21-02-2025
Newsom loses bid to exit fracking lawsuits
A Kern County judge ruled Thursday that Gov. Gavin Newsom will remain a defendant in a trio of lawsuits brought against his administration by local oil producers arguing the governor overstepped his authority when he imposed a de-facto ban on fracking in 2021.
Kern County Superior Court Judge Bernard C. Barmann Jr. denied the administration's request for summary judgment that would have excused the governor from the cases. State agencies were to remain defendants regardless.
The lawsuits, which are headed for a bench trial set to start Sept. 2, could decide the fate of a controversial oil-field technique that at one point accounted for up to a fifth of all oil produced in California, virtually all of it in Kern County.
Plaintiffs Chevron USA Inc., Aera Energy LLC and the trade group Western States Petroleum Association allege Newsom had acknowledged prior to imposing the de-facto ban that he lacked legal power to prohibit fracking but did it anyway to appease environmental groups.
Fracking injects water, sand and small concentrations of toxic chemicals deep underground at high pressure to release oil and gas that is otherwise hard to access. Environmental groups say the practice risks polluting groundwater and air. California's oil industry says there is no evidence of such contamination despite decades of use in the state.
The state Legislature went through a long process more than a decade ago to establish regulations governing fracking. But in 2021, the state oil and gas supervisor began denying oil producers' permit applications for the stated purpose of climate action rather than technical reasons.
The administration carried out an administrative ban on fracking last year in order, it said, to protect life, health, safety, property and natural resources, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It remains to be seen whether the lawsuits against Newsom will have any effect on that formal prohibition.
Meanwhile, it has been almost four years since California has authorized a frack job in the state.
Deputy Attorney General Clint Woods argued in Barmann's courtroom Thursday morning that there is no dispute the state oil and gas supervisor at the time denied fracking permits, not the governor, and so the appropriate remedy is to consider whether to order permits be issued by the primary permitting agency involved, now called the California Geologic Energy Management Division.
"You don't get to sue up the chain of command every time there is a directive from the executive" branch of government, Woods said.
He added that the plaintiffs' request that Newsom not tell his appointees to issue fracking permits amounts to a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Woods emphasized it is not the administration's intent to imply the governor can't be sued.
"We're not arguing that the governor's above the law. We're not," he said.
Plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey Dintzer, in his counter-argument, referred to statements made by the state oil and gas supervisor at the time, Uduak-Joe Ntuk.
Ntuk said in a deposition that a member of Newsom's cabinet, Secretary Wade Crowfoot of the California Natural Resources Agency, told him that "the governor was no longer comfortable with (Ntuk) approving any more (fracking) permits" and told Ntuk "to find a way to stop issuing permits" or face termination.
Dintzer said the state Legislature has decided oil producers are entitled to fracking permits and that the governor must stop telling the acting state oil and gas supervisor not to issue them.
"All the evidence is that this is a case of abuse of authority by a governor who knowingly and illegally issued an order and threatened an officer of government to issue a ban on (fracking) permits legally sought and (which) … met all the technical requirements," Dintzer said.
He added later, "This is a case about the governor and his unlawful activities."
Chevron said in a statement after Thursday's hearing that its fracking permit application at issue in the case met CalGEM's technical requirements and that the agency's permit denial was illegal.
"The hearing brings visibility to the executive office's attempt to sidestep the law to advance a political agenda against an industry that is essential to providing affordable, reliable and lower carbon energy to Californians," the company stated.
"The state's politically motivated effort to decrease oil production in California increases energy prices for inflation weary California consumers and makes the state more dependent on oil imported from other parts of the world."
Many possible outcomes of the case remain on the table, including approval of previously denied fracking permits and possibly an end to the existing ban on the procedure.
The next hearing in the case is set for March 12.
