Latest news with #NorthDakotaSupremeCourt
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CO2 storage law challenged in North Dakota Supreme Court hearing
The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Zoom April 17, 2025, in a case brought by the Northwest Landowners Association against the state and the North Dakota Industrial Commission. (Screenshot via Bismarck Tribune) The North Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in a case that could determine whether a state law on underground carbon dioxide storage is constitutional and fair to landowners. The Northwest Landowners Association and other landowners are suing the state of North Dakota and the state Industrial Commission over a state law that can force landowners to take part in an underground CO2 storage project. Joining the state in defending its statute are Minnkota Power, Basin Electric Power, Dakota Gasification Co. and Summit Carbon Solutions, the Iowa-based company that has a permit to store millions of tons of carbon dioxide in western North Dakota. Initial fate of property rights lawsuit now in the hands of a judge The North Dakota Farm Bureau has joined the landowners in their lawsuit. Derrick Braaten, representing the landowners, said the state law authorizing amalgamation — forcing landowners to allow carbon dioxide storage beneath their property if 60% of the landowners agree to a storage project — is unconstitutional and doesn't allow landowners to use the court system to argue for just compensation. Northeast Judicial District Judge Anthony Swain Benson dismissed the lawsuit in August, ruling that a law passed in 2009 could not be challenged because a statute of limitations had expired. Thursday's arguments delved into the merits of the case. Braaten urged the Supreme Court to overrule the district court on the technicalities. He said the Supreme Court could also rule on the merits of the case or send it back to the district court for further arguments. The Supreme Court took the case under advisement. Judge dismisses landowner lawsuit against state, citing procedural issues Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking to use property in Oliver, Mercer and Morton counties for underground CO2 storage. The underground storage area is referred to as pore space. Phil Axt, representing the state, noted that North Dakota's geology is exceptionally well suited to underground carbon dioxide storage. He said the state should have the authority to regulate a shared resource. He said the case could set a precedent. 'As far as we're aware, no other court has yet addressed the pooling of pore space interests and the interplay between individual rights, majority rights and regulatory authority,' Axt said. 'We think courts around the country will be answering them, but this court is positioned to be the first.' Paul Forster, attorney for Minnkota Power, argued that allowing a small percentage of landowners to stop an underground storage project denies the majority of a right to profit from their property. Braaten also argued that state law takes away the right of landowners to challenge the level of compensation if a landowner is forced into a pool. He noted the potential revenue for Summit Carbon Solutions if it is able to take advantage of federal tax credit for storing carbon dioxide, which the company hopes to gather from ethanol plants in five Midwest states. 'They're making millions, if not billions, of dollars doing it by collecting government tax credits, and they're saying we don't get our share of that, even though it's our property they're using,' Braaten said. Carbon pipeline company seeks dismissals of North Dakota court challenges About 92% of landowners in the 90,000-acre sequestration area for Summit were participating voluntarily at the time Summit's storage permit was approved. Summit Carbon Solutions, which faces a permitting challenge in South Dakota, did not make oral arguments Thursday. Among the arguments Summit made in a brief filed with the court is that the state has a law that forces property owners to participate in oil and gas development. Braaten argued those property owners are fairly compensated. The Northwest Landowners Association successfully challenged a 2019 North Dakota pore space law at the state Supreme Court, with justices finding it unconstitutional. Landowners are also appealing the Industrial Commission's permit decision for the Summit storage area. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Here's Why Energy Transfer Stock Is a Buy Before May 6
President Donald Trump's unpredictable tariffs drove many investors from stocks toward more conservative investments over the past few months. However, many panicked investors tossed out the babies with the bathwater during that washout, and many stocks that were actually well-insulated from tariffs were unfairly crushed. One of those stocks was Energy Transfer (NYSE: ET), which will release its next earnings report on May 6. I'll explain why it's a tariff- and recession-resistant investment and worth accumulating today as the broader market swoons. Energy Transfer is a midstream company that provides pipeline, storage, and terminalizing services for natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and refined products. By building that transportation infrastructure, it serves as a "toll-road operator" between upstream extraction companies and downstream refining companies. Energy Transfer operates more than 125,000 miles of pipeline across 44 states, and its NGL exports account for about a fifth of the global market. Economic downturns can hurt upstream and downstream companies by reducing oil and natural gas prices. However, midstream pipeline companies generally aren't affected by those price swings because they simply collect the tolls on its infrastructure. That makes Energy Transfer an ideal stock to hold during these uncertain times. Energy Transfer faced some protests from government regulators, environmental organizations, and Native American tribes over safety and territorial concerns in recent years. A major flashpoint for those conflicts was the Dakota Access Pipeline, in which Energy Transfer owns a 38.2% stake, during its construction in 2016 and 2017. However, the Trump Administration wants domestic energy companies to ramp up their production of oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels to reduce the country's dependence on overseas resources. The North Dakota Supreme Court also recently ordered Greenpeace, which actively protested the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, to pay Energy Transfer $660 million in damages. Those developments indicate that the company's toughest regulatory and environmental headwinds are dissipating. Meanwhile, the soaring energy needs for artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud-oriented data centers should generate strong tailwinds for Energy Transfer and other pipeline companies. Energy Transfer is rapidly expanding its capacity across the Permian Basin and recently struck a deal with CloudBurst to pipe natural gas to its flagship AI-oriented data center campus in Central Texas. Energy Transfer is a master limited partnership (MLP), which merges the tax advantages of a private partnership with the liquidity of a public-traded stock. MLPs report their profits through their earnings per unit (EPU) instead of earnings per share (EPS). From 2014 to 2024, Energy Transfer's revenue expanded at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4% as its EPU rose at a CAGR of 8%. From 2024 to 2027, analysts expect the company's revenue and EPU to increase at a CAGR of 5% and 9%, respectively. MLPs generally pay out most of their EPU as dividends. Energy Transfer has raised its dividend annually for 12 consecutive years. It spent nearly 100% of its EPU on its dividends over the past 12 months and pays a hefty forward yield of 8%. By comparison, industry peer Kinder Morgan pays a forward dividend yield of 4.6%. At $16, the stock trades at just 11 times this year's EPU. That low valuation, along with its high yield and resilient business model, should limit Energy Transfer's downside potential. Kinder Morgan, which is growing slightly faster, still trades at 21 times its forward EPU. Energy Transfer isn't an exciting stock, but it's a great safe-haven play for uncertain times. As long as it gives a stable earnings report on May 6 and follows up with a decent outlook for the domestic energy sector, its stock should stay stable. That might be why Energy Transfer's insiders bought seven times as many shares as they sold over the past 12 months. Kinder Morgan's insiders sold 18 times -- as many shares as they bought during the same period. That warmer insider sentiment supports the idea that Energy Transfer is an undervalued dividend play. If you're looking for a reliable safe-haven stock to buy today, Energy Transfer checks all the right boxes. Before you buy stock in Energy Transfer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Energy Transfer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $502,231!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $678,552!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 800% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 156% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of April 14, 2025 Leo Sun has positions in Energy Transfer. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Kinder Morgan. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Here's Why Energy Transfer Stock Is a Buy Before May 6 was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace to challenge $660M court judgement
Sachi Kitajima Mulkey and Joseph WintersGrist A jury in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2019, alleging that it had orchestrated a vast conspiracy against the company by organizing historic protests on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016 and 2017. In its lawsuit, Energy Transfer Partners accused three Greenpeace entities — two in the U.S. and one based in Amsterdam — of violating North Dakota trespassing and defamation laws, and of coordinating protests aimed to stop the 1,172-mile pipeline from transporting oil from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields to a terminal in Illinois. Greenpeace maintained it played only a minor supporting role in the Indigenous-led movement. 'This was obviously a test case meant to scare others from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest,' said Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA. 'They're trying to buy silence; that silence is not for sale.' Legal and Indigenous experts said the lawsuit was a'textbook' example of a 'strategic lawsuit against public participation,' known colloquially as a SLAPP suit, a tactic used by corporations and wealthy individuals to drown their critics in legal fees. They also criticized Energy Transfer for using the lawsuit to undermine tribes' treaty rights by exaggerating the role of out-of-state agitators. The three Greenpeace entities named in the lawsuit — Greenpeace Inc., a U.S.-based advocacy arm; Greenpeace Funds, which raises money and is also based in the U.S.; and Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands — are now planning their next moves, including an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court and a separate countersuit in the European Union. As part of a previous appeal to move the trial more impartial court, Greenpeace submitted a 33-page document to the state Supreme Court explaining that the jurors in Morton County, North Dakota — where the trial occurred — would likely be biased against the defendants, since they were drawn from the same area where the anti-pipeline protests had taken place and disrupted daily life. The request included results from a 2022 survey of 150 potential jurors in Morton County conducted by the National Jury Project, a litigation consulting company, which found 97 percent of residents said they could not be a fair or impartial juror in the lawsuit. Greenpeace also pointed out that nine of the 20 final jurors had either 'direct personal experience' with the protests, or a friend or family member with direct personal experience. Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said the chances that the North Dakota Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's verdict are 'probably less than 50 percent.' What may be more likely, he said, is that the Supreme Court will reduce the 'outrageous' amount of money charged by the Morton County jury, which includes various penalties that doubled the $300 million in damages that Energy Transfer had originally claimed. 'The court does have a lot of discretion in reducing the amount of damages,' he said. He called the Morton County verdict 'beyond punitive. This is scorched Earth, what we're seeing here.' Depending on what happens at the North Dakota Supreme Court, Parenteau also said there's a basis for appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, based on the First Amendment free speech issues involved. But, he added, the move could be 'a really dangerous proposition,' with the court's conservative supermajority and the precedent such a case could set. A federal decision in favor of Energy Transfer could limit any organizations' ability to protest nationwide — and not just against pipelines. Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, which coordinates 24 independent Greenpeace chapters around the world but is legally separate from them, is also fighting back. It countersued Energy Partners in the Netherlands in February, making use of a new anti-SLAPP directive in the EU that went into effect in May 2024. Greenpeace International is only on the hook for $132 million of the more than $600 million charged against the three Greenpeace bodies by the Morton County jury. Its countersuit in the EU wouldn't change what has happened in U.S. courts. Instead, it seeks to recover costs incurred by the Amsterdam-based branch during its years-long fights against the Morton County lawsuit and an earlier, federal case in 2017 that was eventually dismissed. If the damages awarded against Greenpeace International in U.S. courts aren't overturned through appeals, then it can potentially claim those same millions back from Energy Transfer in the EU case. Greenpeace International's trial will begin in Dutch courts in July and is the first test of the EU's anti-SLAPP directive. According to Kristen Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, the branch in the EU has a strong case because the only action it took in support of the anti-pipeline protests was to sign an open letter — what she described as a clear case of protected public participation. Eric Heinze, a free speech expert and professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, said the case appeared 'black and white.' 'Normally I don't like to predict,' he said, 'but if I had to put money on this I would bet for Greenpeace to win.' While Greenpeace's various entities may have to pay damages as ordered by U.S. courts, the result of the case in the EU, Casper said a victory would send an international message against 'corporate bullying and weaponization of the law.' Padmanabha said that regardless of the damages that the Greenpeace USA incurs, the organization isn't going away any time soon. 'You can't bankrupt the movement,' she said. 'What we work on, our campaigns and our commitments — that is not going to change.' In response to request for comment, Energy Transfer said the Morton County jury's decision was a victory for the people of Mandan and 'for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us.' Nick Estes, an assistant professor of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota and member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe who wrote a book about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, said the case was about more than just punishing Greenpeace — it was a proxy attack on the water protectors at Standing Rock and the broader environmental justice movement. He said it showed what could happen 'if you step outside the path of what they consider as an acceptable form of protest.''They had to sidestep the actual context of the entire movement, around treaty rights, land rights, water rights, and tribal sovereignty because they couldn't win that fight,' he said. 'They had to go a circuitous route, and find a sympathetic court to attack the environmental movement.' Janet Alkire, the chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a March 3 statement that the Morton County case was 'frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock.' She said the company also used propaganda to discredit the tribe during and after the protests. 'Part of the attack on our tribe is to attack our allies,' Alkire wrote. 'The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced.'
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Grand Forks County Commission recommends firing correctional center administrator
Apr. 1—GRAND FORKS — A majority of Grand Forks County Commissioners on Tuesday told Sheriff Andy Schneider they would like to see Correctional Center Administrator Bret Burkholder fired. The commission voted 3-2 to recommend the action, with Commissioners Bob Rost and Cynthia Pic dissenting. The reason for the suggestion is that the correctional center department did not follow the expenditure rules for a state grant it had received. According to Schneider, the North Dakota Attorney General's Office told the county last week that the way the funds were spent was not allowed under the grant's language. "(The grant) says that it's to be utilized specifically for hiring and retention bonuses and for tuition and fee payments," Schneider told commissioners during a Tuesday meeting. "The correctional center had spent some of that funding that was allocated for that on other items like vending machines and appliances (for employee use)." Schneider made the commission aware of the situation at the correctional center as he consolidates it into his department. Burkholder did not speak during the meeting. According to the material provided to commissioners, Burkholder said that giving a flat bonus to the correctional officers would have meant that most of the money would have gone to employees no longer employed by the county. "While a simple solution to utilizing these funds would have been to simply divide the award amongst the current officers, and officers know of agencies that have done this, we are looking for a long-term impact from this money to positively affect current and future officers as (the) current trend is is a turnover rate of approximately 20 officers per year," Burkholder wrote in his progress update to the attorney general. The "Back the Blue" grant was created back in 2023 to aid with helping recruitment and retention for law enforcement and correctional officers. Both the sheriff and correction center, at the time separate departments, applied and received funds from the grant. Both were required to submit progress reports at the end of 2024 for progress on the grant, which had to be spent by March 31 of this year. The state had not given a reply to the notice until recently, if at all. Schneider said that after he took over the department, he used the grant funds to give employees bonuses and use other line items to pay for the already bought items. He added that this is a likely issue for communities across the state, given the lack of notification or feedback given on the use of the grant. The total grant received by the correctional center was $88,000 and $37,966.42 had been spent. The move to terminate Burkholder, led by Commissioner Terry Bjerke and seconded by Mark Rustad, was first motioned to eliminate Burkholder outright. However, due to a 2017 North Dakota Supreme Court decision, State's Attorney Haley Wamstad told commissioners that only Schneider, as the elected sheriff, has the authority to terminate employees in his jurisdiction. The commissioners can make a recommendation. "Not happy that we have a state grant that wasn't followed," Bjerke said. "Inexcusable, unacceptable, and we have issues, so taking the bull by the horn." If Schneider decides to fire Burkholder or if Burkholder resigns, the commission receives a receipt of the outcome as part of county employee policy. In other news, the commission: * Laid out priorities for the 2026 budget. Bjerke presented his proposals to raise additional revenues and cut spending. Some of his proposed revenue increases include leasing space at the youth assessment center. The proposed cuts include funding to Safe Kids Grand Forks and Grand Forks Young Professionals, along with reducing some of the mills that are allocated to various entities, like the county weed board and library. * Approved contracting with Larimore and Northwood to have the sheriff's department do local policing. Larimore has contracted with the county for roughly 15 years for the service and a co-op was formed following the closure of Northwood's police department.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?
A jury in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2019, alleging that it had orchestrated a vast conspiracy against the company by organizing historic protests on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016 and 2017. In its lawsuit, Energy Transfer Partners accused three Greenpeace entities — two in the U.S. and one based in Amsterdam — of violating North Dakota trespassing and defamation laws, and of coordinating protests aimed to stop the 1,172-mile pipeline from transporting oil from North Dakota's Bakken oil fields to a terminal in Illinois. Greenpeace maintained it played only a minor supporting role in the Indigenous-led movement. 'This was obviously a test case meant to scare others from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest,' said Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA. 'They're trying to buy silence; that silence is not for sale.' Legal and Indigenous experts said the lawsuit was a'textbook' example of a 'strategic lawsuit against public participation,' known colloquially as a SLAPP suit, a tactic used by corporations and wealthy individuals to drown their critics in legal fees. They also criticized Energy Transfer for using the lawsuit to undermine tribes' treaty rights by exaggerating the role of out-of-state agitators. The three Greenpeace entities named in the lawsuit — Greenpeace Inc., a U.S.-based advocacy arm; Greenpeace Funds, which raises money and is also based in the U.S.; and Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands — are now planning their next moves, including an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court and a separate countersuit in the European Union. As part of a previous appeal to move the trial more impartial court, Greenpeace submitted a 33-page document to the state Supreme Court explaining that the jurors in Morton County, North Dakota — where the trial occurred — would likely be biased against the defendants, since they were drawn from the same area where the anti-pipeline protests had taken place and disrupted daily life. The request included results from a 2022 survey of 150 potential jurors in Morton County conducted by the National Jury Project, a litigation consulting company, which found 97 percent of residents said they could not be a fair or impartial juror in the lawsuit. Greenpeace also pointed out that nine of the 20 final jurors had either 'direct personal experience' with the protests, or a friend or family member with direct personal experience. Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said the chances that the North Dakota Supreme Court will overturn the lower court's verdict are 'probably less than 50 percent.' What may be more likely, he said, is that the Supreme Court will reduce the 'outrageous' amount of money charged by the Morton County jury, which includes various penalties that doubled the $300 million in damages that Energy Transfer had originally claimed. 'The court does have a lot of discretion in reducing the amount of damages,' he said. He called the Morton County verdict 'beyond punitive. This is scorched Earth, what we're seeing here.' Depending on what happens at the North Dakota Supreme Court, Parenteau also said there's a basis for appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, based on the First Amendment free speech issues involved. But, he added, the move could be 'a really dangerous proposition,' with the court's conservative supermajority and the precedent such a case could set. A federal decision in favor of Energy Transfer could limit any organizations' ability to protest nationwide — and not just against pipelines. Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, which coordinates 24 independent Greenpeace chapters around the world but is legally separate from them, is also fighting back. It countersued Energy Partners in the Netherlands in February, making use of a new anti-SLAPP directive in the EU that went into effect in May 2024. Greenpeace International is only on the hook for a tiny fraction of the more than $600 million charged against the three Greenpeace bodies by the Morton County jury. Its countersuit in the EU wouldn't change what has happened in U.S. courts. Instead, it seeks to recover costs incurred by the Amsterdam-based branch during its years-long fights against the Morton County lawsuit and an earlier, federal case in 2017 that was eventually dismissed. Greenpeace International's trial will begin in Dutch courts in July and is the first test of the EU's anti-SLAPP directive. According to Kristen Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, the branch in the EU has a strong case because the only action it took in support of the anti-pipeline protests was to sign an open letter — what she described as a clear case of protected public participation. Eric Heinze, a free speech expert and professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, said the case appeared 'black and white.' 'Normally I don't like to predict,' he said, 'but if I had to put money on this I would bet for Greenpeace to win.' While Greenpeace's various entities may have to pay damages as ordered by U.S. courts, the result of the case in the EU, Casper said a victory would send an international message against 'corporate bullying and weaponization of the law.' Padmanabha said that regardless of the damages that the Greenpeace USA incurs, the organization isn't going away any time soon. 'You can't bankrupt the movement,' she said. 'What we work on, our campaigns and our commitments — that is not going to change.' In response to request for comment, Energy Transfer said the Morton County jury's decision was a victory for the people of Mandan and 'for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us.' Nick Estes, an assistant professor of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota and member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe who wrote a book about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, said the case was about more than just punishing Greenpeace — it was a proxy attack on the water protectors at Standing Rock and the broader environmental justice movement. He said it showed what could happen 'if you step outside the path of what they consider as an acceptable form of protest.''They had to sidestep the actual context of the entire movement, around treaty rights, land rights, water rights, and tribal sovereignty because they couldn't win that fight,' he said. 'They had to go a circuitous route, and find a sympathetic court to attack the environmental movement.' Janet Alkire, the chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a March 3 statement that the Morton County case was 'frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock.' She said the company also used propaganda to discredit the tribe during and after the protests.'Part of the attack on our tribe is to attack our allies,' Alkire wrote. 'The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced.'This story has been updated. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next? on Mar 21, 2025.
