that DOE has a “cap” in mind. Third, DOE confirmed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will conduct the environmental review, subject to independent review by DOE. Fourth, DOE found that the net economic benefits to the U.S. from LNG exports outweigh potential harms. Fifth, DOE continued to caution LNG export applicants that it will monitor the market and the impact of LNG exports and “may issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders . . . as it may find necessary . . . .” Such statements continue to inject some uncertainty into the contracting process. Finally, DOE suggested that local and regional benefits in terms of employment and income may be important in deciding whether to grant specific applications. Moreover, with respect to FLEX project, DOE noted that no one challenged the data provided by applicant in this regard.

A significant issue raised by commenters on the LNG Export Study was to what extent LNG exports would raise natural gas prices, how natural gas production would react to increased demand, and whether the net economic benefits accruing from LNG exports would outweigh negative impacts for higher domestic natural gas prices. As discussed in the FLEX order, DOE is clearly concerned about these issues, but it found arguments persuasive that the U.S. had a substantial oversupply of natural gas that would mitigate the preceding concerns. DOE cautioned that it would closely monitor the domestic natural gas markets and reiterated its authority to revise or rescind LNG export authorizations should the public interest require it. DOE did not indicate what market conditions would trigger such action, but changes in the domestic natural gas oversupply condition could be pivotal in subsequent approvals of LNG export applications or in rescinding/amending already issued export authorizations.

DOE imposed numerous conditions on the export authorization, including a requirement that FLEX must file publicly with DOE (a) all executed long-term contracts associated with the long-term export of LNG; and (b) all executed long-term contracts associated with the long-term supply of natural gas to the terminal. DOE noted that commercially sensitive provisions may be redacted. DOE also reduced the duration of FLEX’s requested 25-year export authorization and approved only a 20-year authorization.

Overall, our sense is that the FLEX order is a step in the right direction for the LNG exports industry and is a sign that, after a two-year study period, DOE once again will begin its process of issuing non-FTA export authorizations. As previously rumored, we expect that those projects that are further along in the development process (e.g., those that have completed FERC’s pre-filing process and have commercial arrangements in place for a sizable portion of the terminal capacity) will receive priority processing regardless of the project’s place in DOE’s queue. As a result, less developed projects will face greater uncertainty, especially if DOE has a “cap” in mind. Further, project sponsors should continue to include provisions in their contracts that address the possibility that DOE would modify or revoke a non-FTA authorization in the event of changes to the current domestic natural gas oversupply condition.

Article By:

Patent Exhaustion Rejected: Patented Seed Purchaser Has No Right to Make Copies

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

The Supreme Court in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. ruled unanimously that a farmer’s replanting of harvested seeds constituted making new infringing articles.  While the case is important for agricultural industries, the Supreme Court cautioned that its decision is limited to the facts of the Bowman case and is not a pronouncement regarding all self-replicating products.

In a narrow ruling that reaffirms the scope of patent protection over seeds, and possibly over other self-replicating technologies, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a purchaser of patented seeds may not reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission.  Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Case No. 11-796 (Supreme Court May 13, 2013).

In this case, Monsanto had asserted two of its patents that cover genetically modified soybean seeds that are resistant to herbicide (Roundup Ready® seeds).  Monsanto broadly licenses its Roundup Ready® soybean seeds under agreements that specify that the farmer “may not save any of the harvested seeds for replanting, nor may he supply them to anyone else for that purpose.”  Vernon Hugh Bowman is a farmer who purchased soybean seeds from a grain elevator.  Bowman replanted Roundup Ready® seeds in multiple years without Monsanto’s permission.  The district court granted summary judgment of patent infringement against Bowman, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.  Bowman appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

On appeal, Bowman heavily relied on the “patent exhaustion” doctrine, which provides that the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser or any subsequent owner a right to use or resell that article.  Bowman argued that the authorized sale of the Roundup Ready® seeds exhausted Monsanto’s patent rights in the seeds, because “right to use” in the context of seeds includes planting the seeds and reproducing new seeds.

Patent Implications

Speaking through Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that Bowman’s activities amounted to making new infringing articles.  The Supreme Court held that “the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission.”  Specifically, the exhaustion doctrine restricts a patentee’s rights only as to the particular article sold, but “leaves untouched the patentee’s ability to prevent a buyer from making new copies of the patented item.”  The Supreme Court noted that if Bowman’s replanting activities were exempted under the exhaustion doctrine, Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit.  After Monsanto sold its first seed, other seed companies could produce the patented seed to compete with Monsanto, and farmers would need to buy seed only once.

In rebuffing Bowman’s argument that he was using the seed he purchased in the manner it was intended to be used, and that therefore exhaustion should apply, the Supreme Court explained that its ruling would not prevent farmers from making appropriate use of the seed they purchase—i.e., to grow a crop of soybeans consistent with the license to do so granted by Monsanto.  However, as the Supreme Court explained “[A]pplying our usual rule in this context . . . will allow farmers to benefit from Roundup Ready, even as it rewards Monsanto for its innovation.”

Tying the Supreme Court’s decision in this case narrowly to seed (as opposed to other self-replicating technologies), Justice Kagan noted that the decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in J.E.M. Ag. Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., in which the Supreme Court concluded that seeds (as well as plants) may simultaneously be subject to patent protection and to the narrower protection available under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA).  PVPA protection permits farmers who legally purchase protected seed to save harvested seed for replanting.  However, reconciling the two forms of protection, Justice Kagan explained, “[I]f a sale [i.e., of a patented seed] cut off the right to control a patented seed’s progeny, then (contrary to J.E.M.) the patentee could not prevent the buyer from saving harvested seed.”

Other Self-Replicating Technologies

The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto is, of course, important for agricultural industries.  If extended to other self-replicating technologies, it may also prove important for biotechnology companies and others  that rely on self-replicating technologies, including, for example, companies that own patent rights over viral strains, cell lines, and self-replicating DNA or RNA molecules.  If subsequent cases extend the “no exhaustion” holding of Monsanto to these technologies, patent protection would extend to copies made from the “first generation” product that is obtained through an authorized sale.

However, the Supreme Court cautioned that its decision is limited to “the situation before us” and is not an overarching pronouncement regarding all self-replicating products.  The Supreme Court suggested that its “no exhaustion” ruling might not apply where an article’s self-replication “occur[s] outside the purchaser’s control” or is “a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose,” citing computer software (and a provision of the Copyright Act) as a possible example.  As explained by Justice Kagan, “We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances.”  In this regard, the Supreme Court particularly noted that “Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication.”  Instead, Bowman “controlled the reproduction” of seeds by repeated planting and harvesting.  Thus, the Supreme Court suggests that a purchaser’s “control” over the reproduction process likely will be a key inquiry in considering the patent exhaustion doctrine as it relates to other self-replicating technologies.  Of course, it remains to be seen how broadly lower courts will interpret the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Antitrust Implications

By holding that Monsanto’s restriction on replanting was within the scope of its patent rights, the Supreme Court effectively immunized that restriction from antitrust scrutiny.  Other court decisions have called into question other license restrictions viewed as going beyond the scope of patent protection as being potentially susceptible to an antitrust or patent misuse challenge.

The Supreme Court highlighted its application of the exhaustion doctrine last addressed in Quanta, which held that “the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights in that article.”  This boundary line conventionally demarcated the end of a patent’s protection and the beginning of a potential antitrust minefield.  Some commentators may interpret the Monsanto decision to push that line further out.  Importantly, however, the Supreme Court deemed the seeds at issue to be a “new product.”  So construed, Monsanto’s restriction on replanting did not affect the product’s use, as in Quanta and Univis Lens, but rather came within the well-settled principle that “the exhaustion doctrine does not extend to the right to ‘make’ a new product.”

The Supreme Court not only was doctrinally conservative in its Monsanto decision, it was also careful to explain that its holding is a narrow one.  Monsanto never exhausted its patent rights in the “new” seeds; indeed, it never truly “sold” them.  Rather, Bowman created new seed from seeds that Monsanto had sold.  The decision therefore may not portend a more general inclination to construe the scope of patent protection more broadly.  In fact, the Supreme Court went so far as to clarify that it could reach a different outcome were it presented with a different technology.

Article By: