Energy Litigation

Fredrikson assists clients with all forms of disputes across energy and natural resource industries. Our attorneys practice in the renewable energy, utility, transmission and pipeline, carbon capture, advanced biofuels, and oil and gas sectors.

Our experienced regulatory team helps clients manage the complex regulatory environment to permit and build new energy generation, transmission lines and pipelines. Our commercial team assists clients with disputes related to real estate and commercial contracts that arise from the development and ownership of renewable energy projects. We help clients develop effective legal strategies for disputes before they reach a court or arbitration. For example, we advise on force majeure actions that may arise under Power Purchase Agreements (PPA), Solar and Wind Equipment Supply Agreements, Development Services and Operation and Maintenance Agreements, and Engineering Procurement Construction (EPC) and Build Transfer due to the COVID pandemic, supply chain constraints, rising energy prices and changes of law. We appear on behalf of our clients before administrative law agencies, courts and alternative dispute resolution forums such as mediation and arbitration, resolving disputes related to these matters.

Services

We have extensive experience in state and federal courts, mediation and arbitration, including:

• MEPA/NEPA litigation
• MERA litigation
• Enforcement actions brought by federal and state agencies
• American Arbitration Association arbitration
• Mediation
• International arbitration
• Cost recovery

Fredrikson represents clients in commercial litigation, environmental litigation and appeals in state and federal courts. Our litigation experience includes:

Energy Related Commercial Litigation

• Represented a prominent wind energy developer/sponsor in a complex dispute arising under an Engineering, Procurement and Construction contract to construct 300 MW wind energy facility in North Dakota against a construction contractor. The dispute involved complex claims and counterclaims in the tens of millions of dollars. We served as lead trial counsel in the confidential two-week arbitration of this dispute.
• Represented the purchaser of two Minnesota community solar gardens (both in excess of 300 kW) in a dispute against the developer arising under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and related Operation and Maintenance Agreement. This matter involved claims that the purchased solar gardens were not as promised by the seller and underperformed production expectations. Following significant litigation and mediation, we helped our client achieve a favorable resolution concerning the projects.
• Defended a natural gas pipeline company against a class action lawsuit filed by landowners along the pipeline alleging crop yield losses associated with the facility.
• Represented a solar energy developer contractor in connection with the construction of two solar projects in Illinois in a multi-million-dollar dispute against facilities installation subcontractor (and the subcontractor’s construction “factoring” company) due to defects and delays in the installation of the facilities.
• Defended a prominent solar energy company against a lawsuit that originated from the purchase and sale of a solar facility to the company. The suit was filed by the former owner of a solar project, alleging that the former owner is entitled to an Interconnection Fee refund.
• Represented asset owner of a wind facility in dispute arising under the Operation and Maintenance Agreement to obtain a default judgment and a favorable resolution on the owner’s claims relating to the failure to achieve guaranteed energy production under an availability warranty.
• Represented leading international turbine manufacturer in a dispute arising under a Turbine Supply Agreement and related Operation and Maintenance Agreement against the developer and asset owner of multiple wind energy facilities, resulting in a favorable negotiated resolution.
• Represented wind energy construction company in a dispute arising under a Turbine Installation Agreement against the turbine vendor following the accidental death of a construction worker due to negligence of vendor.
• Achieved complete dismissal of all claims filed against a Fortune 100 company in an environmental contamination case alleging violation of the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act, trespass, nuisance, negligence, and willful and wanton conduct. The Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal.
• Represented a large landfill owner in a mass action alleging that fly ash from a nearby electric power plant contaminated the plaintiffs’ groundwater. Mediated a very favorable resolution with more than 80 named plaintiffs, after taking the lead on deposing all of the named plaintiffs.
• Obtained dismissal with prejudice on behalf of a leading international engineering firm in a putative class action filed in Illinois by a group of business and individual property owners complaining about the cost of electricity and alleging millions of dollars in damages. Plaintiffs agreed to waive any appellate rights.
• Represented wind farm developer in appeal brought by local unit of government and landowner group challenging MPUC decision to grant site permit without more stringent county setback standards. Agency decision affirmed in all respects. Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Need and Site Permit for a 78 MW Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County, (Minn. Ct. App. A11-2229 June 25, 2012).
• Represented wind farm project owner in successful motion to dismiss MERA lawsuit filed challenging MPUC permitting for wind project. Associate of Freeborn County Landowners v. Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 62-CV-20-3674, Ramsey County District Court, (December 7, 2020).
• Represented several oil and gas companies in a criminal misdemeanor case involving the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, resulting in dismissal of all charges.
• The “Powerline” cases: 1973-82; fifty lawsuits and twelve Supreme Court cases in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington, D.C., involving the construction of an 1,100 MW power plant in North Dakota, a 435 mile-long ±400 kV direct current HVTL, two 345 kV HVTLs, and associated facilities.

Energy Appellate Matters

• Represented pipeline company in appeal challenging Minnesota Pollution Control Agency decision to granting individual 401 Water Quality Certification for 340-mile replacement pipeline. Agency decision affirmed.
• Represented pipeline company in appeal brought by multiple groups challenging MPUC decision granting a certificate of need and route permit for 340-mile replacement pipeline. Agency decision affirmed.
• Represented wind farm project owner in appeal brought by landowner group challenging MPUC decision to amend site permit, deny contested case hearing, and deny motion for separate environmental review under Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. Agency decision affirmed in all respects. Freeborn Wind Energy LLC’s Application for a Large Wind Energy Conversion System Site Permit for the 84 MW Freeborn Wind Farm in Freeborn County, (Minn. Ct. App. A19-1195, A20-0947, April 19, 2021).
• Represented wind farm developer in appeal brought by local unit of government and landowner group challenging MPUC decision to grant site permit without more stringent county setback standards. Agency decision affirmed in all respects. Application of AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC for a Certificate of Need and Site Permit for a 78 MW Wind Project and Associated Facilities in Goodhue County, (Minn. Ct. App. A11-2229, June 25, 2012).
• Affirming Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s grant of a Route Permit for 345 kV transmission line. Xcel Energy’s Application for Route Permit for CapX 2020 Hampton-Rochester-La Crosse High Voltage Transmission Line, A12-1632, A12-1607, 2013 WL 2460343 (Minn. Ct. App., June 10, 2013).
• Dismissing appeal of Certificate of Corridor Compatibility and Route Permit for 345 kV line by all but one appellant based on lack of standing. City of Oxbow v. North Dakota Public Serv. Comm’n and Northern States Power Co., a Minnesota Corporation, File No. 09-2012-CV-03147 (Cass Cnty. Dist. Ct. Order, December 21, 2012).
• Affirming Environmental Quality Board’s grant of Route Permit for 115 kV transmission line. Route Permit for Constr. of a Substation & a High Voltage Transmission Line in Dakota Cnty, Nos. A05-661, A05-662, 2006 WL 618903 (Minn. Ct. App., March 14, 2006).

Other Representative Appellate Matters

• Affirming denial of claim of right of first refusal based on expiration of statute of limitations. Hempel v. Creek House Trust, 743 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007); No. A08-1288, 2009 WL 1919612 (Minn. Ct. App., July 7, 2009) .
• Remanding for entry of permanent injunction based on settlement of trespass claims). Serier v. Central St. Croix Rod and Gun Club, Inc., 2009 WI App 128, 321 Wis. 2d 241, 773 N.W.2d 226 (Table), No. 2008AP2550 2009 WL 2151820 (Wis. Ct. App., July 21, 2009).
• Affirming district court’s finding that fee taking for noise mitigation was reasonably necessary). Airports Comm’n v. Brandon Square III, No. A06-661, 2007 WL 1322320 (Minn. Ct. App., May 8, 2007). 
• Affirming county’s grant of CUP for hog confinement facility. Berne Area Alliance for Quality Living v. Dodge Cnty. Bd. Of Comm’rs, A05-1780, A05-1672, 2006 WL 2405095 (Minn. Ct. App., August 22, 2006).
• Affirming district court’s grand of a permanent injunction of gun club based on nuisance, trespass and violation of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsman’s Club, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).

Clients

We represent energy clients in appeals from administrative cases, real estate or construction litigation, utility right-of-way disputes, commercial and contractual disputes, and environmental litigation:

• Utilities
• Renewable energy developers and sponsors
• Transmission and pipeline companies
• Ethanol and biofuels producers
• Financial institutions, banks, and private equity companies
• Domestic and international oil and gas exploration companies
• Equipment manufacturers, service providers, and construction companies that operate within energy sectors

Main Contacts

Show all Energy Litigation professionals